Analyzing the Misuse of Authoritative Words

My children have been butting heads lately over bossing one another around. It goes something like this:

Lee will say, "You have to pick up those legos you dropped."

Rose will reply, "No, I don't!"

"Yes, you do! You dropped those legos on my side, and I'm not going to clean them up if you dropped them! So you have to do it!" And he squints at her while pointing a threatening finger.

She will sass back or throw something or walk away NOT because she doesn't want to pick up the legos, but because Lee told her to do it. If nothing was said, she probably would've picked them up, but now, simply because he told her to, she won't. So Lee runs after her throwing punches and pretty soon Rose is in tears.

As it stands, in my house, the children are not allowed to exercise authority over one another, except in cases when I am absent. Also in my house, everyone is generally responsible for putting away their own toys. Thus, in this case, Rose was responsible for picking up the legos she dropped on Lee's side. That is an ethical fact. Lee recognized this fact and tried to make Rose follow it. That is how he attempted to control her. She sensed this and lashed out in anger to protect herself from Lee taking away her ability to choose.

If Lee had simply stated the laws, "Rose, you dropped those legos on my side, so you're responsible for picking them up," and left it at that, he might've been a whistle-blower, but not have overstepped an authority boundary. He would've just been stating facts. But when he tried with violence to move her to act in accordance with his words, he was inappropriately exercising authority over her. He cannot MAKE Rose follow the laws. 

It's tricky because stating the laws and trying to enforce the laws are very similar. Lee might simply remind Rose of the facts, and Rose might still feel like Lee was trying to control her. She is rather sensitive to anything that even remotely smells of control over her too.

The correct order of things would be for me, as the parent to command Rose pick up her legos, and if she then chooses not to, to give the consequence. That is the right order of authority in this house. Of course, Rose might not like that either; she generally HATES being told what to do by anyone, but in this case, she would have to choose to obey or have a consequence from me.

I find this dissection of my children's fights fascinating because it empowers me to use my authority. I am sometimes timid about exercising my authority over my kids because they react against it so violently. Their reaction sometimes causes me to question my own authority or take back my commands or change my mind or try to make it up to them after a consequence. 

The fact of the matter is God ordered households so that parents have authority over their kids. It's my job to see that they obey or receive consequences. If I don't, the kids sense this lack of leadership and take matters into their own hands. 

I also find this analysis empowering because it helps me differentiate between commands and suggestions: like when I express a difficulty and someone tells me what I need to do or uses words of impending doom if I decide to not take their suggestions: "If you don't do it this way, bad things will happen." I find it helpful to remember that I'm not required to follow others commands unless they're my boss or a policeman or I have submitted myself to their system of authority. It is my job to decipher how to properly use other's advice regardless of whether they state it like a command or suggestion.

Lastly, I find this analysis helpful to remember the proper way to speak to others. If I see someone breaking a law of right behavior—not putting a shopping cart back into the cart corral, tossing a cigarette butt on the ground, inappropriately yelling at their kids, cutting in line, or allowing their dog to poop on someone else's lawn—I am free to remind them of the laws of right behavior, obnoxious as that may be,  but I have no authority to MAKE them behave correctly or to give them a consequence. That is God's job.

I think God meant it this way because while we can chew people out for spitting gum on the sidewalk, or we can protest to pressure companies into acting fairly, or we can sign petitions to alter legislature, only God can actually change people's hearts, which is the cause of breaking God's moral laws in the first place. 

People's hearts are God's domain. My children's heart is God's domain. And my own heart is God's domain too. 

Oh God, heal our hearts and in the process, help me to rightly exercise authority over my kids.

More Big Concepts Broken Down for Kids: All the Injustices Made Right, Reasons Your Student Ought to Behave, Why I Said No TV, Completing the Argument Cycle, Rules for Disagreeing, An Explanation of Authority,