How should parents treat their children whose sins have estranged themselves from the family? In the fallout of Alistair Begg’s disgraceful stance, one story comes to mind with intrafamilial sins: the story of David and Absalom. With the question of how to deal with gay family members, there is much wisdom that can be gleaned from 2 Samuel.
The story begins with Amnon raping Tamar and going unpunished by David. Absalom waited two years and through cunning manipulation, lured Amnon to a dinner and murdered him during the meal.
It cannot be ignored that parental blame is likely a contributing factor to the sins their children will commit in life, particularly that of criminal or sexual variety. The sin of Amnon was worthy of death for both disgracing himself and Tamar. David failed to confront Amnon. While it is an uncomfortable insinuation, introspection is necessary, and oftentimes, parents make mistakes that might have contributed to the sinful habits of their children.
Now, Absalom was estranged from the land of his grandfather, as he was a son born out of a diplomatic marriage. While David is severely grieved, he does not entreat his son during his self-imposed exile. Too often, parents indulge their children in their sexual sins. Regarding Begg, comment sections were filled with people recounting how they are involved in the lives of their gay children, whose sin has dishonored them in a violation of the 5th Commandment. While the back half of 2 Samuel contains the worst moments of David’s walk, his reaction to Absalom’s absence is rather expected for a father towards his son. Much like the father of the Prodigal Son, David did not chase after his son. Despite the anguish, this was the correct course for David.
While his sorrow made him susceptible to Joab’s manipulation, even when Absalom was brought back to Jerusalem, David refused to see his son for two years. According to John MacArthur’s Study Bible, David “displayed great restraint in wanting to stay apart from Absalom to lead his son through a time of repentance and real restoration.” Too many parents remain involved in the lives of their homosexual offspring in the hopes that access will lead to repentance, but this is not the biblical way to bring about their child’s repentance. By lacking restraint, they are hurting the chances that their child will repent. In economics, this is called Moral Hazard, whereby the child is not allowed to reap the full consequences of their sin because the parents protect them. The father does not pursue the prodigal son, allowing him to bear the consequences of his sin which brought about his repentance. The father does not chase his son but welcomes him back with open arms. This is the proper approach.
Absalom did not demonstrate repentance. After being ignored for two years, he lashed out like a gangster against Joab by burning his field in hopes of getting his father’s attention. His duplicitous heart remained unchanged. David compromised in allowing Absalom to return, but his greater error was allowing his unrepentant son back into his presence.
Had Absalom been repentant, then David would have been justified in forgiving him, just as he had been forgiven for murdering Uriah. Since he did not return with a repentant heart, it was wrong for David to welcome his son back into his life, and in doing so, led to the disastrous treason that followed.
Where Begg and many others have errored is that they would advise parents to remain involved in the lives of their gay children or grandchildren, that being a bridge is better than being a barrier. The biblical examples make clear that being a barrier is the proper approach. This is evident in the law, where Leviticus 18:29 reads, “For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.” Homosexuality is one of those abominations. Parents should cut off their children if they pursue homosexuality. The purpose of this command was to bring about repentance of the offender and to prevent the multiplication of perversion.
Only with modernity is this topic even debated. In previous generations, a homosexual was estranged from their family and a mark of shame to the parents, much like a promiscuous daughter. Modern evangelicalism disregards scriptural commands to dissociate because it is viewed as unloving. Parents debate attending gay weddings, something they would never have pondered merely fifteen years ago. However, the application goes beyond gay weddings. Should parents associate with their daughters if they do Only Fans, or should they cut them off completely? Complete separation is an earthly consequence that is a warning of eternal separation from the Heavenly Father to come barring repentance. By allowing access without repentance, a parent is removing an earthly consequence for their child’s sin, cushioning the yoke that sin has over their life. Furthermore, it leads to internal compromise for the parents, and there are countless examples to be found, but former SBC president James Merritt is a prominent example.
The general equity of the law is clear and would be reiterated by the Prodigal Son in that total separation is the biblical path for a parent to bring about their child’s repentance. God’s word works. This is not to contend that there is a guarantee of repentance, for that is God’s determination, but compromise will make things worse, as was the case when David and Absalom.
One Response
Great thoughts. Parents (and friends, etc.) should be calling them to repentance. Matthew Vines’ book was written BECAUSE his father refused to do this.