Zach’s Theological Musings

  “We just fell in love.”

  “The marriage just fell apart.”

  It is the same passive verb used in both of those popular sentences. Just noticed that. Hmm.

  Whenever I talk about gender related issues, I’m primarily interested in addressing men. One reason is because I am a man. Another reason is because men are responsible for how they relate to women and the issues women face (see, e.g., http://menaretheproblem.info). The Biblical topic of head coverings is no exception. So men, keep reading, this post is first of all for you. Even still, I hope the ladies will benefit from this post as well.

  Have you always been told that Paul’s instructions about women’s head coverings in I Cor 11 were culturally induced and thus not necessary to be directly applied today? I disagree. Consider the following:

  #1) The section header. I’m not talking about the section headers in bold type that various Bible translations add to the text. I’m talking about the section headers that Paul himself wrote. First Corinthians is probably the easiest book in the Bible to outline because it was actually written in very much of an outline form. The Corinthians have written to Paul with a list of questions about the Christian life (I Cor 7:1), and Paul has his own list of issues in the Corinthian church that he wants to address. So systematically he moves from one issue to the next throughout this letter, and there are a number of very clear “section headings” that mark the transitions (”Now as for…”).

  In chapters 8-10 Paul was answering the church’s question about food sacrificed to idols. Now I Cor 11:2 marks the beginning of a new topic, in fact a new series of topics:

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Paul is about to talk about THE TRADITIONS HE DELIVERED TO THEM, in particular the tradition of head coverings and that of the Lord’s Supper. Throughout the NT, there is a clear distinction between the “traditions of men” (Matt 15:2-6, Mark 7:3-13, Gal 1:14, Col 2:8) which neither Paul nor Jesus have a favorable taste for, and the traditions passed down verbally and in writing by the apostles which the saints are firmly commanded to hold to (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6). The above are all of the NT occurences of this word “tradition” (Gr. paradosis).

  The occurences of the word “delivered” (Gr. paradidomi) are too many to list out. They generally refer to either a person (e.g. I Cor 5:5) or a doctrine/teaching/report (e.g. Luke 1:2) being “delivered up”. Consider especially the usage of “paradidomi” in these passages [emphasis added]:

the customs which Moses delivered us. Acts 6:14 KJV
that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Rom 6:17 KJV
keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.  1 Cor 11:2 KJV
I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread… 1 Cor 11:23 KJV
I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures… 1 Cor 15:3 NAS
For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2 Peter 2:21 NAS
contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints… Jude 3 NAS.

These passages are all talking about revelation that God, through His prophets and apostles, delivered unto His people. Although historical insights can be interesting and helpful sometimes, we must always let the Bible interpret the Bible. Paul himself said here that he is going to talk about the traditions that HE DELIVERED to the Corinthians. It appears to me from the text itself that the Corinthian church learned about the practice of wearing head coverings (at least in the Christian context) from Paul, not from their culture.

  #2) It is often said, “A tradition like women wearing head coverings is not part of our culture today.” PRECISELY! Precisely! That is precisely why it is so important! Our culture today doesn’t have the first clue that the whole meaning of marriage is an earthly, physical dramatization of the relationship between Christ and His church (Eph 5:22-33). It is precisely our role as Christians to provide meaning, truth, and insight where our culture is absolutely clueless.

  Back to verse 2. Paul says, “I praise you because you remember…”. Put that up against the next section header in Paul’s letter, “But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you…” (I Cor 11:17). The subsection on head coverings and the subsection on the Lord’s Supper are tied together as one larger section on “the traditions I delivered unto you”. Paul is saying, “I praise you for how you are following the tradition of head coverings that I passed on to you, but I don’t praise you for how you are fouling up the tradition of the Lord’s Supper that I passed on to you.”

  I bring up this connection in order to point out that eating bread and drinking wine don’t symbolize “eating the flesh and drinking the blood and being united together in covenant” with someone (except to the extent that Christianity has provided this meaning). Likewise, being dunked under water doesn’t refer to death, rebirth, and cleasing from sin in our culture. Still we follow the tradition of the Lord’s Supper and baptism which the apostles taught us, and we teach the God-given meaning. We supply the God-given meaning to a culture that is famished for lack of hearing the Word of the Lord.

  The entire Christian impetus is not one of conformity to the pattern of the world but transformation (Rom 12:2). Of course head covering don’t have meaning in our culture! Head coverings, in the Christian context, are a symbol of submission. Ultimately they symbolize the submission of God’s people to God. Our culture HATES that meaning with a violent, brooding, bitter passion. Of course there is no such meaning in our culture at large, and there never will be! But we as Christians have the opportunity to display a counter-cultural attitude toward authority and submission.

  Likewise in Corinth. Let’s think about this for a moment, could Paul really have been affirming a continuation of an existing cultural practice with its associated meaning? Perhaps pagan women in Corinth covered their heads, I honestly don’t know. But if they did, what was the reason? If pagan men refrained from covering their heads, what was the reason? Was it to display the message that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of the wife, and God is the head of Christ (vs 3)? Was it to display that man is the image and reflection (or glory) of God and woman is the reflection (glory) of man (vs 8)? Was it to display that man was not made from woman but woman from man (vs 8)? Was it to display that man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake (vs 9)? Was it to avoid offending the angels (vs 10)? No, certainly at least it couldn’t have been for all of those reasons. At the very least, if female head covering was a cultural practice in Corinth, Paul came along and attached new meaning to it. New meaning which indeed would certainly be contrary to the local culture.

  Someone will ask, “But didn’t Paul just talk about `contextualizing’ to our culture in chapter 10?” No, he didn’t. I’ll have to leave the more complete discussion of I Cor 8-10 for another time, but here’s the upshot. In reference to issues like food sacrificed to idols, Paul’s point is to emphasize love, not cultural conformity. He says, don’t trample on someone else’s tender faith just so you can enjoy a tender steak! But I think Paul would be horrified to hear his teachings taken to mean, “Become as much like the world around you as possible, while still remaining in the Christian faith.” No, Paul is not passionate about encouraging Christians to act like pagans, he is passionate about love (I Cor 13). Refraining from eating meat sacrificed to idols is a way to be loving in some contexts. A brother or sister in the faith is worth going vegetarian over. But is anyone really worried that upholding the practice of head coverings will cause a weak brother/sister in the faith to stumble into sin? If you are truly worried about that, please talk to me, I would like to hear your reasoning. But that’s really not the issue for most of us.

  #3) The internal cues in the passage. In verse 3-9 Paul places the grounding of the practice of head coverings in the Old Testament Scripture and tops it off with, “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” in 10a. The force of his argument is Scriptural, not cultural.

  Then there is the reference to Angels in 10b. This is admittedly hard to understand. But at least it certainly seems to me to again put the issue beyond a mere cultural one. It is not merely about the Corinthian context or our modern context, it is also about the angels. And apparently the angels are pleased with this symbol.

  Verses 11-12 are a check to keep overbearing men in line. In the marriage relationship men have a special role in reflecting the role of God and women have a special role in reflecting the role of God’s submissive people. Now God is not dependent on His people at all. However God has made man to be dependent on woman, lest man think too highly of himself in the role he has been assigned. God always “shakes up” His analogies in this way to show that the symbol is only just a symbol, and not the real thing. Still, there is nothing here to cancel out the tradition of head coverings.

  “Judge for yourselves” in verse 13 does not seem to be an open-ended question in light of the following verses (I Cor 11:13-15). Again, there are some things here that are not clear. But the most natural reading to me seems to indicate that Paul expects all of his readers to come to the same conclusion about following this tradition.

  Again, the reference to those who are “contentious” in verse 16 sounds to me like this is not a matter of personal conviction. I don’t think that Paul is treating the tradition of head coverings as something that Christians can choose for themselves whether to accept or not. It appears quite clear that he is saying that those who reject it are being contentious. No one in our churches says, “I don’t feel convicted right now that the practice of the Lord’s Supper is really a thing for me or my family.” And Paul doesn’t want anyone to say that about head coverings either. (Note: I’m not pulling the comparison between the tradition of head coverings and the tradition of the Lord’s Supper out of the air in order to make my point. The two are already connected in the context as the traditions that Paul delivered unto the churches —  see section #1.)

  #4) The context/placement of this passage. This teaching on head coverings is an extended passage (not just a single verse or clause) in the main body (not the introductory or closing remarks) of a letter to a Gentile Christian church (not to Jews living under the Law). Don’t misunderstand me; a single verse in the closing remarks of a letter to Jews is important if it is in the Bible. How much more then is this passage worthy of at least due consideration! Where else do we treat such a large section of the epistles so lightly and dismiss so quickly? [Perhaps in many churches the hard-hitting doctrine of election in Romans 9 can compete with I Cor 11 in terms of neglect. Even James 2, although it disturbs many evangelicals, at least gets attention. But I Cor 11:2-16 is largely just dismissed.]

  In the evangelicalism that I personally have been a part of, you can easily find large representatives of Calvinists and Arminians, cessationists and charismatics, covenentalists and dispensationalists, egalitarians and complementarians, believer-baptists and paedo-baptists, and Christians who think such categories are helpful and Christians who think such categories are divisive. But in my experience it is very rare to find people who take I Cor 11:2-16 in a straightforward manner. Why is there not at the very least a significant representation of evangelical Christians who follow the practice of head coverings, say 5 or 10%? Is it because solid Biblical exegesis compels us to view this passage as clearly and unmistakably culturally conditioned? I for one don’t think so; am I really that shallow of an exegete? Even if I acknowledge that there are some interpretive challenges in this passage, and yes there are a few textual points which I can see might lean more towards a “cultural” interpretation, are there not also some points which should give a person serious pause before confidently declaring, “Clearly this passage IS just about already existing cultural practices”. I find something very suspicious about how easily this passage gets dismissed without due consideration in so many circles. [Credit to groups like the Mennonites who do follow the practice of head coverings, but I expect that most of my readers don’t have any contact with Mennonites.]

  #5) Some people might genuinely feel some hesitation to accept what seems to be the clear, staightforward, culture transcending understanding of this text because so many modern preachers and commentators dismiss it as merely owing to the Corinthian cultural context. Of course, we need to listen to God and not to man, but it is also right to humble ourselves enough to realize that other Christians are also seeking to listen to God and not to man. So if you are struggling with the fact that teachers you respect are saying that head coverings were a cultural phenomenon, then let me reassure you that the matter clears up very quickly when we start listening to respected Christian voices beyond modern times. Finding a pre-19th century Biblical commentary that ascribes head coverings merely to Corinthian culture seems to be even more difficult than finding a modern commentary that doesn’t. If it helps to reassure you that following the practice of head coverings doesn’t mean someone has gone off the deep end theologically, then allow me to drop the name of R. C. Sproul into the mix:

“I’m persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect because it was built into creation. And even though it’s not culturally accepted anymore in our society, I still believe its priniciple. I don’t think it matters one bit whether it’s a babushka, a veil, or a hat, but I think that the symbol should remain intact as a sign of our obedience to God.” R.C. Sproul, “Now, That’s a Good Question”, Pages 347-348

“The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1Ti 3:15)?” [This quote is attributed to Sproul on several internet sites, but I haven’t been able to track down the reference for it. If anyone knows where this quote comes from, please let me know.]

  #6) For a moment forget all of the arguments above and let’s look at the issue from an entirely different angle. What attitude to we come to the reading and studying of this text with? Do we come saying, “Unless you can convince me beyond all doubt that this passage directly applies today, then no way there are going to be any head coverings around here”?

  Allow me to suggest a different attitude. How about this: say we begin by reading passages like Eph 5:22-33 and saying, “Oh isn’t is glorious! Our human lives down here on earth are not so empty and devoid of transcendent meaning as our existentialist culture teaches us. Marriage is not merely about a man and a woman trying to keep loving each other or remaining committed to each other or taking advantage of tax benefits together. Ultimately it is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His people being played out between actors and actresses on a billion stages all over the world at the same time! Hallelujah!” And then we come to read about head coverings and their meaning in I Cor 11 and say, “Oh wow! What a great symbol! God is giving us yet another way to feed His truth and meaning into our culture that so desperately needs it. Hallelujah! Let’s milk this symbol for all it’s worth!”

  I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that head coverings are forbidden. At the very least, head coverings are a Biblically endorsed and approved symbol, aren’t they? We could almost say, what does it matter whether they are Biblically mandated or not? I believe they are Biblically mandated, but even if they weren’t the bigger question is: why would anyone want to miss out on such a great opportunity?

  Thus head coverings are a respectable and admirable thing which should not be mocked. I have told my wife what I think about this passage and she has graciously and submissively agreed to wearing them although she is still considering her own understanding of this passage. Reader take note, you do have my permission to encourage and affirm my wife for her godly response in this. You do not have my permission to say anything to discourage, belittle, or embarrass her in this regard, or in any other regard, and if you dare to then you will need to answer to me for that.

  Application to men: Men — you are accountable for what you do or don’t say to your wife and other women on this and other matters. First Corinthians 11:10 does say, “the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.” If you tell the women in your life, “Well, that is actually not necessary today,” then you better be very well convinced. You do not want to be found as Adam standing by while the woman is led to believe that the commandments of God are not so important after all. To do so is not loving to her, and is destructive to both of you.

  Yes, it is true that we should not read every sentence in the Bible and necessarily apply it directly to ourselves if it wasn’t intended to be applied directly to us. For example, as a Gentile there are many ceremonial laws in the Torah which I do not follow, and I can explain clearly why I believe it would not be proper to put myself under such laws (see this article for example). But I don’t just read a commandment in the Old Testament against wearing clothing made from different fabrics and say, “Haha! That’s silly. Of course it doesn’t apply to us.” Rather I come humbly before God and say, “Lord, if this commandment is for me, I want to obey it whole-heartedly. Please teach me to reverence and apply your word properly. And if it is not something meant to be applied to me directly, what is it that you do want me to get from this — how can it shape my thinking and my feeling?”

  If there is any place in the Bible in which the intended audience is most like us, the integrated church of Jew and Gentile in the age subsequent to the resurrection of Christ, then it is in the epistles. If there is a tradition Paul passed on as applicable to all the saints in Corinth, I would not dismiss it without some very serious consideration. We’re not very different from the Corinthians. Indeed, some commentators on this passge will say that I Cor 11 was written because of gross sexual immorality in Corinth as if that was a reason not to apply the passage directly to us today. What!?! Huh!?! You think America today is any better!?! The New American Dream is to experience every form of sexual immorality that ever existed in Corinth, double it, and then put it on TV. If indeed the sexual immorality in Corinth conditioned this section of Paul’s letter, then all the more reason that the passage applies directly to us!

  Also, men, there is also a deeper issue here regarding our relationships with women and with God. The more that a woman’s submissiveness is displayed, the more clearly it highlights our responsibility to be loving, godly, strong (willing to take risks and suffer consequences) leaders. Furthermore, if a woman is able to joyfully wear a symbol that says, “I was made for the man’s sake” (I Cor 11:9), then how much more should a man’s life display a joyful acceptance that everything he has, all of his time, and everything about him was made for glory of God alone, and not for himself. My body is not my own, I was bought at a price. The chief end of man is to glorify God forever, not vice versa.

  You see, what I’m saying is that if we as men endorse the practice of head coverings, then it cranks up our own responsibility to be godly men by one, or two, or three notches. And just as women are inclined to be contentious (see Proverbs), so men are inclined to forsake responsibility (see Genesis). By saying, “Oh head coverings aren’t for today,” are we as men really trying to promote the value and equality of women, or are we trying to do ourselves a “favor” and cut some slack on our own side?

Especially since I’m posting on the subject, this is a good opportunity to express how much I really love my parents from my heart and that I’m incredibly thankful to God for them. They are a living parable to me of the relationship between God and his children not only on the basis of the very fact that my existence (in this world) comes from them, but also particularly in their great love for me (and my sister, our spouses, and the grandkids). My father and my mother each played a crucial role (in different, complementary ways) in leading me to accept the gospel of Christ, and I have been very blessed to have their support and encouragement even when going to far away places and taking risks for the glory of God. Thanks mom and dad. I love you, and Steve and Elaine too!

Now, some thoughts on an important commandment that I can’t recall having heard too much talk about in my Christian experience these last 10 years or so.

First, some Biblical observations:

• At least eight out of the Ten Commandments are prohibitions: “do not…”. The two (possible) exceptions are commandments 4 and 5: “remember the Sabbath Day” and “honor your father and your mother”. But even commandment 4 is stated largely as a prohibition: “you shall NOT do any work”. So the 5th commandment is the only one stated in a purely affirmative form. It doesn’t say “do not dishonor your parents.” It says honor them.
• The commandment “honor your parents” is not directed to children or young people alone, but to everyone. Jesus addressed the commandment to adults in Matt 15:4-6, and it has massive implications, for example, in how adults should treat their aging parents (e.g. 1 Tim 5:8).
• “Honor your father and your mother” is the first commandment that ends with a promise. Specifically the promise is, “that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth” (Eph 6:3).
• Cursing father or mother brought the death penalty in Israel (Ex 21:17, Lev 20:9), and Jesus Himself reaffirmed the validity of this punishment (Matt 15:4, Mk 7:10). If society neglected to carry it out, then God would see to it Himself (Prov 20:20).
• Mocking and scorning are expressions of dishonor toward parents. Hear what God has to say about such disrespect: “The eye that mocks a father And scorns a mother, The ravens of the valley will pick it out, And the young eagles will eat it” (Prov 30:17).
• Part of God’s covenant with the Jews was that dishonoring their parents was one thing that would bring a curse upon them (Deut 27:16). Such curses are described in Deut 28:15ff. Whereas the PROMISE to those who honor their parents was that they would “enjoy long life on the earth”, the CONSEQUENCES of the curse that God threatens to those who dishonor their parents is just the opposite: “Among those nations you shall find no rest, and there will be no resting place for the sole of your foot; but there the LORD will give you a trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul. So your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you will be in dread night and day, and shall have no assurance of your life. In the morning you shall say, “Would that it were evening!’ And at evening you shall say, “Would that it were morning!’ because of the dread of your heart which you dread, and for the sight of your eyes which you will see” (Deut 28:65-67). Enjoy long life versus live in the despair of your life hanging in doubt, that is the difference between living under God’s blessing versus His curse.
• In Lev 19:3 the word is “reverence” (elsewhere translated “fear”) your mother and father. Of course, this does not mean we should worship them or pray to them (as in some cultures such as China) since the very next verse says, “do not turn to idols” (along with a multitude of similar Biblical commands, including the first two of the ten commandments). Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the same word which is applied to parents is also used many times in commanding us to “fear/reverence the Lord”.
• Interestingly, the root of the word honor/glorify is related to heaviness/weightiness, and the word for treating with contempt is related to lightness. The world’s rebellion against God is characterized not so much by actively, openly spewing words of hatred towards God, nor even so much by overt atheism. Rather, the world’s rebellion against God is characterized largely by simply treating Him lightly; we live our lives as if God was not important. “Maybe there is a God”, we say, “but what does it matter to me?” In treating Him lightly we not only fail to GLORIFY Him by acknowledging His “weightiness”, but in fact we treat Him with contempt, because to act as if our Creator is “not so important” is contemptous to the utmost.
  Likewise, “They have treated father and mother lightly” (Ezek 22:7) can also be translated “treated father and mother with contempt”. To treat someone so important lightly is akin to treating them with contempt. To treat parents with contempt is to dishonor them (Mic 7:6, compare NIV with NASB, for example).
• Honoring parents includes listening to them and not despising them (Prov 23:22).
• If they never did another thing for you in their entire life, they at least “gave you life” (Pr 23:22), and that is huge. (Even more so when you consider that so many parents are killing their babies in this wicked age.)
• “Honor” is very closely related, if not synonomous with “respect” (Mal 1:6).
• The command to “honor” our parents includes actions such as providing for their needs, especially in their older age (Matt 15:4-6, 1 Tim 5:4-8). But actions alone are not enough, because outward acts of “honor” that do not involve the heart have almost no value to God (Matt 15:8).
• God made everything in creation for a purpose. It appears that one of the big reasons God created the parent/child relationship was to make a platform on which to teach us about our relationship to Him (e.g. John 1:12-13, Rom 8:15, I John 3:1, Jer 3:19, Ex 4:22, Mal 1:6, Isa 1:2). We are commanded to honor them not because everything about them is perfectly honorable and respectable (it could never be so in sinful man), but because everything about GOD is perfectly honorable and respectable and He has given them a role in our lives which was designed for the very purpose of typifying Him. Even if they fail in many ways to reflect the loving and righteous Heavenly Father, the very fact that our life comes from them is a big enough parable of God as Creator to warrant our honor.
  One thing I would reply to an agnostic who says, “Maybe there is a God, but it doesn’t matter to me”, is, “Even if God was responsible for nothing more than the very fact of your existence (though He is much greater than that), then you would already be obliged to have the greatest respect for Him, far beyond anything in this world that you consider to be important or glorious.” If I genuinely feel that my parents, solely on the basis of being my parents, deserve at least my respect and honor, even if there are unpleasant things about them, then I can use this argument with an agnostic. But if I think lightly of my parents, or put forth any of my own requirements on what they must do to earn my respect, then I have no recourse to earthly analogies when the agnostic does the same thing to God.
• “Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness” (Heb 12:10 [emphasis added]). This looks to me like a clear (though implicit) acknowledgement that the way our parents disciplined us was likely not the best. They were not perfect, perhaps very far from perfect. But once we understand that all parents, even those who disciplined us foolishly, deserve respect, then we can grasp the greater spiritual lesson, “Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!” Take away respect for parents and this argument loses its force. This, I believe is ultimately the reason why God promised to bless people for honoring their parents and punish them strictly for dishonoring them (see above). Because the commandment is ultimately about the Father of our spirits, not the father and mother of our bodies.

Support for the claim that the verb “to honor” should be understood as including the ideas of “bring honor to”, “treat as honorable”, “display the honorability of”, “hold in honor”, etc.:

• The word is often translated “glorify” when God is the object. The meaning of “glorify” God includes “bring glory to” God, “treat [God] as glorious”, and “display the glory of” God.
• Exodus 4:4, Ex 4:17,18: “I will gain honor/glory for myself through Pharaoh…”
• 1 Sam 15:30: After Saul’s sin, Saul says to Samuel, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God.”
  Here, “honor me… before the elders of my people” means “cause me to look honorable, rather than dishonorable, in the eyes of the people.”
• 2 Sam 6:22: Here, for David to be “honored” means he is “held in honor”.
• New Testament word means “to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon; by implication, to revere; to esteem”.
• John 5:23, “so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”
• Of course, we may treat someone with Christian honor, and if they despise Christian honor they will say that we are dishonoring them. But we should ask ourselves (and ask God in prayer), “As God sees it, do I bring honor on my parents, or do I bring dishonor on them?”

And also some lesser authoritative observations from my personal experience:

• The darkest times in my life (in terms of depression to some extent, but even more so in terms of sin) correspond to the times when I had the most disrespectful attitude towards my own parents, or to when I did not respect parental authority in other people’s lives. I repent of that; it is purely and indication of sin in me,
  not in them.
• A common characterization of modern pop psychology is that it traces all of our problems back to our childhood and how our parents treated us. Well, indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a very large degree of underlying correlation there, but perhaps some of the dynamics involved are just the OPPOSITE of what is commonly presumed. What I mean to say is that pop psychology encourages us to air out our parents’ dirty laundry by talking openly about their faults and failures with friends, counselors, or even with strangers. But if we do that, then the grudge that we hold in our hearts and which is overflows from our lips (Matt 12:34) against our parents is not merely the EFFECT, but in fact the CAUSE of many of our ongoing maladays (see notes above). It is true that all parents have failed to live up to the model of God’s perfect wisdom and love in caring for His children, some parents to a much worse degree than others. But even abuse and neglect, as tragic as they are, do not free us from the command to honor our parents. Some parents need to go to jail for abuses they have done, but as I understand God’s word, a son or daughter should honor even a parent who is, or legally should be, behind bars. Peter taught Christians to “honor the king” (I Peter 2:17). That’s the same king under whom they were being persecuted (I Peter 1:6, I Pet 4:12).
• The teenage years are a time of great emotional turmoil, depression, and darkness for many youth. Not coincidentally, these years are also a time when many of us begin to distance ourselves from our parents, and to think lightly/contemptuously of their wisdom and their role in our lives. I think that teenagers/young adults need to hear that a lack of Eph 6:3 in their lives may very well be a consequence of a lack of Eph 6:2 in their lives. (But also note the observation above that the command is equally valid and important for all ages.)