Do all adults have authority over all children?

[Ken Rank]

You are taking what I said, "obey your leaders," and transforming it into "obey Hitler and everything he orders like he was God himself." I have not indicated any such thing.

No brother, you said, "We are indeed to subject ourselves to our secular leaders, because their authority has come from God." They may be there because God chose them... maybe not. Hitler was a secular leader so I used him because it makes the extreme point. Romans is talking about the structure of God's HOUSE, not the White House. If you meant something else Greg, that's fine... I can only go by what you wrote. Gotta run... be blessed.

 

[Hank77]

Interesting Ken, I would be more apt to appreciate somebody physically intervening (if my child was causing or potentially causing harm to another) then I would with somebody trying to take authority over them in regards to how they are raised.

People complain about the power of the President, but whatever power is given or taken away will affect both their future favorite and least favorite Presidents. People want religion out of the schools.

And, no offense, but I don't need to ask your permission to share my thoughts on this subject. Authority is something Christians don't have a lot of understanding on. They read Romans 13 and think we are to subject ourselves to secular leaders..

Well there you have it folks another thread getting derailed.
God Bless ya all. Have a good day.

 

[Ken Rank]

Well there you have it folks another thread getting derailed.
God Bless ya all. Have a good day.

You have kind of had an attitude and I don't know why. I have always enjoyed your posts. We are talking about authority not race cars... the thread is about authority. We are still on subject.

 

[Greg J.]

No brother, you said, "We are indeed to subject ourselves to our secular leaders, because their authority has come from God." They may be there because God chose them... maybe not. Hitler was a secular leader so I used him because it makes the extreme point. Romans is talking about the structure of God's HOUSE, not the White House. If you meant something else Greg, that's fine... I can only go by what you wrote. Gotta run... be blessed.

You are taking what I wrote as absolutely true in all cases. I never intended that. In the actual working out of spiritual matters (which involve human thoughts, hearts, and relationships) that is never the case.

(I think this tangent still remains related to the original post for the thread.)

 

[Ken Rank]

You are taking what I wrote as absolutely true in all cases. I never intended that. In the actual working out of spiritual matters (which involve human thoughts, hearts, and relationships) that is never the case.

(I think this tangent still remains related to the original post for the thread.)

The "funny" was the last line. But I agree... this is about authority. Regarding "absolutely true in all cases," just understand that I don't know you and don't know how you think brother, I can only go by what you say. But I accept the clarification and really am not sure what else I can add. I broke down Romans 13 a little and I shared why I don't think another adult has "God given" authority over my child unless I give it to them. Secularly, they play by different rules and standards but while I don't call for anarchy, I do recognize God first. Thus, what HE SAYS is within certain authority boundaries in indeed the case. Be blessed Greg.

 

[Greg J.]

It's funny because I wielded English with an illegal redundancy, right? ("still" and "remains") Thankfully, the grammar police seem to defer to the righteous authority of the site owners and moderators.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Well, I *was* hoping this discussion would take off and be running. It has. It did not disappoint. Not sure I can follow it completely now, but that's nobody's fault.

The biggest downside of "all adults have authority over all children, and until you're eighteen, you do as you're told," is that once you do reach adulthood, you have a WHOLE lot of difficulty thinking for yourself. At least that's true for me. I've had big hurdles to clear, learning to function as an independent adult. Even my first marriage was more of a modified parent-child relationship than a marriage. He told me what to do, and I did it or else.

Kind of lost in here is the question I raised about seventeen-year-olds being on the same level with four-year-olds because they are not adults yet. I don't buy the notion that adolescence is a nonsense category, and you're either a child or an adult, no in-between. Again, if you're a child until the day you hit legal age, and then suddenly boom you're an adult, how do you learn to live as an adult under that philosophy?

 

[Greg J.]

This whole thread tl;dr. I believe it was the Jewish custom that even though children turned into adults when they were 13 or 14, they were still accountable to their parents/family until 30. They were trained to make decisions as a family group. A lot of kids these days get no training at all, let alone training that includes relying on others (who very well may be unreliable in the first place).

Btw, the authority that children must obey all adults is not from God. It comes from the children's parents (who are legally responsible for the child's actions, except even that is eroding).

 

[akmom]

@Ken Rank, I reread #18 and #20 and I am not seeing everything about which you seem to have written.

I have no idea what I said that led you write this.

Some people are just controversial. Where there is a discussion, they see a fight. No amount of clarification can break through this mentality. The other thing about this thread is, I think, when LovebirdsFlying posed the question, we all had something different come to mind. Namely, our good or bad experiences with adults assuming implicit authority. I suspect that in 90% of hypothetical scenarios, we would actually agree on whether adult intervention was appropriate.

I am NOT doing my duty as a parent if I am just letting anyone have access to my children. That is how they end up atheists, humanists, evolutionists, and any other "ist" that stands opposed to God's will and character. In the latter days some shall depart from the faith giving way to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.... and you are saying I should just let ANYONE teach my child! Sorry... won't happen.

Actually I don't think that's how children end up atheists, humanists, and other anti-Christian philosophies. I think that happens when the tightly controlled bubble of their upbringing has not provided the answers they seek, so they go hunting for alternatives with a rebellious attitude. You can only portray others as the scary, dangerous enemy for so long before the illusion melts in the wake of their adult experiences. They will see pretty quickly what holds up and what doesn't. Hiding these ideas from them doesn't protect them. Exposing children to them in open, honest dialogue does.

However, that is beyond the scope of this thread. In your fear of secular indoctrination, you would probably scold a stranger for reminding your child to say "Please" and "Thank you" because it is YOUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT and not theirs, and heaven forbid we open the floodgates and let anything in that you haven't explicitly approved.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

This is very true. This is the reason why I stated that random adults can only enforce existing rules, and no more. I have no authority to send someone else's kid on an errant, or to teach them what I consider to be good manners. I have to right to tell them to follow rules - in which case the authority is based in the rule, not in my age - and I certainly have the right to tell them to respect me (Someone mentioned kids throwing sand in her face...).

Where safety is a concern, I can warn them or approach there parents.


I believe it is common decency and courtesy to react when you see someone else children are in danger. (of course, unless the parent is standing by and already aware of what is happening).

I actually believe it's common decency and courtesy to react appropriately when you see anyone, irrespective of age, who is gravely endangering themselves or others, especially if they are oblivious of that risk. I agree that the authority is with the rule itself, rather than the age of the person enforcing it out of benevolence.

The main district of my hometown has several one-way streets interspersed with two-way streets, and trees and double-decker sightseeing busses can block the signage. It's an extremely popular area with tourists, most of whom are unfamiliar with it, and it's common for them to turn the wrong way. Inattentive locals have made the same mistake. When this has happened I've done all I could to get the attention of the driver, to help them avoid a collision and / or an extremely expensive ticket. They're usually thankful. Once this Bentley turned onto Camden going the wrong way, and the driver was too caught up in an argument with the woman in the front seat to notice. He was on the part of the road where it's still easy to correct the mistake by turning onto Little Santa Monica, but once the light turned green if he proceeded it would be far more difficult. I waved my arms, then tried yelling, finally used my bike bell. He looked at me, scowled; it was obvious that he was dismissing me as an obnoxious kid. He didn't bother to look where I was pointing. Then a car turned the correct way onto the street and ran right into him.

I also will warn kids when I see them riding their bikes without helmets on. I'm not being a street nanny; I'm trying to help them avoid a costly mistake. In 2015 on a day that broke records for the heat, a police officer stopped me as my boyfriend and I were riding back from the Farmer's Market because I didn't have a helmet on. I wasn't a little kid, and I wasn't riding recklessly or in an area of high concern. We were across the street from a residential neighborhood with extremely wide lanes that make biking easy. She stopped me simply because I was breaking the rule, and she issued a $179 citation. Seriously. $179 by the time all the fees were tacked on. So I warn kids about that rule because I don't want them or their parents to have to get stuck with an obscenely expensive ticket.

 

[Near]

If I enrolled my child in that class, then that professor was given authority by the one God gave the authority over that child to... to teach. Otherwise, that professor has no authority over my child.

I still don't see how any of this deals with one having authority over another person. I've never considered my professors to be the head of me, or an authority over me. Sharing information, which is not the same thing as giving orders to kids, is completely different from a system of authority. If an elderly mexican woman who is married comes to visit America, and she doesn't know the word for elevator, I don't think I'd be usurping her husbands authority by pointing out what a word in english is.

If that stranger was an adult, yes. If he was your 10 year old, he does NOT, you do. If you give that wise man the authority/permission... then he does... until then, no he doesn't.

Neither permission or authority are required to engage with individuals when it comes to plain matters unless there are actual impediments. Those things are just constructs of man's mind. As for marriage, that is a construct created by God, and that's different. I wouldn't touch another man's wife in an inappropriate way, but I don't think it's inappropriate from a biblical perspective to educate people on public safety matters while they cross the street. I don't think I need permission to talk to anyone unless there are clear impediments which prevent me from doing so.

I didn't say that, I said they would need our permission... a teacher can teach my son or daughter when I enroll them in school or sign them up in scouts or a 4H deal or whatever. Otherwise, I am NOT doing my duty as a parent if I am just letting anyone have access to my children. That is how they end up atheists, humanists, evolutionists, and any other "ist" that stands opposed to God's will and character. In the latter days some shall depart from the faith giving way to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.... and you are saying I should just let ANYONE teach my child! Sorry... won't happen.

How you raise your own kids is up to you. I don't think you should expect the world and the Devil to place nice and not teach your kids anything without your permission. The Devil didn't ask for permission when he introduced me to sinful things as a kid. Go ahead and try not to let your kids be corrupted, because that is the right thing to do. All I'm saying is, the world doesn't seem to care whether or not your own permission is granted. A man can do his duty, but there are factors he may not be aware of which lead his children astray, and it sure isn't me preaching Jesus that is leading anyone astray. It's the ads on TV, their friends who are their own age, their liberal teachers spewing out nonsense, the Planned Parenthood representatives that come to their schools, and it's men and women who seduce that lead to broken families. Preaching Jesus to married unbelievers who happen to be crossing the street isn't doing a disservice, and it isn't going to cause them to commit adultery.

In the latter days some shall depart from the faith giving way to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.... and you are saying I should just let ANYONE teach my child! Sorry... won't happen.

I didn't say you should let just anyone teach your children. I don't think I gave any advice about how to raise your own kids at all. This is about whether or not I am allowed in general, from a biblical perspective, to teach people regardless of their age, or marital status. I'm not even talking about a classroom or disciple-ship environment, I'm talking about being a helpful person to people around me.

I already know what you will do... I would not destroy a marriage for that reason. That is forcing them into MORE SIN.This isn't being PC, that is understanding authority. What do you want that wife to do anyway, say a "sinners prayer" that isn't even in the bible? You have no understanding of authority and are too young to realize that in a few years you will look back at what you believe today and realize that you have grown in depth and understanding. Yet... that Muslim wife needs to believe what you believe NOW?

God draws a man or woman unto Himself (John 6:44)..... GOD DOES THAT, He said so. It sounds to be like you are trying to do HIS job!

I don't believe marriages are destroyed by preaching Jesus. Why think that?
I think the way you're thinking of authority is too grand. It's one thing if you refer to your own family, and by all means do all you can do protect your own, but I don't think you speak for the world, or even the entire body of the church. As for the Muslim wife, when preaching, the goal is to just let people hear. Whether or not they believe is not up to me. I suppose if we took your approach, people could only be saved if they went to a church and heard the gospel, because the church doesn't have the authority to go outside and preach to unbelievers since we're going against the authority of the unbelievers of the world.

So let me end this with this point... there is a church up the end of the road, 500 people attend every week. They do good works, people are growing... but you decide that they are lacking in one subject. Do you walk in, grab the mic from the hand of the pastor, and teach them? No, obviously not. Why? Because of political correctness? No... because it would be rude? No.... the answer is because GOD PLACED THAT PASTOR IN THAT POSITION OF AUTHORITY and you have no authority over that group. I imagine you recognize that authority structure but for some reason... don't see the same God given authority on a smaller scale.

Well, it would be rude, and odd, but lets say it was a Muslim country instead. Apparently it would go against the authority of that Islamic Nation under Sharia Law for me to preach the gospel, and I don't think I would really care whether or not it's against their authority. As for pastors, I don't think you can really know for sure who is actually placed there by God, if you're just going off the fact that they are pastors. I know of pastors who have ran away with wives of other men. Did God give them the authority to do that? No. So I don't think it's totally unbiblical to just grab a mic and start talking.

 

[Saricharity]

There was a time in past generations, any adult could even spank any child, whether they knew the child or not, and the parent would just ask, "Well, did you learn your lesson? Don't do that again."

I'm without words. I can't even fathom this could happen. That must have been so disconcerting for the child.

 

[RDKirk]

There was a time in past generations, any adult could even spank any child, whether they knew the child or not, and the parent would just ask, "Well, did you learn your lesson? Don't do that again."

I don't think that was the case as you stated it.

In those "past generations" neighborhoods and towns were small enough that all the adults knew the children and all the adults knew each other--often as children together themselves--and socialized together as friends and acquaintances. Their children were expected to become functioning adults in that very same community, and so the task of raising them was understood and accepted as a shared community responsibility.

That was still true to a large extent even in my community in the latter 50s when I was a child.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I don't think that was the case as you stated it.

In those "past generations" neighborhoods and towns were small enough that all the adults knew the children and all the adults knew each other--often as children together themselves--and socialized together as friends and acquaintances. Their children were expected to become functioning adults in that very same community, and so the task of raising them was understood and accepted as a shared community responsibility.

That was still true to a large extent even in my community in the latter 50s when I was a child.

That would be a good explanation. It's a tight-knit community where everybody knows everybody, would make a lot more sense than just disciplining some stranger's kid.

 

[FireDragon76]

If you are a student, your professor is an authority over you, just due to the nature of the relationship.

In modern America a lot of these ideas are unnatural, but that's because we've developed a society that is radically egalitarian and individualistic. Sometimes to an absurd degree where there is confusion over even things that used to be common sense.

Authority can always be abused, of course. That is the nature of the world we live in, and people don't have to put up with an abusive authority. But society depends on a certain level of trust, and not skepticism, to function.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I don't think that was the case as you stated it.

In those "past generations" neighborhoods and towns were small enough that all the adults knew the children and all the adults knew each other--often as children together themselves--and socialized together as friends and acquaintances. Their children were expected to become functioning adults in that very same community, and so the task of raising them was understood and accepted as a shared community responsibility.

That was still true to a large extent even in my community in the latter 50s when I was a child.

Responding to this again because of something that just popped into my head. It's an episode of Little House on the Prairie, which I know is *based* on historical people, but the television show was scripted and got into fictitious territory. The mother of the family had taken over as a substitute teacher while the regular teacher was out with a sprained ankle. One of the students was thought to be dimwitted, and the other kids made fun of him a lot. When Mrs. Ingalls heard Laura refer to him by the derogatory nickname all of the kids had for him, "Dumb Abel," she became very angry. "I'll thrash any child I hear calling him that, mine or otherwise!" Things to consider: 1.) This was set in the 1870's. 2.) It was, as you say, a tightly knit small town where everybody knew everybody. 3.) At least temporarily, she was the teacher. During school hours, she would have had the authority. But for just a split second, the image I had when I first saw that scene was of her going around parenting everybody else's children along with her own, and it threw me a little bit.

 

[Near]

If you are a student, your professor is an authority over you, just due to the nature of the relationship.

I don't see any reason to think that. The professor isn't my commander, or father-figure. If anything he's more like my employee. Perhaps my professor is an authority on the subject of math, but he certainly isn't an authority over me personally!

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see any reason to think that. The professor isn't my commander, or father-figure. If anything he's more like my employee. Perhaps my professor is an authority on the subject of math, but he certainly isn't an authority over me personally!

I don't think your professor is your employee. For one thing, you don't pay his salary.

If you wish to learn the subject he teaches, then he is an authority over you. All human authority has limitations, it is not absolute. Those limitations will vary by the particular authority figure in question. A professor doesn't have the authority to tell you what to believe concerning God, or whom to marry or what to eat, for instance, but he does have the authority to teach you about history, science, math, etc. And your duty as a student is to learn.

This is one thing I appreciate about the Lutheran tradition. Much like Catholicism, we have a healthy respect for civil authority, institutions, and good order as a gift from God. We have a broader interpretation of the 4th Commandment than a strictly literal reading of the text.

 

[Near]

I don't think your professor is your employee. For one thing, you don't pay his salary.

If you wish to learn the subject he teaches, then he is an authority over you. All human authority has limitations, it is not absolute.

This is one thing I appreciate about the Lutheran tradition. Much like Catholicism, we have a healthy respect for civil authority, institutions, and good order as a gift from God. We have a broader interpretation of the 4th Commandment than a strictly literal reading of the text.

Well, I'm a tax payer, so I think the collective of the tax payers pay his salary.
I still don't see how he is an authority over me. He's just a guy sharing information that falls in line with what the state and respective departments require.
He can't make me do push-ups for example. He can't make me do anything actually. If I want I could always just ditch class, and I'd just have to deal with poor grades, but that's just a consequence of the way grading works. The teacher is more of a conduit for the body of the system of academic institutions and not an actual authority that commands others or who we need to actually follow or submit to. If teachers are my authority, and I'm a 23 year old man going to college, then what can teachers command me to do that I must do? What does that authority actually even look like?
If I wish to learn a subject...the professor isn't lord over me, and I can learn in the class anyways.

 

[FireDragon76]

The freedom to do stupid things is really no freedom at all. It is merely a sexy form of slavery to carnality. This idea of freedom as doing whatever you want is a modern notion born of the European Enlightenment that is at odds with my Christian faith as a Lutheran, and a great many other Christians. It's not what we mean when we speak of Christian liberty.

In Lutheran and traditional Reformed theology, there is a sacred aspect to civic institutions such as the family and the government. God works through civic institutions, and not just the Church. Jesus used the parable of the unrighteous mammon to instruct us how we should treat these temporal matters - doing good in our ordinary vocations to have rewards in heaven.