Chapter 4: The Promises of Religious Authoritarian Parenting
What did Religious Authoritarian Parenting experts promise? And when do the children who grew up in such homes get to talk honestly about their experience?
STRONGWILLED is a reader-supported publication. Once a month we will be posting a chapter that is for paid subscribers only. Today’s post will give readers a chance to reflect on what RAP experts promised — and what the reality the experienced was like. We thank everyone for the support — and the 1,100 subscribers!
“This book is intended to help parents and teachers raise self-confident, healthy children.”-James Dobson, Hide or Seek1
“...that degree of order and obedience brings peace and security to the children thus trained.” -Michael and Debi Pearl, To Train Up a Child2
“Your assignment is to brand an image of your daughter as a happy, disciplined, and complete woman in your mind. Then create a swift, painful and fair discipline that successfully gets to that destination.”-Robert Wolgemuth, She Calls me Daddy3
Chapter 4: The Promises of Religious Authoritarian Parenting
Politics alone couldn’t sell parents on the religious authoritarian methods of childrearing. Authors assured parents that these methods were in the best interest of their children, selling their approach on the idea that children would feel peaceful and safe at home when they knew who the real authority was. They promised that kids would grow into emotionally healthy adults who felt confident in themselves and had a sense of emotional security. They predicted that as children left home, they would feel naturally drawn to spend time with their parents (rather than driven by fear or obligation). They taught that their authoritarian parenting methods must lead to healthy, whole, developed humans—because these methods were allegedly instituted by God.
Painting pictures of well-adjusted, emotionally secure children, authors like Dobson, the Lahayes, and others made specific claims about the healthy outcomes of their parenting methods. They promised parents that they would raise children with “self-esteem and…. a sense of direction for their lives.4” Parents were told that their children would develop self-confidence5. They claimed that using these methods would form happy6 and balanced adults and a sense of freedom7.
They assured parents of the positive outcomes for family relationships, including a close-knit family8, a relationship absent of resentment as the children became adults9, and adult children who inherently respected their parents’ views10. They painted a rosy picture of a family where children had high self-esteem and felt loved; where children grow up to be adults who feel safe and comfortable around their aging parents.
In direct opposition to these glowing promises, voices outside of white evangelicalism were warning that these parenting methods would cause psychological and social injuries. For example, as Dr. Dobson’s parenting approach was gaining popularity, there were psychologists, theologians, and child-welfare advocates who were warning parents (and society at large) that there would be a psychological cost to this type of parenting. They believed that children were being harmed and that there was a real danger of abuse occurring within these systems.
In 1990, a group in southern Minnesota drew national attention when they attempted to remove Dobson’s books from the school system due to his promotion of corporal punishment11. That same year Joyce Johnson of the Child Welfare League accused Dobson of holding an outdated approach from "20 to 30 years ago that said children were the property of their parents." Dobson also received criticism from Arthur Bodin, who at one time was the head of the Family Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association. Bodin told the Washington Post that Dobson’s approach was ineffective and could lead to rebellion and backlash12. The religious authoritarian movement even drew criticism from other Christians: Donald Capps, a professor of pastoral theology at Princeton University critiqued Dobson and other religious parenting authors, categorizing their methods as child abuse13.
Perhaps the most in-depth critique was a book titled Spare the Child by historian Philip Greven in 1990, a Rutgers professor who was fascinated with (and appalled by) the US’s history of childhood corporal punishment rooted in religious fundamentalism. He believed it wrought dire psychological circumstances for individuals in society, while also shaping our politics. He wrote “we must ask ourselves how the pain of punishment in childhood affects our innermost selves, our feelings and personalities... and about the ways in which the coercive domination so many children experience becomes the authoritarianism that pervades American life and politics14.” He specifically named James Dobson, Beverly Lahaye and Billy Graham, among others, as current-day culprits in promoting these parenting approaches, and called for a new, emotionally healthier way of parenting.
However, there wasn’t much evidence about the long-term outcomes of this type of parenting at the time. Would religious authoritarian parenting methods raise adults who were emotionally secure, happy, disciplined and grounded as promised? Would it foster a culture of mutual respect between parents and children? Would it create a family dynamic where adult children were naturally drawn to spend time with their parents? Authors like Dobson, the Lahayes, Webber and others told parents to hold out hope that they would see the good fruits of this style of parenting, as their children grew into adolescence and beyond. And only time would tell. Would the children who grew up under these methods come out as well-adjusted adults—or would they emerge with psychological scars?
Who Was Right?
Now, it’s been over half a century since Dr. James Dobson's book, Dare to Discipline, was published in 1970, sparking the religious authoritarian movement in Christian publishing. It was conjecture back then. But over half a century since parents started using these techniques, the kids who grew up in this movement are in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. Now is a great time to turn to the generations who grew up under this type of parenting and ask: was it helpful or harmful?