Highlands Reformed Church

Covenant Kids and Christian Character

Rev. Brian M. Abshire

One of the most subtle and therefore insidious errors that sincere Christians can fall into when trying to be godly parents is to think that they can create Christian character in their children. There is an entire home-school curriculum (very popular in some circles) that promises to do just that. And while I deeply appreciate much of the actual teaching of such approaches, I believe there is a fundamental flaw in their objective because of a lack of clarity in how certain terms are defined.

First, we need to make some distinctions between various terms often used interchangeably that are in fact quite different; personality, temperament and character. The term “temperament” refers to an emotional predisposition, probably influenced by both a child’s inherent genetic makeup (e.g. the degree by which a child’s brain is inherently capable of receiving and acting on data may well have much to do with brain chemicals such as seretonin and dopamine) and then by early learning experiences. All humans experience all human emotions, but some emotions are more characteristic of some people than others. Some people are more outwardly oriented, some more reserved, some people tend to be more boisterous, others more serious, etc. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about such an emotional predisposition, only whether the actions and attitudes that flow from it are according to God’s Word.

When we use the term “personality” we usually mean those things that make an individual unique and is in fact a blend of both a person’s temperament, life experiences and his character. Again, there does not appear to be any one personality “type” that is superior or more valued than another. Just like God creates many different types of trees (and no two trees are identical), so also every individual is unique.

Our English word “character” has as its most basic meaning, “a distinctive mark.” When applied to people, it concerns the essential quality of a person. In our English translations of the Bible, the actual term “character” is not often used, and translates the Greek word that means “a way, manner or fashion.” But the above concept is very definitely used in Scripture in connection with the word “heart.” In Scripture, the heart is NEVER the seat of emotions, (as we would use the word today) but rather refers to the most basic, irreducible quality of a person’s essence or being. It is out of the “heart” that a man’s personality, temperament, lifestyle, etc., all flow. Hence if the heart is the essence of our being, our “character” then is the outward manifestation demonstrated in our values, beliefs and behaviors. Character more so than the other terms, refers to a moral element. People can have “good character” or “bad character” because there is an objective element, the character of Christ, by which it can be measured (Rms 8:29).

If a man’s character is basically the outward manifestation of his inward nature, then it becomes clear that parents cannot create “character” in their children. First, every child is born with a corrupt and depraved nature inherited from our father Adam. That depraved nature affects every part of our being. Parents have a God-given responsibility to restrain the corrupt nature of their children through training, discipline, example, etc., but only God can change the heart. Thus parents at BEST can only control their children’s behavior, they cannot control their children’s character. Children that grow up in homes where the Law is ignored, where they are given examples of ungodliness, where they are not consistently disciplined, etc., will live unrestrained lives. They become self-absorbed, petty, vicious, etc. In other words, unrestrained children grow up to become consistent with their corrupt nature.

On the other hand, children growing up in a godly home where the Law is honored, where they are catechized and disciplined as appropriate can have their sinful natures restrained. Because of the prevenient grace of God, these restraints become internalized through early learning experiences and can therefore be of great value to a person throughout their lives (e.g., teaching a child how to control his temper at three, gives him an immeasurable advantage when faced with stress and frustration when he is an adult).

Parents control their children’s behaviors in basically two ways: the positive and the negative. Negatively, they control undesired behaviors through corrective discipline. For example, God has built a basic mechanism into our beings that inhibits certain behaviors; pain. Stick your hand in a fire and it gets burned. The pain makes it less likely that you will stick your hand in again! Little children are infamous, no matter how many times they are warned, for getting too close to hot stoves, fire-places, etc. Eventually, most of them get burned. And as a result, MOST of them learn to avoid fire in the future.

Parental training has the same effect. When we discipline our children for giving vent to their innate sinfulness, we are giving them negative reinforcement. Sometimes a harsh word is all that is necessary. Sometimes, physical pain is required (through spanking). If we act consistently to give negative reinforcement to our children, we are teaching them that “this action brings pain-avoid it.”

However, we must understand that in so doing, we are NOT creating Christian character; we are simply teaching them from the earliest years that certain behaviors are unacceptable. Such actions bring pain, and therefore they ought not to do it. Thus, we may have restrained their sinful natures, but we have not changed it.

On the other end of the spectrum is the positive aspect of modeling certain behaviors to our children that we want them to adopt. The psycho-babblers have been able to demonstrate that up to 70% of all behaviors are learned through modeling, or seeing somebody else doing something. Every parent knows the difficulty of trying to convince a child to “do as I say, not as I do.” Sadly, the reality is that our children will act just like their parents. Godly parents, who model godly behavior, will generally speaking, have children who act the same way. The Apostle Paul uses this very same principle when he says, “Be imitators of me just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). And again, “The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace will be with you.” (Phil 4:9)

But notice, when parents inhibit certain behaviors by discipline, and encourage other behaviors by modeling, they are not creating character. Granted, parents can be more or less successful in their discipline, or their modeling. Most parents could benefit from further training in how to raise self-controlled children. But even if a parent did EVERYTHING right, there is no guarantee that their children would grow up with genuine Christian character because ultimately and finally, Christian character is a result of sanctification, a sovereign act of God.

Christian character consists of the qualities of godliness required by the Law and exemplified by Christ Himself (Rms 8:29). A child might grow up to do all the right things, for all the wrong reasons. He may refrain from fornication because he fears STD’s, but still lust after women in his heart. He may be polite and respectful on the outside because that has been his example but still be arrogant and prideful inside. He may be a diligent, conscientious worker because he enjoys the approval of others, not because he wants to please God. You see, no matter how “moral” a child may be on the outside; we can never look “inside” to see what is really going on in his heart. Only God can see the heart and it is the heart that ultimately determines character. In other words, there may be all sorts of social reasons why a person acts the way he does in public, even though inside his heart is seething with wickedness and rebellion.

Now, we have God’s own promise (Acts 2:38-39) that our children are included in His covenant. And therefore we can with assurance claim God’s covenant promises on their behalf and expect that He will grant them regeneration, repentance and saving faith. We ought to assume that His Holy Spirit is working within them from an early age to bring about the character of Christ. We assume all these things but we do not assume that we form their character.

Instead, we fulfill our duties toward God and our children by bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:2). In other words, we TEACH them the Law and we DISCIPLINE them when they fail (notice both the positive and negative aspects here as noted above). We conduct regular family worship and make the kids pay attention, sit up straight, sing the psalms and hymns, memorize Scripture and the Catechism, etc. We teach them right from wrong, good and evil as the means by which God will work His grace of sanctification within them. And it means also that occasionally we punish transgressions with pain, so they will learn deep down inside their medulla oblongata to hate evil and hunger for righteousness. But it is always GOD who is at work, God who changes the heart and God who creates Christian character. We can change behavior, but only God can change the heart.

Some Applications and Implications
If the above analysis holds up, then it has some very profound implications for the church, the family and especially for how we raise our covenant kids. First, the requirements for domestic competence in first Timothy 3 and Titus 1:5ff are crucial to electing elders and overseers for the church. The Apostle Paul is very clear that if a man cannot manage his own household well, keeping his children under control, then he is unfit to manage the household of God. In Titus, Paul says that an elder must have children who “believe.” Clearly, the modern church is out of step with God’s Word in this area. Sadly, elders’ children are notorious for being unruly, undisciplined and a shame to the gospel. And clearly, (at least in my book), there are presently men serving as pastors and elders who ought to step down because they fail miserably in their homes.

Since the implications are so serious, we need to understand what God is actually requiring here. Notice that the specific reference here is children. The Greek word teknon does NOT refer to “off-spring” but rather “little ones.” In other words, it refers to kids living at home, under a father’s roof, and therefore under his direct control. God has given the father the authority to use the rod of correction. There is simply no excuse for not using that authority to restrain a child’s wicked behavior. And the implication is clear, if a man cannot use the power of the rod to restrain wickedness in the home, then how can he effectively use the authority of the keys to the Kingdom to restrict wickedness in the church?

But there does come a time when the father no longer has authority over his children and therefore can no longer lawfully exercise the power of the rod: at marriage. God says that when a man takes a wife, he separates from his father and mother and creates a new covenant household. He therefore is no longer under the authority of his father. He is no longer a “little child” and therefore he is not under his father’s control. He is now a man, and responsible for his actions.

Since the Elect are known only to God, it may well be that though given a good education, godly parenting and a godly model to follow, that a child, even of an elder, may not be among the regenerate. Therefore, when he assumes the responsibility of manhood, he could depart from the faith. He may turn his back on the church; he may even live a prodigal and rebellious lifestyle. In other words, his character, now free from the restraints of his father’s authority is finally revealed and sometimes it is not a pretty picture.

Furthermore, there comes a time when spanking a child is no longer appropriate. A young man of 18 or 19 may be bigger than his father. Thus the father may no longer be physically capable of wielding the rod of authority to restrain his children. In both cases, the father has only one sanction left to exercise against a rebellious child, disinheritance. He cuts the child off from the family and treats the child as he would any other pagan, as a subject for evangelism, but no longer as a member of the family.

Lest this sound harsh, recall the Old Testament requirement for a rebellious son, DEATH! The Law DEMANDS that parents bear witness against their own covenant breaking children and have the civil magistrate put them to death (not many examples of juvenile delinquency in Old Testament Israel when THIS law was enforced). The New Testament equity of this Law would certainly, at the least, appear to be the parents having their own child excommunicated from the church and then disinheriting them from the family. Instead, too often today, parents continue to subsidize their rebellious children’s sin, incurring even greater wrath, pain and disruption to the family.

Hence an elder with rebellious GROWN UP children is not in view here. He cannot control their character because that is the province of God. And when they reach a certain stage in life, he can no longer control their behavior because he no longer has any sanctions to bring against them except for disinheritance. Therefore in this case, God requires the parents to bring their grown up children before the elders who pronounce judgment against them. This I would argue fulfills the father’s duty before God AND to the church.

Some may argue that Titus requires elders who have children “who believe” and therefore if an elder has grown-up children who abandon the faith the father MUST have done something wrong and is therefore disqualified from the office. But notice two things here. The first is that it is again “children” in view here, not “off-spring.” But secondly and more importantly, the word “believe” cannot be used in the sense of “regenerate.” Only God knows the heart. Therefore only God knows those who truly believe. Since we cannot know the heart, we cannot know if ANY child “believes.” Thus no one could ever be qualified to be an elder, because we could never determine whether anyone’s child actually “believes.”

A better understanding of Paul’s meaning here is probably “professes faith.” In other words, a man trains his children, catechizes them, instructs them in family worship, etc. And as a result, that child normally will reflect the beliefs of his parents. If a child does NOT reflect those beliefs (by being able to give a credible confession of faith), then it is evident that the father is not doing his job at home, and therefore cannot be expected to do any better in the church.

The reason why this discussion is worthy of so much space is because in recent years, as some godly men have re-discovered the importance of domestic competence in regards to the qualifications of eldership, there is developing what I call a “hyper-covenantal” view of the family. This view is that the father is responsible for EVERYTHING in the family, including whether his wife or even if his grown-up children sins. As a result, we are in danger of creating a perfectionist model that no one can live up to.

However, the above being said, this concept of creating Christian character also has profound implications for the family. Clearly, the father IS responsible for how the children under his care behave and there really is no excuse for obnoxious, rebellious or disorderly children. However, the key question here is how does one accomplish this?

Obviously, one way of keeping your children under control is by being a tyrant. A father can cow his children into submission by threats, intimidation, pressure, spankings, etc., and many Christian fathers, who sincerely want to obey God and raise godly covenant kids use just this approach. They basically bully their kids into submission, failing to understand the warning of Ephesians 6:3 wherein God commands fathers NOT to exasperate their children. One of two things often results; (1) the children grow up to be really, really weird, almost dysfunctional, not knowing how to relate normally to other people. Daughters of such men sometimes seek out abusive husbands; the sons sometimes become abusive husbands and fathers. On the other hand, exasperating your children more commonly leads to junior finding out one day that he’s just as big as Dad, just as tough and therefore not afraid of him anymore. Therefore Dad, and his religion, can go take a long walk off a short pier because, “I’m out of here.” Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen, I could give you names and dates. Even if it does not get as far as the two extremes mentioned above, the result of exasperated children is often a family caught up in conflict, anger, frustration, isolation, etc.

Basically, the way that we keep our children under control (and develop the correct environment for God to work on their character) is the same way that God works on us! Does God give us laws and commandments? Clearly, and those commandments are for His glory and our best. Does God discipline us when we break those commandments? Certainly! But God’s discipline is always predicated upon His genuine SELF-SACRIFICAL love for His adopted children. Sadly, some Christian parents are more concerned about their reputation, then their kids’ growth in the Faith. They are embarrassed when their children act up, and therefore, SELFISHLY, because their prime motivation is to look good, they do not train their children properly. And eventually, the kids figure out what is REALLY important to their parents…

Hence, we need to love our kids the way God loves us. There just is no substitute for spending time with them, involving them in our lives, and then making that time with us enjoyable. Yes we train and discipline them, but always with an eye to letting them see God’s love through our love for them. From my experience, often (not always, but often) when “good kids go bad” at least part of the blame can be attached to the fact that Dad was so busy climbing the corporate ladder, improving his golf game, watching the idiot box (or even) saving the world for Jesus, that he just didn’t spend enough time with his children. He was modeling a basic selfish orientation, that when the achieved a certain age and independence from the family, they just “naturally” followed.

God did not entrust His covenant children into our hands so that they could be extensions of our egos, and their performance in academics, sports or hobbies are not intended to provide us with ways of making us look good in other people’s eyes. Now don’t get me wrong, every parent likes their children to do well, and feels a justified and perfectly appropriate sense of “pride” at their accomplishments. But sadly, too many Christian parents basically appear to use their children as a way of puffing themselves up, rather than seeing that their job is to train their children for dominion.

So as the Father loves us, so we love our children. As the Father commands us, so we teach our children to obey Him (and us, as is required in the fifth commandment). But we also admit our mistakes to them, make sure that our authority is not onerous to them, play with them, work with them, and spend time with them.

Ultimately and finally the kind of person they turn out to be is in the hands of a sovereign God who gives grace as He wills. And sometimes, even though we did what was commanded, fulfilled our duties before God and our children, they depart the faith. Let us therefore do two things (1) be humble and willing to see what we might have done wrong (for the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked) and (2) not judge one another.

But generally speaking, our God works through means, and godly parenting is one of the primary means He uses to prepare the next generation for dominion. May God grant all of us grace and mercy, especially those of us who had less than satisfactory models of godly parenting. Let us strive by His grace to rise above our own sins and failures and beseech Him to cover our sins. And may He grant us godly children of the covenant who will embrace the faith and extend His kingdom.