The Battle of Peer Dependency: Chapter Four - Part Six

Welcome, dear readers!

We've gone from summery weather to mid-October weather overnight.  We've had three days of rain, wind, and temperatures in the 50's.  I'd enjoy the weather a bit more if I had already unpacked everyone's winter clothes.  Instead, I'm wondering how my son can have a million jackets in the house when the weather is 80 - and they are all missing in action when the weather is chilly.   

After a break, I'm slogging back into "The Battle Of Peer Dependency" by Marina Sears.  We ended the last section of Chapter Four with Mrs. Sears complaining about how other homeschooled families didn't raise their kids exactly like she raised hers - so they needed to cut off the other families because Jesus.

The remainder of the chapter is a weird, semi-coherent slog through 1) why Jonathan and David's friendship was different from standard friendships and 2) how King Saul's disobedience to God's Commands to not take spoils in a war means that kids are required to obey their parents unquestioningly.    For anyone who has not read the book, my paraphrase is much more coherent than the actual chapter. 

  First, Mrs. Sears decides that it is time to take on the fact that the Bible has a perfectly good example of peer-to-peer friendship between Jonathan and David.  Now, there are other examples of plenty of people who hang out with non-immediate family members all the time - Ruth and Naomi, Mary and Elizabeth, Jesus and ALL of the disciples - but we ignore all of those.   Apparently, David and Jonathan made a covenant - which Mrs. Sears argues we are unable to understand or emulate today - so kids can't have friends. 

 Personally, I think that's crap.  Plenty of people have long-term friendships that involve sacrifices for the good of the relationship.  My best friend Jessica and I were best friends from 1st grade through when she was killed in a car accident at age 28.  Knowing that I could maintain a friendship for years through long-distance moves and major life changes made me felt much more comfortable about getting married - the only covenant Mrs. Sears views as valid now - because I knew I could work to keep a relationship going in difficult and easy times.

Mrs. Sears seems to be aware how shaky her argument is - so she dives right into explaining that Jonathan can make covenants because his relationship with his father.  She explains that Saul disobeyed the prophet Samuel's dictates of when to offer a sacrifice - and God was very, very angry.   

Duly noted.  Not sure what this has to do with Jonathan and David - but whatever.

Mrs. Sears then argues that Saul's disobedience to a prophet - in circumstances that actually made a lot of sense - is the same behavior as everyone who disagrees with her ever:

One aspect of peer dependency is the developmental behavior of having what I want, when I want it. This takes on many forms in Christian circles today. It is very common to see individuals define holiness or worship from their perspective, rather than coming to God by His standards. Rationalizing truth is a deadly trap, and to avoid it one needs discernment. Children have a great capacity to rationalize truth in order to get what they want, when they want it. It is a parent's responsibility to train their sons and daughters to obey. ( Ephesians 6: 1- 3) Remember that partial obedience is total disobedience, and good motives do not make disobedience right. (pgs. 49-50)

Does expecting your newly bought house to sell immediately when you place it on the market after your husband's tragic death count as "what I want when I want it"?  

How about moving from near family in Montana to Texas as a widow for no known reason? 

How about controlling your kids' lives to fit a predetermined mold so that people will 'see' that God takes care of widows and orphans exactly like Mrs. Sears wants people to see?

Guess that behavior isn't limited to wordly folks after all.  

If Mrs. Sears is a stickler on Biblical worship, she'd better be instructing her kids in playing flutes, harps, tambourines and drums so they can dance in front of the Ark of the Covenant.   The kids should be in 4H; raising animals correctly for sacrifices takes practice.     

That's not true worship?  The Bible says otherwise.

Children are solid at rationalizing the truth - but adults are better.  Why did Mrs. Sears pick Ephesians 6:1-3 instead of Deuteronomy 5:16?   Ephesians 6:1-3 enjoins children to obey their parents because the commandment to honor thy father and mother is the first commandment with a promise - but that comes as a Pauline pro-family addition.   Compare that with some choice views about family life from Jesus himself like Matthew 8:21-22 where Jesus tells a disciple to follow Jesus and leave the burial of his father to someone else.  Mark 3:31-34 has Jesus denying the power of his biological family to stop him preaching and claiming his followers as his real family.   Really, that's a section of the Gospels that catches short shrift from CP/QF followers since it undermines their entire rationale for child raising.

While we're talking about Jesus - he spent most of his ministry running around breaking the Sabbath.  Like all the time.   Oh, we dress it up by explaining that Jesus just couldn't let the person with a paralyzed arm suffer one more day - but does that make sense at all?  Most of the people who Jesus healed were not in immediate danger of dying.   They were suffering - but they had been suffering for YEARS at this point.  Twenty four hours more of paralysis or a damaged limb or a missing sense - that's child's play for these souls - and healing them on Sunday morning would have avoided the entire shit-fit the Pharisees threw afterwards!  Hell, the blind from birth guy got to listening to the disciples discuss whose sins caused his blindness prior to being healed on a Sabbath.  Super-awkward - but not nearly as awkward as the grilling of the guy and his parents about the entire episode that happened because - you guessed it! - Jesus decided to heal him on the Sabbath.   

Jesus's motive was to infuriate the Pharisees by thumbing his nose at their beliefs.  Is pissing off your enemies a good enough reason to disobey God's Laws?   After all, the Bible says "Yes!"

After that train of thought petered out, Mrs. Sears explains that Saul made a rash vow that none of Israel would eat during one day under pain of death - but forgot to tell Jonathan.  Jonathan eats some honey.   Families cast lots and Jonathan was picked by lot.  Jonathan 'fesses up.  Saul refuses to admit he was wrong - but Israel was so angry that they saved Jonathan!   

At the end of a pretty solid buildup, Mrs. Sears gives us this quote which causes me to laugh every time:

Oh, that fathers would understand the great position they have in the lives of their children. For Saul to commit himself to kill Jonathan for a prideful, selfish order must have greatly the damaged the relationship between father and son. (pg. 50)

*Snorts and wipes eyes again*

No, no.  Being offered up to God as a sacrifice for wrongdoing enhances relationships!  Just ask Abraham and Isaac!  They get along great - and their families are completely functional!  Multiple generations of completely mentally healthy non-psychopaths from that line, yup, yup.   

But seriously - Mrs. Sears had to do a number on 1 Samuel 14 to make Saul's stopped execution of Jonathan seem like a life-changing event for Jonathan.   

First, Jonathan didn't hear about Saul's vow - but he was extremely dismissive of Saul's vow for being stupid when he was told of it in 1 Samuel 14:28-30.   Dare I say that Jonathan was not honoring his father?   

Second, divination by lots was a big, important group activity of the Old Testament - and God Himself was pointing at Jonathan as the person who had incurred divine wrath by breaking a vow made by Israel.   Jonathan knew this - he's quite ready to die as a sacrifice for breaking the vow.   Mrs. Sears makes a song and dance about how Saul could have backed down by telling everyone that Saul made a stupid vow - but that's not how divine vows work in the Old Testament at all.   No, the only way out was by a sacrifice of some kind - and the people intervened to ransom Jonathan because the Lord clearly favored Jonathan because of a crazy incursion raid Jonathan made earlier in the day which caused a mass Phillistinian self-annihilation. 

Third - and last - the Israelites objected to Jonathan's death because of his victory earlier in the day.  How would they have responded if he had lost?  I doubt that Saul's vow would have been looked at as rash if the battle had been a rout - and Jonathan would have been sacrificed for being a father-hating vow breaker.

In any other book, this would be the place where the author explains how Jonathan's dysfunctional relationship with his father makes his relationship with David different.    Too bad Mrs. Sears skipped the wrap-up all together - because I have no bloody clue why being Saul's son makes Jonathan's friendship with David different.   

Next up: confusing King Saul's descent in to blasphemy with child rearing advice.