Back

Children in Relation to Prayer

H.P.—It is our duty to “bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;” for so Paul commands, and so common reason dictates. Over whom can we have such influence in bringing to the way of truth? Now, it is the most elementary principle in Scriptural instruction that we are to love and fear God, and pray to Him; and we cannot teach the children godliness, without teaching them this. But you ask: how can we teach them to say “Our Father,” when God is father only to his sons, viz., those who become such by adoption through Christ? It is obvious that in the perfect sense, they cannot use these words; but there is an imperfect sense illustrated in the Scripture statement, that God is the Father of all, and the Saviour of all—(Mal. 2:10; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 4:10). In this imperfect sense, they are creatures having their existence in God, and dependent upon Him for the continuance of their being: for God giveth to all life, breath, and all things. This creature dependence is a fact which God is pleased to see recognised, as evidenced in the case of the Ninevites. This recognition will not be displeasing to the Father of all when accorded by the children of His own servants; and it will be a wholesome exercise for them. It is only when this recognition is linked with the assumption of an eternal relationship and heirship of salvation which do not exist, that the recognition in question is out of place and unacceptable. When the true position is discerned, it is far otherwise; especially in view of the standing invitation there is to our children and to all men to ascend a stage higher, and become “the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). Our children stand specially related to this invitation in so far as they are under our direct influence, and their wills are in subordination to ours. That they should consort with us in all spiritual exercises is reasonable and good, as in the case recorded in Acts: “They all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city; and we kneeled down on the shore and prayed” (21:5). There is more likely to be harm in barring off the children than in admitting them to association in spiritual things so far as their case allows. It is only in the case of strangers coming into our assemblies that there is danger of compromising the truth; and even then, the danger is due to the ascendancy of the falsehood that all men are children of God and acceptable worshippers in Christ. If there were no such view, the case would be easier. It the public recognised that they are unwashed sinners of the Gentiles, “having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12), there would be little fear of creating misunderstanding by our advances to them. But we countenance a fasehood in asking the indiscriminate public to approach God as children. Our own children, whom it is our duty to teach the knowledge of God in all its bearings, and for whom, on account of our complete control over them, we are responsible, are in a different position. We may teach them to acknowledge God as the author of their being, while leading them to discern that as regards eternal life and fellowship with God, they have no relation or hope out of Christ.—EDITOR.

Vol. 20: The Christadelphian, page 177