Just when you thought the RP church could sink no lower... James Odom has written a complaint against the Westminster RPC Session for admitting his ADULT daughter into membership because Sparta admonished her for, get this, refusing to move home. https://glgpresbytery.org/uploads/2024-spring/GLG%2023-34.pdf
(5) Several months prior to September 12, 2023, [miss] Odom, having refused her parents' instruction to return home for the 2023-2024 (high) school year, requested a letter of transfer from the Session of the Sparta Reformed Presbyterian Church.
(12b) “You, [miss] Odom, because of your failure to respect your parents have brought reproach upon Christ and are in danger of drifting further away from the Lord. This Court of the Lord's House admonishes you to put away your sin, to watch and pray, and to walk faithfully with Christ.”
In the paper, Odom defends his stance on adult daughter obedience:
(3) Answer for congregations the “no small dissension and disputation” over the question raised by this action: Whether or not, at the attainment of a particular age determined by Scripture, the civil magistrate, or culture generally, willing obedience to the lawful commands and counsels and submission to their corrections under Ephesians 6:1 and other Scripture, and summarized by the answer to Westminster Longer Catechism Q. 127, is still a duty owed by offspring to the authority of father and mother as governors of families.
He's also done it on Facebook:
Note he can't even bring himself to admit what he is doing ("No."), instead framing it in the less abusive "obey wise counsel and instruction" - if it is counsel and instruction, then there is no obedience required, just listening. If it requires obedience, it is not counsel, but command.
I remember a conversation at Geneva around obeying husbands: "What if my husbands commands me not to attend church? Is it really a sin to not attend church? If it isn't a sin, don't I have to obey?"
Thankfully, WLC Q127 can only be understood in light of Q129:
What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
Answer: It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God has put upon them.
and Q124:
Question 124: Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
Answer: By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.
It should take too long to prove Odom's case by contradiction. Odom defines "lawful command" as:
I will ask the GLG Presbytery a simple question in light of his current and previous complaints. WHY IS JAMES ODOM STILL AN ELDER IN THE RPCNA?"
17 comments:
I believe the moderator is allowed to vote at the session level in the RPCNA. But the Sparta moderator is also the one who, on the day after Odom submitted his complaint, wrote his own letter asking for a committee of the Presbytery to come in and mediate the dispute between Sparta and Westminster -- and also "to provide council regarding the operations and relationships within the Sparta session." He doesn't appear to be on board with the complaint. To me, this suggests that either he changed his mind after voting for the letter of admonition, he was outvoted on issuing the letter in the first place (impossible unless Odom was allowed to vote on issuing the letter), or else he respects the Westminster session's grown-up ability to make its own determination of the matter.
Also, this is a great point:
"In other words, the Westminster documents don't require me to obey any command from parent, civil magistrate, people born before me, and people who are more intelligent, wise, etc., simply because what they command is not "forbidden by God or forbidding what is commanded by God", but they must have legitimate authority to command it."
Looks like you're right: "The moderator shall see that the session is properly constituted and adjourned in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King and Head of the Church. He shall direct the business in accord with the law and order of the church and may vote." (DCG 4.4)
Although that raises more questions than it answers. One thought process is that the Session was trying to force the matter to be resolved locally by putting the exemption on the transfer letter. When the Westminster church (rightly!) rejected the exemption, having understood the issue and having come to a different conclusion on the definition of "respecting parents", it then became a presbytery issue. Now, I'm guessing that the pastor is second-guessing whether that was a wise move.
“The censor is the liar.” - Dennis Prager
Hiding information is one of the best ways to deceive the hearer into believing what is false (unlawful). This is why when testifying under oath, we are enjoined to tell “the whole truth.”
Nothing has been hidden in my actions or presentations (except personal family information which was indiscreet and irrelevant to share, and which I again won't speak about here – for the hearing of those who revealed it anyway).
This much is also certain: typing the word “adult” in capital letters does not support his or her conclusions or create jurisdiction to give lawful commands, or supply the credibility to merit our consideration.
Jurisdiction is a separate issue from whether or not an authority has given lawful instruction.
The question posed:
“When does the Bible, the only rule for faith and life, say that children should stop obeying their parents?”
presumes that the Bible does command children (offspring, not little children, other Greek words are used for that) to obey their parents, which implicitly establishes jurisdiction (i.e., who is a proper authority, and over whom?) of parents over their children. Therefore no discussion of jurisdiction was in order. This was presumed because, like the weather in a particular location, anyone who wishes can find the actual command for us to obey our parents (Ephesians 6:1)...
There is an internal limitation on the obedience God requires in that command (the same limitation that I always argue should be applied to every authority), that the authority must act “in the Lord,” that is, to give only Godly instruction. Thus, a good and quick summary of “Godly instruction” (not mine, I first read it in Matthew Trewhella's “The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate”) is instruction which doesn't command what God forbids, or forbid what God commands.
Anonymous may be commended on his or her recommendation to consider the meaning of God's reference to “youth” and military minimum male fighting age of 20 (should have just answered the FB question). In a parent's consideration of a child's maturity, that may be a good starting point, but every child is unique, with unique experiences and training. Some naturally mature faster than others. Some parents have taught more at a given point. Some have disabilities.
In order to fulfill his or her duty each parent must take each of these things into consideration for their specific child.
If one bothers to read the question and responses, or to know that I professionally, personally, and pervasively teach that we have a duty to disobey commands of every authority that are not “in the Lord,” or are outside of a purported authority's jurisdiction, one would understand my conclusion from Scripture presented in the responses (and elsewhere in Scripture):
God commands us in Scripture to obey, submit to, the Godly instruction of our parents (and perhaps all believers). It explicitly and directly provides one exception: only Godly instructions are to be followed (as with any authority, such as military, pointed out by Anonymous).
From other commandments, and examples God has told us in Scripture, I believe we can rightly infer that parents must submit their authority to considering their child's spouse, and that maturity, not age, is a primary measure (best interest of the child doesn't cease to be a parental duty) by which parents should teach their offspring to stand alone by actually allowing them to stand alone.
So if we are 40, and we plan to abort our child, we should obey our parents' (obviously Godly) instruction not to do so. Presuming that their instruction is for no sinful purpose and consistent with our benefit, if we are 75 (Jacob - Genesis 28), we should obey our parents instruction to find a wife from a certain family, or for generations following their instruction to always live in tents and abstain from wine (Jonadab's family - Jeremiah 35).
God has given great power to parents over children, and with great power comes great responsibility. So we parents must perform the difficult task of using it rightly. I am certain I continue to fail, but God will provide. Anyone who isn't certain of that is not qualified to speak on the matter. It is harder than I ever imagined it could be. Find for me that parent who is upright and perfect in raising their child. Let him give counsel.
The question neither addressed a particular example, nor the duty which parents have to give Godly and wise instruction to their children, because frankly, it is not any of the business of anybody responding to the question, or reading this blog for that matter. It was only intended to seek other Scriptures which might impact the answer.
This is not abuse. Anonymous is the authoritiarian abuser, for he or she tries to usurp the authority given by God to parents, and not to Anonymous, by his or her public decree of what is right and wrong.
Frankly, I think we should stick to God's decree, instead of Anonymous's.
The author of the article, nor the Westminster Session has ever asked what actions actually constituted "failure to respect parents." Any such conclusion is therefore presumption.
I think you are purposely equivocating the words "obey/listen" and "instruction/command", and your analogies are not pertinent.
If I "instruct" someone not to "abort their child", it is not a matter of my authority and jurisdiction. I am telling someone what God says.
If I "listen" to my parents "instruction in the Lord" as an adult and choose something different, I'm not disobedient, nor am I disrespectful.
What James is saying (I'm not assuming you are James) is that he has the jurisdiction over his adult daughter to command her to move home. It is obvious, because the daughter not moving home (according to the complaint) is a matter of respect.
When the Bible says, "in her youth", in Israelite judicial law, do you really believe that her father gets to be the authority? So, one daughter can make oaths at 13, another at 18, but yet another at 75 still can't be obligated by oath because her 95 year old father swears she's still 'in her youth'? You can claim that the parents get to decide when a child is appropriately mature to stop obeying commands, but there is no scriptural support for that.
James did not answer the question about Jesus. Matt. 12:47-48: 'Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”' If James is right that parents' always have authority over their children, and parents' instruction "in the Lord" - meaning not commanding them to sin - must be obeyed, then Jesus sins right there. He disobeyed his mother.
You also haven't dealt with the argument from the Westminster Larger Catechism. Superiors isn't just parents, church leaders and civil authorities. Superiors is "all superiors in age and gifts" So, by using the Westminster definition and your "obey/instruction/in the Lord" definitions. You are arguing that James' daughter is Biblically required to marry the first man who proposes, "in the Lord".
I also disagree that Paul's use of tekna is for the purpose of conveying perpetual obedience to parents. The word has a similarly broad meaning in the Greek and even in the New Testament it is used broadly. For example, when Herod kills infants two and under in Bethlehem, the word tekna is used "Rachel weeping for her [tekna]". I don't think the women here are weeping over 'all their offspring, including adults', but specifically infants and toddlers. The word must be understood from its immediate context, which isn't clear one way or the other, but then from the general equity of how the concept of obedience of children is treated. Jacob is one example, but there are others that you are ignoring, such as Samson whose parents' advice was "in the Lord" in one sense, but not in another sense. (Judges 14:4)
Ironically, while I tried to post 'nonymously', the system forced my posts into Anonymous. The author of the 3 (now 4) Anonymous posts since yesterday is me, James M. Odom.
You'd think Google would have the resources to make this work well on their own browser, but apparently not. Maybe they can commission their AI to rewrite it.
So, I think this better represents your issue. You say "Jurisdiction is a separate issue from whether or not an authority has given lawful instruction." It is certainly not. Simply asserting "Therefore no discussion of jurisdiction was in order." does not prove anything. Opening my trunk for a policeman is morally neutral. What makes it unlawful is that the policeman is telling me to do something he has no authority to do. It is the jurisdiction that makes the command unlawful, not whether it is morally suspect. Just as the military considers a command unlawful if given without positive authority.
Mutual submission in love does not create authority. Parents do not have authority 'at some point' - daughters are considered in OT law to be morally independent from their parents (able to represent themselves in contracts) when they are not 'in their youth'. That does not give a day/hour, but we look at the general equity of the military service, that one who is serving must be capable of moral independence, and that happens, for men, no later than 20.
But, you assert another point, that you as the father get to decide when that timeframe is. It's a simple assertion, and certainly not backed by scripture. The age of military service is not 'father-blessed' but government mandate. The age of legal independence is not 'when the father decides' but 'in her youth' and 'in her father's house'. So, despite your insistence that your daughter is not sufficiently mature, she is a morally and legally independent person, whose duty of respect is listening to you and considering your advice as one who is older, wiser and has natural bonds of affection, nothing more.
To summarize:
The Bible does not require obedience without jurisdiction.
The Bible does set a timeframe when parents no longer have jurisdiction over their children (no longer a youth / 20 years old)
The Westminster documents likewise do not require obedience to command without jurisdiction.
Plugging one's ears to any discussion of jurisdiction doesn't mean your argument is correct.
If your own adult daughter doesn't want to go to the church that you lead, there is already something terribly wrong with your relationship, and probably has been for years. Attempting to force her to go to that church against her will has to be the worst possible way to bring her around. It just confirms to her all the reasons she doesn't want to be there in the first place. It's the ecclesiastical equivalent of saying, "you have to stay still while I punch you in the face." Why would anyone think that a letter of condemnation on the church's blue banner letterhead signed by her dad's buddies and delivered by registered mail is going to change her mind about her dad? Run, Miss Odom, run!
He should be grateful she's not completely disavowed the Christian faith because of him. I'm amazed she's stayed within the RPCNA.
> Why would anyone think that a letter of condemnation on the church's blue banner letterhead signed by her dad's buddies and delivered by registered mail is going to change her mind about her dad?
It seems to me that the RPCNA has this hammer and no other tools. Consequently, they view everything as a nail, and just start thumping. The Blue Book says they can rebuke, censure, suspend and excommunicate, and so that's what they do, and that's all they do. Someone's struggling with sin? Send a letter. Someone's got a doctrinal position that's not perfectly in accord with the RPCNA? Send a letter. Someone criticizes the session? Send a letter. It's like no-one has ever thought of sitting down with someone one-on-one and saying, "what's on your mind?" and listening to them and loving them. And if they disagree with something that's not an essential of the Christian faith, how about letting them go and trusting them and the Lord to work it out without bringing down the wrath of the session?
It's just a continuation of the abuse. The model in a lot of conservative homeschools is that the older children are parentified and expected to contribute to the needs of the family. This is portrayed as training to be a wife and mother, so it's okay that the parents expect their teen and twenties daughters to have a permanent 'internship' until marriage.
Sometimes the language and ceremonies are creepy, like purity balls, daddy-daughter purity pledges with ring, or the idea that the daughter practices marriage with the father until her husband comes along. There are lots of negative articles, but here's a father attempting to justify the practice: https://www.strongcatholicdad.com/2021/12/powerful-way-to-protect-your-daughters-purity/ and more detailed accounts on Homeschooler's Anonymous: https://homeschoolersanonymous.net/2014/06/03/life-in-the-dollhouse-stay-at-home-daughters-by-lea/
I also believe that 'respect' is not the issue, 'obedience' is. Westminster (IL) RPC welcomed the daughter, apparently satisfied that she is not sinfully disrespectful to her father, as Sparta RPC claims. That is important to understanding this case, in my opinion. It seems that the session of Westminster is drawing a proper boundary here. Respect means listen, consider strongly, but not obey, when dealing with someone of superior age and gifts. I think the daughter has done nothing worthy of admonishment, and the admonishment is simply a domineering father and elder using his position to abuse. You can see his defense is full of extra-Biblical assertions of authority that anyone would be hard-pressed to find any concurrence, outside of IBLP/ATI and Vision Forum circles.
It figures that James would love Dennis Prager, gross. What does Margaret think of this? Is she aware you are potentially damaging your relationship with your daughter? I am glad she found her way back to Colorado (it's been what, around 16 years since you left Colorado?).
Westminster IL - it's near Chicago. Definitely confusing.
Post a Comment