The Age of 'No Limits'
gentle parenting, existentialism, and Richard Rohr
Here’s an opinion that will probably get me run out of Seattle: I’m not a fan of “gentle parenting.” In theory, it should be great—yes to gentleness, yes to empathy, yes to natural consequences and clear boundaries. But in my experience, most of the time gentle parenting breaks down to “no limits parenting.” It’s parents pleading with toddlers to leave the playground, it’s no bedtimes, it’s kids hitting other kids or (even adults) with no consequences. And yes, #NotAllGentleParents, for sure, but this trend feels of a piece with something else I’ve observed in my peers—the idea that saying “no” or enforcing consequences is “being mean” rather than a vital part of raising a human.
I’m sympathetic to parents’ confusion—hell, I share it. We’re living in a time of rapidly shifting social mores. We’re questioning our history, identity, religion, and morality. In many ways, our current political divide can be explained by those who want to maintain older, top-down ideas about morality and patriotism versus those who are questioning these paradigms and exploring new (perhaps multicultural) ideals.
Take the institution of marriage as an example. Despite Conservative claims, it has changed significantly since Biblical times. We no longer practice polygamy; we no longer view marriage as primarily an engine for cementing tribal alliances. The idea of marrying for love only really became predominant during the Victorian Era. In Biblical times, it would’ve made no sense to conceive of something called “gay marriage” because marriage wasn’t about love. It only makes sense in our modern era where marriage is primarily about romance, personal fulfillment, and (sometimes) raising children.
One thing that hasn’t changed about marriage is the stated goal of sexual fidelity, even if it has been one-sided or not well-adhered to. But recently the concept of “open” marriages has increased in popularity. I am sympathetic to the argument that consenting adults are free to enter into whatever arrangements suit all parties, but I do wonder how many components of an idea like marriage we can strip away before it ceases to make sense as a category.
Is it time for new structures/categories? After all, who gets to decide how we define “marriage”? Or, to go back to parenting, who defines “good behavior”? Is it all arbitrary? And if it is arbitrary, why should we maintain sexual fidelity? Why shouldn’t we let a five-year-old decide whether or not they go to school? Who is the authority on such matters? Does one even exist?
Many Christians, following on from C.S. Lewis, would argue for a universal moral law which is understood across cultures and divinely given. Existentialists, on the other hand, argue that there is no ultimate purpose for humans and therefore, we aren’t bound by any sort of morality, but are free to choose whatever action we wish. Society seems stuck between these two views at the moment, in addition to being caught up in the eternal struggle between honoring our own needs and the needs of those around us.
This struggle is familiar to Father Richard Rohr. In his compelling book on spiritual maturity, Falling Upward, he argues for a “creative tension” between restriction and freedom. Maturity, he argues, requires rules and limits (even arbitrary ones) in order to develop. Writes Rohr:
“Without law in some form, and also without butting up against that law, we cannot move forward easily and naturally. The rebellions of two-year-olds and teenagers are in our hardwiring, and we have to have something hard and half-good to rebel against. We need a worthy opponent against which we test our mettle…
The first half-of-life…is constructed through impulse controls; traditions; group symbols; family loyalties; basic respect for authority; civil and church laws; and a sense of the goodness, value, and special importance of our country, ethnicity, and religion.”
Basically, Rohr is saying that the first task of learning maturity is to learn submission to limits and authority. Then, paradoxically, he says we can move beyond these categories to seeing more universally. Our own egos must be subdued before we can let go of legalism and move from black-and-white to seeing shades of gray, from strictness to mercy. Rohr argues you can’t shortcut this kind of growth—that parents must provide both gentle nurturance and tough love to reach maturity.
I don’t claim to have this figured out. I waffle between being too lenient and too strict with my kids regularly, and in my seventeen years of marriage, I’ve both chafed at the restrictions of the institution and cherished the special exclusivity it creates.
And maybe that’s just it—limits are meant to be bumped up against, meant to be failed at. If everything worth having is worth struggling for, limits provide a scaffolding for that struggle. In disciplining us, they make us stronger.
BONUS MATERIALS:
Just watch this, no explanation needed
Great post. As a Christian, I never understood why other Christians were so opposed to gay marriage. I was taught that the institution of marriage was a spiritual union under God. So it stands to reason in my mind that for anyone who wasn’t part of a faith tradition, marriage was merely a civil union whether gay or straight. I could never figure out why Christians were so mad about gay people getting married but not “unbelievers” getting married. If it’s about making a mockery of a sacred tradition, shouldn’t they be mad about EVERYONE doing it?!
I really appreciate this commentary on marriage and relationships (whether between adults in a romantic relationship or parent/children, etc.). While T and I were married in a fabulous ceremony, surrounded by our friends and family, we didn't do it because it was legal, we did it to celebrate love and commitment with people we love. Now, does it help that we get tax breaks because we're married and we can benefit from one another's health insurance, etc? Yep. People are distracted in thinking that marriage is simply a social contract for money and property, it can't define a person's relationship. But damn, I do appreciate not being seen as different in the eyes of the law cause those tax benefits are sweet for a pastor who isn't making bank.