A couple of weeks ago I was going through our bookshelves and came across a book I didn’t realize I still owned. It was a book that my mom had purchased for my hope chest that I thought was long gone. The inscription that she wrote on the inside of the book speaks volumes.
She was in the thick of home school leadership at this time, but of all of the externals that she shed when she left the world of home school leadership, this is the one aspect that she did not. She still adhered to the principle that “children (or, my daughter’s children, my son’s children, my grandchildren’s children) are a heritage from the Lord.” (Psalm 127:3, NIV)
Which begs the question, what exactly is a heritage?
Webster’s Dictionary and Strong’s Concordance define the word in essentially the same manner, which I thought interesting in light of the fact that Hebrew connotations of words are so varied when compared with our English language.
Strong’s:
Heritage, from the Hebrew, Nachalah: from an unused word; possession, property, inheritance.
Webster’s:
Heritage: Property that is or can be inherited; an inheritance. Something passed down from preceding generations; a tradition. The status acquired through birth; a birthright.
Inherit: To receive (property or title, for example) from an ancestor by legal succession or will. To receive by bequest or as a legacy. To receive or take over from a predecessor. To receive (a characteristic) from one’s parents by genetic transmission. To gain (something) as one’s right or portion. To hold or take possession of an inheritance.
***********
The child born into wealth, given every thing and every opportunity take possession over their inheritance with a snobberish attitude of rightful ownership. They never appreciated what they had, so they squander it away on fanciful whims and mismanage their money, leaving them broke, penniless, and worse off than they were before the inheritance came into their possession. And even if their inheritance is sizeable enough that this situation does not occur, the contentment and satisfaction of knowing what they now possess thwarts them. It thwarts them because they view their inheritance as a right, an entitlement and once they receive it, their wealthy brattiness prevents them from being truly thankful to the Giver of all good gifts.
But those who understand what a gift they possess, are truly grateful. They understand the value and appreciate it. They care for it. They invest it where it will grow and strengthen and become greater still. They do not rush out and squander it on whims; they don’t take it for granted that it will always be there. They understand that if they do not care for their inheritance-their heritage- that it will be gone and washed away.
Therein lies the difference in viewing children as a form of entitlement versus a precious gift to steward.
Parents who view their children as a form of entitlement, a right to possess and own, make choices for their children that feed their own agenda and personal ideologies. The decisions and choices that the parents make, the authority and control that they exercise over their children is self-serving. Case in point, the Duggar’s. The girls are expected to help do the hard work of raising their younger siblings, though it is not their responsibility (legally or otherwise). They cook, make laundry soap, spank their younger brothers and sisters, help educate them, train them, clean the house…In short, they are built in slaves to their mother to help her with the ideology that she projects onto them and it is self-serving.
Webster’s Definition of Slavery is stated thus:
One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence. One who works extremely hard. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component. To work very hard or doggedly, toil.
These precious Duggar Daughters, and countless others like them are slaves to their parents and their parent’s ideology. I don’t have a problem with large families, as long as the parents are raising the children. Not children raising children. Be a steward of what you have, rather than abuse, misuse, mistreat, and exasperate what the Giver has given.
Does this mean that children are not to have chores and to help out around the house? No, but what is does mean is that the chores that they are expected to do are developmentally appropriate and do not lead to exasperation. Chores are meant to be a training tool to teach personal responsibility and the value of helping out the family- of being a part of something larger than oneself and feeling the importance that those values should instill. Developmentally, a two year old should not be expected to pick up their dishes and put them in the sink. At this point, they are still learning the important value of being able to trust that Mommy and Daddy will help care for their basic needs. Developmentally, a two year old can be expected to help pick up her own baby dolls imperfectly. Yet Jordyn Duggar is expected to clean up her table, put her dishes in a sink she can’t reach, and keep herself picked up after.
Is this the end of the world? No, but parents who are wise stewards over their children don’t just start handing out chores because they are tired of doing the work. They recognize that chores are an important part of growing up and that the purpose is to teach responsibility and independence. Chores are not meant to be a built-in mechanism that parents employ to help feed their ideology that having a large family is God’s calling and their children will help to support that belief. If having a large family is what God has called you to, then you need to be prepared to do the work yourself and not expect your children to do it for you.
Parents who are wise and loving stewards are not controlling over their children to the point of exasperation. They allow them the space that they need to grow and be beautiful, independent creatures while providing them with a safe and secure framework of gentle servant authority in which to grow and prosper. These parents lead by example, not by dictation. They are swiftly and acutely in tune with their children’s hearts, interests, feelings, and anxieties. They model grace and lavish love. Their children do not have cause to fear that their parents won’t provide for their emotional, educational, and physical needs. They are secure in their parent’s love and acceptance of them, they trust in their parents and their hearts rest in the assurance of their relationship. This is a far cry from what many of the Movement/Quiverfull homeschool children feel from their parents.
Because Movement homeschoolers have such a possessive attitude towards their children, this is very often extended onto their grandchildren. It is the view of generational inheritance and possession. Many times in my teenage years I heard the verses, “I will lead you into the land of Canaan, a land of inheritance…” in terms of inheriting the progeny of their children’s children.
I say this because it is a form of warning. Though my parents had left the homeschool movement nearly twelve years ago, their thinking had not changed, especially in regard to this core belief that Movement homeschoolers hold to. They knew that they had blown it with me, and they treated me as though I was not worth working for. But my children- or their children as they thought of them- were the reason they fought so hard to stay in my life.
The fight got so nasty over this battle for my children we had to seek legal counsel because they were approaching their lawyer with threats of grandparent’s rights, custody battles and the entire shebang.
I never realized just how intense one’s desire to control what is perceived as being rightfully theirs could prove to be.
These threats led me to have to contact my children’s school and provide them with pictures of my parents so that they could prevent my parents from taking them or coming to see them. I had to threaten them with a restraining order to get them to leave my children alone (they were obscenely sending packages and cards every chance they could to butter my boys up), and then a final meeting with our attorney to ensure that they had no legal rights whatsoever. Because I refuse my parents permission to see my children, they have no rights to them at all and no basis for a custody hearing.
In this sense, there is very little difference between the slave owners during the Civil War era. Children that were born to slaves became the property and sole ownership of the slave master, with no respect to the biological parents.
Wise and loving parents gradually release the reigns of control a little bit each year, allowing their child to grow into an independent creature that is capable of making their own decisions and choices. They love them enough to give them the space to grow, to make mistakes, to stumble and fall, to rise and conquer. They prepare them to leave their nest to go and find a new mate, build a new nest and start this beautiful circadian rhythm all over again. This is the way it was designed by the Giver and those who thwart this process thwart the beauty of the Giver’s design.
