FREEDOM: THE HOME ENVIRONMENT

Freedom is the home environment in which children should be raised.

The same freedom that God extends to the human race is extended to the home environment and is granted to every member of the household, including children. Since children are members of the human race, freedom is extended to them as members of the human race. They, too, are involved in the angelic conflict whether they or their parents realize it or not. Parents have a responsibility before God to teach and train their children in spiritual matters. As the resolution phase of the angelic conflict unfolds in human history, children either grow-up in their respective dispensation as part of the problem or part of the solution. As freely obedient children, they provide resolution in the conflict. As freely disobedient children, they provide no resolution in the conflict. The freedom-oriented home is where God expects children to learn the principles, promises, doctrines, and techniques associated with His plan for resolving the angelic conflict.

Legalism: the Destroyer of Freedom

Christian parents who demand obedience from their children through coercive tactics fail to understand the angelic conflict and the means by which it will be resolved—obedience associated with freedom of choice. Legalism destroys freedom. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary describes legalism as “the institutionalized legalism that restricts freedom of choice.” The issue in legalism: the restriction of choice. Parents who force obedience do not understand the angelic conflict and man’s purpose in it. If obedience is not born out of freedom of choice, it is born out of legalism, and legalistic obedience is not acceptable to God. Parents may be satisfied, but God cannot be satisfied because it violates the very principle for which mankind was created—freedom oriented obedience that resolves the angelic conflict.

Freedom demands responsibility.

Freedom does not imply freedom to do as one desires. Freedom demands responsibility. It must be responsible not to violate, reduce, or destroy the freedom of another person. One person’s freedom always ends where another person’s freedom begins.

Responsible freedom does not necessarily imply right choices. Responsible freedom includes wrong choices accompanied by personal accountability for those choices. If a wrong choice is made, the person making that choice must be held accountable for that choice, and accountability is carried out through the responsible thinking process to be discussed in a later chapter.

Parents’ rights vs. children’s freedoms.

Parents have the right to establish operational procedures for their home and rules for their children to follow both in the home and away from home.

Parents should permit their children freedom of choice regarding their established procedures an rules, but the child should be held accountable for every violation. Accountable? Absolutely yes--accountable, and the means by which accountability is carried out should be called discipline, not punishment.

Mr. Ed Ford has defined and described discipline and punishment in his book, Discipline for Home and School, Book One, Revised and Expanded Edition, p. 13, 14, 15. “Discipline is teaching children to respect the rights of others through responsible thinking by learning to obey rules.” Punishment is “trying to change what children do by hurting them, either physically or verbally, or giving them no options or choices.” He continues, “With discipline, none of the options might be what a child currently wants, but there are no other options available to the person in charge of the child.” He is correct when he says, “The ideal home . . . is one where children are happy and safe. . . .This is a home . . . where children have been given opportunities to learn the necessary social skills so that they can think and act responsibly. This is what a good discipline program should provide.”

Parenting skills are lacking in our country today. Some parents have few or no established rules. They just “wing-it”—a rule here, a rule there; a rule now, a rule then—established or changing from one circumstance to the next. These rules are not based upon what is best for the child, but what is convenient for the parent at the time.

Other parents have established rules but do not hold the child accountable for rule violations. The child soon learns that if he will only persist in challenging the rule or challenging the accountability feature, the parent will soon capitulate to the child’s persistence and whims. The child, then, learns nothing except how to con-the-system.

Parent’s have a right to establish procedures and rules to maintain the integrity of home environment—according to their values--and they should be established early on, that is, long before a child’s actions that will be deemed disruptive. However, it may be necessary to establish a new procedure or rule, either immediately before or immediately after a child’s decision to do something that is devoid of common sense. Parents frequently learn that common sense is not always so common, and a new procedure or rule must be established on the spot.

Children should not be coerced, pressured, bullied, badgered, or forced into obedience to established procedures or rules. Parents should allow their children freedom of choice. This means that a child should be given the freedom to obey or disobey. As long as the child obeys, more freedoms can be extended because the child demonstrates the ability to make good decisions. However, there are two possibilities on the negative side. If a parent is aware that the child is preparing to make a decision that violates an established procedure or rule, the parent can ask the question, “Do you understand the ramifications associated with what you are about to do in view of the established procedure or rule?” The child can either work with the parent and change his mind about violating the procedure or rule or choose to enter the home location’s responsible thinking classroom to develop a plan that will allow him to achieve his goal without disrupting the parent’s goals for the home. If, during or after an act of disruptive behavior, a parent discovers the procedure or rule violation, the parent must confront the child with the appropriate Responsible Thinking Process questions: “What are you doing?” “What is the rule?” What happens when you break the rule?” “Is that what you want to happen?” “What do you want now?” “What will happen if you disrupt again?” These questions will be amplified in another chapter.

Under no circumstance should the parent punish a child for disobedience. Discipline is the approach that truly develops and prepares a child for adulthood and victorious function in the resolution of the angelic conflict.

Parent’s rules vs. children’s wants.

Parents may establish rules that are contrary to a child’s wants. It is important that parental rules be consistent with parent’s values--what they believe and what they live. The child will eventually rebel against the “do-as-I-say and not-as-I-do” rule. Parents should review their own set of values and make rules consistent with those values. Parents should be careful to not stifle a child’s creativity, ingenuity, or innovativeness in the pursuit of his personal goals if they do not violate rules established to reflect parental values.

If parental procedures and rules are contrary to a child’s wants, the child should be permitted the following options. He should have the option to change his wants to become consistent with established parental values, or he should have the option of developing a plan that allows him to achieve his personal goals in a manner that will not violate established parental values. The child may not like the former option, but the parent should be pleased with the latter.