The role of parents as the primary teachers of children is well established in the Bible. God told the Israelites that they themselves were to internalize his words and, “Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Deut. 6:7). Centuries later the psalmist affirmed this as a primary duty of each generation: “He established a testimony in Jacob and set up a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children so that a future generation ? children yet to be born ? might know. They were to rise and tell their children so that they might put their confidence in God and not forget God’s works, but keep his commands” (Psalm 78:5-7). The New Testament likewise instructs fathers not to “stir up anger in your children, but bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).
Whatever else we might say about this, a biblical worldview leads to a robust view of parental authority that exists prior to any claim of governmental or societal control. It also establishes the fundamental responsibility of parents to oversee the education of children without denying the right to use means such as community-based schools whether public or private.
Biblical Authority
But what about those who lack or reject the biblical framework? Recently, we’ve heard about the rise of the nones—American adults who say they are atheist, agnostic, or simply lack any particular religious affiliation. If someone’s worldview ignores or even rejects the biblical account of creation, then on what do they base their ethical oughts and moral authority? Specifically, from where do parents get authority over their children? And why should parents’ rights take precedence over the wishes of society or the mandates of government? Who’s authority is more foundational, parents or government? And how should we adjudicate between authorities when they come into conflict?
You could say that parental authority is based on the wisdom that parents have by virtue of greater life experience. In other words, parents get to tell their kids what to do because they are older, have lived longer, and simply know better how the world works. This same line of thinking could be applied in the classroom to justify the role of the teacher toward her students. She is older and wiser, so it makes sense that she should be in the position of authority in the classroom. But this authority is no real authority at all. It certainly doesn’t have the strength to make moral demands because neither parents nor teachers are infallibly wise. Sometimes children prove to have greater insight than their parents; likewise, students may at times be right and their teachers wrong. In this case, one’s level of authority is tied directly to his level of wisdom, and there is no inherent reason that parents or teachers (or anyone else, for that matter) should have authority over children. Age alone does not make one wise.
Another answer may be that parents (and to a lesser but still significant amount, teachers) exercise authority because they are fully grown and therefore stronger. It is no secret that parents of small children generally have the physical strength to compel them to obey and even to protect them from harm by physical restraint, if necessary. Of course, that physical advantage grows less as the child matures until, at some point, the parent no longer has the ability to enforce his will. That this may happen well before the age of maturity (18 years in the U.S.) means that it is temporary at best, but we must also recognize that this is simply a matter of “might makes right.”
In short, if a parent’s authority is derived from his greater physical strength, then it is merely rule by force. If such is the only basis for authority, then one could reasonably conclude that the state has greater authority than parents over their children because the state is more powerful and has greater resources to compel obedience. Applied on the scale of nations, this rationale justifies the right of a stronger nation to occupy and subsume lesser nations by virtue of their greater power. But this kind of authority inevitably shifts when the balance of power changes, such as when a teen becomes taller and stronger than his mother (or his teacher). If authority is derived from power, then when this happens, the child becomes the rightful authority over the adult.
Is not the survival of the species, civilization, or national government more important than a parent’s right to direct the upbringing of his children?
Evolutionary Authority?
One may argue that parental authority is an evolutionary development contributing to the survival of the human species. But this does not solve the problem. First, a parent would still have to be wiser or stronger in order to exercise authority and privilege evolutionary development over the child’s wishes and inclinations as an individual. There is still no ethical basis for parental authority aside from the principle of authoritarianism.
Another problem with this view is that the authority of parents is necessarily subsumed under that of the government or society or the race as a whole. After all, is not the survival of the species, civilization, or national government more important than a parent’s right to direct the upbringing of his children? If the parent’s decision in some way contradicts the collective wisdom of society or jeopardizes its advancement, then his rights must be overruled or even removed for what must be deemed the greater good. And consider just how many atrocities in history have been justified on the basis of the so-called “greater good.” This kind of moral reasoning is fraught with danger.
In the evolutionary scenario it is difficult to think of them as parental rights in any transcendent sense. They are more like privileges granted by the collective to be overruled when necessary, and if there is only a sort of blind evolutionary process governing the whole, there does not appear to be any room for the principles of nurture, tenderness, and self-sacrifice which we see in the vast majority of parents toward their children. While some may be willing to at least pay lip service to this kind of soulless view of parenting and child development, those who attempt to live out the evolutionary principle of authority are rightly identified as abusive or neglectful.
Partial Truth is Not Enough
Now there is some measure of truth to these ideas. We all recognize that children are born significantly immature and must be protected, nurtured, cared for, and directed until they reach a point of sufficient maturity to do these things for themselves. The Lord of the Flies is a cautionary tale, after all. As such, parents are called to use their superior wisdom and strength to govern children until they are old enough to govern themselves. Parents are generally in the best position to know their child, to understand his disposition and needs, and to make the appropriate judgments on his behalf. Furthermore, we understand that parents have an inclination toward tenderness and self-sacrifice, which tempers the use of their superior power and experience so that it works for their child’s good rather than harm.
But it is not at all clear how anyone can arrive at this conclusion—that it is a child’s biological parents and not the state or some other corporate body who have been vested with this responsibility and the accompanying rights—unless we begin with a biblical foundation. And it is also unclear how one can object to the abuse of parental authority, if superior power or wisdom is the sole basis for that authority.
So far we have attempted to answer the first of two primary questions, namely, what is the source of parental authority if we do not begin with the foundation of God’s word? We have hinted at a few of the difficulties that arise when superior strength or life experience is the only real basis for parental authority. Next, we will discuss how this plays out in a community setting like a public school, and how a biblical worldview can guide our decision-making when competing authorities disagree.