The Goal of Religious Authoritarian Parenting

 The goal of Religious Authoritarian Parenting:

 

To break and destroy the will of a child so that it will be instantly, unquestioningly, and cheerfully obedient to the commands of a parent or other approved authority.

 

***

 

I have thought about how to start this explanation, and decided I needed to clear up some of the confusion regarding terms. The reason for this is that, like pretty much everything connected to the Right Wing generally, and to Fundamentalist religion specifically, the language is not used for the purpose of truth, but for obfuscation: to hide in euphemism what is really meant, intended, and carried out.

 

Just like the truth that if the Right Wing’s political goals were openly stated, most humans would hate and reject them, if the goals and techniques of Religious Authoritarian Parenting were truthfully stated, they would be recognized as abusive, cruel, and evil. So we have to use language to hide the truth, and twist evil into good and cruelty into kindness. 

 

Because of this, book after book has been written laying out some program of child training, using a fire-hose of words to obscure the central point: that the goal is to force one human being to unquestioningly obey another. 

 

Let’s look at some of these falsehoods one at a time.

 

***

 

I will use “Authoritarian” throughout this discussion, but I do want to emphasize that while authoritarian parenting can exist outside of the religious context, it is primarily a phenomenon in our own time within conservative religious subcultures. My own experience of it was within that subculture, as promoted by three men who greatly influenced my parents: James Dobson, Bill Gothard, and John MacArthur. There are others, but these three are always at the top of any list. 

 

***

 

“This parenting method isn’t authoritarian, it is authoritative.”

 

I heard that one so much as a child, and I can tell you, it is bullshit. Of course the parenting method is authoritarian. In fact, “authoritative” is mostly a misnomer, used because it sounds better and more scientific than “authoritarian.” 

 

Here is how I have heard the difference described in religious circles:

Authoritarian is “high structure” combined with “low warmth” while Authoritative is “high structure” combined with “high warmth.” 

 

This is, as I stated above, misleading.

 

First, authoritarianism really isn’t about “structure.” Plenty of non-authoritarian parents provide lots of structure for their kids. In fact, some probably over-schedule a child’s day, leaving them little time for free play. As an orchestra geek, I grew up around many of these kids, and I can tell you that, whatever the weaknesses of this approach, it wasn’t synonymous with authoritarian parenting. 

 

Second, I also have known parents who were highly authoritarian - and even openly abusive - who were terrible about providing structure. If the focus is on obedience, it is actually more “effective” for life to be unstructured - that way the parent can be arbitrary and unpredictable, yet insist on instant obedience from the child. 

 

Third, this idea of “warmth” is a kind of euphemism in itself. Whether a parent is distant or smothering has little to do with authoritarianism - one can demand obedience either way. 

 

For that matter, the “we hit you because we love you” is such festering horseshit that I don’t even want to dignify it with a discussion. The cold-blooded beating because God wants it is actually worse than the “I got frustrated and did what I learned as a child” kind. 

Authoritative parenting is strict, while other parenting is permissive.

 

This misses the point altogether. Believe it or not, the children of nurturing parents have to do their homework and chores too. You don’t have to be authoritarian to have expectations, and having expectations does not make you authoritarian. 

 

Likewise, “permissive” is a misused term here. Of course we all know parents who, for reasons that usually go beyond their intentions, let children run amok. The confluence of poverty and parenting is beyond the discussion of this post. 

 

But let’s think with a bit more nuance here. The real issue is what freedoms children are allowed to have, and these should be appropriate for their ages and development levels. Just like responsibility should be. 

 

An example here might be that small children do not get to eat candy all day instead of healthy food, right? But that doesn’t mean having a battle over every meal, until the child learns to obey without questioning. In my household, we took the kids shopping practically from birth, and as soon as they were able to express preferences, we had them pick out vegetables and plan meals. These days, they each plan and cook one dinner a week - and I can tell you each kid has totally different favorites. 

 

Some would call that parenting permissive, perhaps? Yet others might be shocked that we expect that much from our kids. 

 

Again, this isn’t about authoritarian parenting - because it doesn’t require breaking a child’s will and demanding instant, unquestioning, and cheerful obedience. 

 

“The choices are between authoritarian/authoritative parenting and chaos.”

 

Again, this is not true. Plenty of authoritarian families roil with chaos. And plenty of nurturing families run smoothly. It isn’t an either or. 

 

“Kids need to experience consequences.”

 

Sure. And so do adults. But that isn’t the point here, is it?

 

Consequences for what? And do we really believe this? Part of parenting is in fact sheltering children from consequences, until they develop enough to be responsible for themselves. 

 

When my kids were very small, I made sure they couldn’t touch hot objects. Okay, I tried. One of our kids tripped and burned their hand pretty well on one of those old built-in heaters. 

 

To say that the burn was a “consequence” of their running indoors when they probably were warned not to is both true, and also stupid. It was an unfortunate accident, and not really the kid’s fault at that stage of development - they were a toddler and did what toddlers do. So we try to protect our kids in that sense.

 

As they get older, they experience more consequences for decisions, and learn to weigh these in determining their choice of action. 

 

But the authoritarian parenting project isn’t about these natural consequences. They are about a parent imposing artificial consequences for failure to instantly, unquestioningly, and cheerfully obey a parent. 

 

Those aren’t natural consequences, they are artificial, and are all too often arbitrary. I personally can attest that I often had punishment imposed on me because I pushed back against arbitrary decisions I disagreed with, because to do so was not “obedience.” 

 

As an adult, my parents could no longer impose that kind of consequence when I disobeyed - although they did continue to wield disapproval and shaming. Ironically, the natural consequences of doing so included them losing relationships, and it turns out that they really didn’t like those natural consequences at all. Silly kids, consequences are for you, not your parents.

 

***

 

So back to the actual goal, as I stated above, because the goal is the core issue, and also the actual problem.  

 

It isn’t really about raising children to be able to function in society, to behave well toward their fellow humans, or any of the other things that are sometimes claimed. These are things that nurturing parents do too! Every parent wants their kids to be functional, and most want their kids to be empathetic and well socialized. (Again, ironic that the same people pushing authoritarian parenting are now also railing against “the sin of empathy.”) 

 

The goal of authoritarian parenting is obedience.

 

It is about subordinating the will - and indeed personhood - of a child to its parents. (And later to other approved authority figures. I intend to talk about that in a future installment.) 

 

Thus, when there is a parent-child conflict - and of course there always will be: we are humans and that is how we are - authoritarian parenting makes it a power struggle that must always be won by the parent. Might makes right. 

 

So, if a child protests what it sees as an unjust expectation, the only issue to be resolved is whether the child will obey or not. And it will, given enough application of force, violence, or psychological manipulation. After all, children are relatively powerless compared to adults. 

 

Keep in mind the rest of the goal. The child is to obey, but also to do so without questioning or protest. This one got me in plenty of trouble as a kid, and even more so as a teen. I have always questioned authority, and will speak up if I disagree. (So do my kids, by the way.) 

 

And also to do so cheerfully - so no visible inner protest either. 

 

The goal is thus a complete subordination. The child does not matter as a human being, but is seen completely as a subordinate. 

 

The child is no longer to have a will of its own, but only seek to do what the parent commands. 

 

Does any of this sound familiar in other contexts? 

 

For example, what about our history of enslavement? Wasn’t the goal of that as well to have instant, unquestioning, and cheerful obedience? Yes. Yes it was.

 

It is also the goal of the military, which is perhaps necessary to get humans to work together to die and kill for a certain goal. (Perhaps also why early Christianity and my own anabaptist family roots got in trouble for refusing to kill for country…) But a family is not an army, and even soldiers get to go home at the end of their enlistment. 

 

In the case of religious authoritarian parenting, this goes even further: children are seen as naturally evil, and can only be made good by training them to obey. I could write a whole post on this - and might - because it is demonstrably a lie, and is the root of so much trauma for children. 

 

The bottom line: a child is expected to surrender their will, their personhood, to their parents, and eventually to other approved authorities. 

 

***

 

One more thing I wanted to debunk here, and that is the idea that the argument is about the means of parenting. 

 

For example, much has been said about the desirability and effectiveness of corporal punishment. The subculture I was raised in believed that children who were not spanked would grow up rotten, for example, while secular experts have disputed this - and shown evidence to the contrary. 

 

But I think this too is to miss the point. I am reminded of how the kids in the Great Brain books I read as a child felt that spanking would have been preferable to the silent treatment method used by their parents. And I kind of agree with that. 

 

Here is why: While I do not feel that corporal punishment was particularly effective on me, the authoritarian methods that fucked me up far more were the psychological ones: the teaching that God speaks to children through their parents, that the authority structure was God’s will for the family and society, that disobedience (including talking back) opened a child’s soul to Satan, that children were inherently sinful (aka evil) and were in a constant battle for power with their parents, and so on.

 

Particularly the “if you do not obey us, you are inviting Satan into your heart” one. For a child who was so eager to be loved by his parents, and who felt drawn to God, this was devastating. It meant that increasingly as I grew up, I had to choose between my own vision for my life and being what my parents demanded. 

 

As it turned out, I ended up sacrificing several things I should never have been expected to sacrifice - and things I would not sacrifice again if given the chance. Those will be the subject of a future post. 

 

The key thing here, then, is not the means - although means matter. 

 

If the end sought is bad and evil and cruel, the means will by definition be bad and evil and cruel as well.

 

The fundamental, unsolvable problem is that the GOAL of authoritarian parenting is irredeemable. No matter how careful, no matter how thoughtful, no matter how ostensibly “loving” the means are, the goal will always be evil and unredeemable. 

 

Breaking the will of another human being is wrong.

 

Full. Stop. 

 

It is wrong, it is evil, and it is cruel. You cannot make it otherwise, so any means to that end will by definition and inevitability be wrong, evil, and cruel as well. 

 

Because breaking the will of another human being is an inherently abusive project. It just is. 

 

Thus, every method for accomplishing this abusive goal is going to be abusive. 

 

Again, as I noted earlier in this post, breaking the will is different from having expectations, structure, or consequences. The overwhelming majority of parents, whether good or bad or indifferent, have expectations and structure, and allow consequences. But only authoritarian parents attempt to break the will of a child. 

 

***

 

What is the point of Religious Authoritarian Parenting?

 

It really is two-fold. 

 

First, parents are promised by the religious charlatans that promote authoritarian parenting that if they just follow the formula, then their children will turn out to be religious, cultural, and political clones of themselves. 

 

And not only that, their children will love and adore…and obey them forever. It’s a win all around!

 

Except, of course, that it isn’t. The promises are just snake oil, and what is really left afterward is a legacy of broken and damaged relationships, resentment, and all too often estrangement. 

 

The second goal is the creation of a theocratic authoritarian society, one organized based on hierarchies with white males at the top. I hope to explore this in a future post. Until then, consider this: 

 

Isn’t the ideal concentration camp guard the one who is conditioned to give instant, unquestioning, cheerful obedience to an authority figure? 

 

***

 

One final thought: A good way to determine if parenting is authoritarian is to look at what happens as a child grows into teenhood, and then adulthood. 

 

Does the expectation of obedience diminish as the child matures? Or does it continue, and even double down?

 

For Bill Gothard, a child was only to be given “freedom” to make their own decisions as they demonstrated that they would make the same decision as their parent. 

 

Note that it wasn’t that they showed good judgment, critical thinking, empathy, ethics, or anything else: the key was that they would anticipate what the parent would do, and do that exactly. 

 

This is known in psychology circles as “Bounded Choice,” and it is the illusion that one can chart one’s own path. All of us who grew up in religious authoritarian homes have experienced this. We could make “any choice we wanted” as long as it was the one “God wants you to make.”

 

Which meant the one that our parents and the charlatans they followed said God wanted. 

 

Once upon a time, I naively thought that when I became an adult, and moved out, I would be allowed to make my own choices, and that my parents would continue to give me love and approval, even if my choices weren’t the same as the ones they made. (Assuming, of course, that I wasn’t doing illegal or immoral stuff.) 

 

That was not the case. It turned out that “moral” and “what we would do” were, in their minds (particularly my mom’s), the exact same thing. God wanted what they preferred. His mind was exactly the same as theirs, by some amazing coincidence. 

 

And it didn’t just apply to me: it applied to my wife and kids too. They were expected to dutifully do things their way, always. This led, inevitably, to unnecessary and stupid fights over how I chose to live my life and raise my kids. 

 

I’m getting all too close to age 50 these days, and yet, this is still going on. 

 

While I am estranged from my parents, my mom still sends me a birthday e-mail each year. This year, she decided to make a reference to the Last Judgment and express her wish that I would “walk in truth.” A not-so-subtle way of saying that she thinks I am going to hell because I do things differently from the way she thinks I should. Isn’t that lovely? But don’t you know, she really just loves me and wants me to go to heaven…

 

That’s life with religious authoritarian parents for you. 

 

In this case, it is pretty clear that a significant issue for her is my acceptance of my LGBTQ kids. Whose existence she blames on my wife working outside the home rather than demonstrating proper gender roles. By being affirming, I am not “walking in truth,” and am thus bound for hell. Well, okay then…as Huck Finn said, I’m choosing hell. 

 

In my previous post on Religious Authoritarian Parenting, I noted that I believe that a significant driver of parent-child estrangement is this very thing. 

 

It turns out that it really isn’t easy to break the will of a child (or an enslaved person for that matter.) Humans tend to turn out to retain their humanity even after decades of attempts to turn them into cheerfully and unquestioningly compliant foot soldiers. 

 

Instead, humans are going to human. And that means that culture is never static - it is always in constant change. No parent ever is going to have kids that are religious, cultural, and political clones of themselves. No parent ever. 

 

I have to wonder, considering how differently my parents chose to live their lives from their own parents, why they thought that with just the right authoritarian parenting formula, we would turn out to be clones of them? 

 

Perhaps it was that the religious charlatans pushing this shit were able to convince them that there is only one way to live one’s life - only one that God approved of - and that therefore the way they did things was the only acceptable way. 

 

And that the only acceptable way to exist is as a white-culture cishet middle class patriarchal American expressing the culture of the 1950s. Or was it the 1850s? I’m not entirely sure, but definitely somewhere back in an imaginary past. Whatever the case, that way never worked for me or my family, and neither it nor my way will work for my kids. 

 

Ultimately, it just makes me achingly sad that a relationship that could be beautiful between a parent and child is reduced to a power struggle that a parent must win, and win by destroying a child’s will. What a bloody stupid waste.