Christian culture has offered little support to children as they grow up and have to navigate the complexity of extended family and their family or origin as they seek to live in obedience to Christ and establish their family.
I think it’s awesome that you’re ministering to that community.
You also did a phenomenal job of shining a light on what it can really look like to “provoke” or “discourage” your children.
There’s an inherent power dynamic in play that many don’t want to acknowledge. Parents have the upper hand in the relationship and as such need to recognize the diversity of how that dynamic can cause real harm.
I offer a challenge. I've read much of your Substack and don't know your situation personally. But this post specifically made me feel something that I do have experience with.
Paul is trying to protect vulnerable dependents (children) from overbearing authorities. Engaging on social media isn’t a true conversation, nor is it a healthy place for family discourse. There is a clear power dynamic in Paul’s words that simply doesn’t apply to adults engaging on Facebook.
You’re an adult with kids of your own—a life your parents likely want to be involved with. You are actually the one with the upper hand now. You hold something they yearn for, and by your own admission, you are holding it back.
That cumulative effect you mentioned is now being enforced by you onto them. You are highly capable of crushing their thumos. They have likely thrown up their hands saying, 'What is the point of even trying?' In this modern dynamic, they are the ones experiencing the exasperation Paul was warning about.
I would also caution that by invoking God, the Bible, and a need for repentance, you are elevating your personal demands to divine mandates. You are equating your own personal conditions for a relationship with God’s conditions for a relationship. Whether intentional or not, this is a tactic often used to make others feel spiritually inadequate and guilty.
You are obviously feeling deep pain. Even digital doors being shut can feel like a profound rejection. However, please don't discount your own role in this. Your essay is filled with the language of reconciliation and boundaries, yet it ultimately demands compliance and control. You have played a role in their response, regardless of whether you agree with their methods.
If you truly want reconciliation: Set aside the clinical labels. Know the difference between boundaries and demands. Boundaries protect you; demands try to control others. A list of demands is not conducive to healing. Speak without theological debates. Speak practically about how you can begin to progress privately.
Hey Mike, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I completely agree with your conceptual point. A list of demands designed to control someone else is absolutely not conducive to healing.
I do want to ask for a gentle point of clarification: out of genuine curiosity, what list of demands are you referencing?
If you are just speaking generally about estrangement dynamics, l am in complete agreement with you. But if you are responding to my situation specifically, I would love to know where that idea came from, as it is not in the article and was never part of our situation.
Hi Ashley. The demands are outlined explicitly throughout your Substack as conditions for the relationship. A few examples:
-Demanding the family hierarchy be "Surrendered in repentance."
- Demanding the answering of your "two direct questions" before you will accept a holiday greeting.
- Demanding that a parent "be wretched and mourn and weep" with a sorrow that "levels you" before reconciliation can occur.
Framing these conditions as "biblical" boundaries doesn't change their function: they are a list of demands for compliance. I won't be debating the semantics of it further, but I do sincerely wish you and your family peace.
I think your read on this is more accurate than she’s acknowledging.
She doesn’t publish a literal list of demands, but her writing consistently establishes conditions for relationship.
Across multiple posts, the pattern is the same. Reconciliation is only possible if others accept her version of events, stop discussing the situation with anyone else, bring concerns only to her directly, and demonstrate “repentance” in the way she defines it. At the same time, normal attempts at connection such as calls, messages, holidays, or simple gestures are dismissed as invalid if those conditions have not been met first.
When access to a relationship depends on agreement, behavioral change, and alignment with one person’s framework, that is not simply a boundary. It functions as a set of demands.
That distinction matters. A boundary governs your own behavior and limits. A demand governs what others must think, say, or do in order to have access to you.
It is not about whether the word “demand” was ever used explicitly. It is about how the system operates in practice.
When the path to reconciliation is defined entirely by one side, and disagreement itself is treated as evidence of pride or wrongdoing, it stops being a mutual process and becomes conditional access.
Calling that a boundary does not change how it functions.
Michael Brearley, your comment summarized my conditions for reconciliation as asking that people stop discussing the situation behind my back, bring concerns to me directly, and demonstrate repentance. You mentioned this is “one person’s framework” and argued that calling it a boundary doesn't change its function as a demand for compliance.
But going directly to a person to resolve an offense (Matthew 18:15), refraining from gossip (Proverbs 16:28), and demonstrating repentance are not a personal framework. They are the biblical baseline for conflict resolution between believers.
Choosing to build my relationships on these principles is not elevating my personal preferences to the level of God’s, because these are standards God has already set.
You are right that function matters. The function of a demand is to force compliance and control another person’s behavior. The function of my boundary is simply to govern my own proximity. As a Christian, my choices must submit to what God requires of me. I do not demand that anyone else follow this biblical model; adults are completely free to handle conflict however they choose.
Because I leave others free to act as they wish, my choice not to participate in a rug-sweeping dynamic functions exactly as a boundary should.
I will say this, though. When professing Christians dismiss the biblical path to reconciliation as a "controlling demand," their disagreement is no longer with my boundaries. Their disagreement is with the text itself.
Ashley, no one is challenging that those verses exist or that they can guide healthy, mutual relationships. What’s being challenged is how you are defining, applying, and enforcing them.
You have required that family members “surrender” their position in repentance, that your specific questions be answered before even basic connection like a holiday greeting is acknowledged, and that others demonstrate a level of grief and sorrow that you define as sufficient before reconciliation can occur. Those are not abstract principles. They are explicit conditions
In your writing, “go directly to the person” has been expanded to mean others cannot process their experiences with anyone else or seek counsel. But scripture also says, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15:22). Seeking perspective is not rebellion. It is wisdom.
You frame nearly all outside conversation as “gossip,” yet the Bible also calls believers to “carry each other’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2) and acknowledges that “there is a time to be silent and a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:7). Not every difficult conversation about harm is sinful speech.
You emphasize repentance, but repentance in scripture is about turning from one’s own sin before God, not agreeing with another person’s interpretation of events. “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the plank in your own?” (Matthew 7:3). That standard applies in both directions.
You say people are “free” to act as they wish, but in practice any disagreement with your definitions results in loss of relationship, loss of access, and public framing that casts the other person as prideful or unrepentant. When the only path to relationship is agreement with you, that is not simply governing your own proximity. That is conditional access.
And this is where your framing breaks down in real time. When your parents step back, limit access, or block you on social media after years of this dynamic, you describe it as rejection and moral failure. But by your own logic, that is them governing their own proximity. That is a boundary.
Scripture also speaks to this. “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18) and “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). Those are mutual commands. And “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged” (Colossians 3:21) acknowledges that relational dynamics can wear someone down over time.
Disagreement with your interpretation is not disagreement with God. It is disagreement with how you are using scripture to define reality, assign fault, and determine the terms of relationship.
That is why this reads as control, even to strangers. Not because the Bible is being rejected, but because it is being applied in a way that places you as the final authority on what is true, what is sin, and what counts as repentance.
Michael Brearley, I want to note something before I respond. Your first comment argued that my conditions for reconciliation function as demands. I answered that those conditions are biblical standards God has already established. Your second comment opens by conceding that point: “No one is challenging that those verses exist or that they can guide healthy, mutual relationships.” The new argument is that the problem is my application. I’m glad to engage that, but I want you to notice that the ground shifted.
Now, to your points.
You cited Proverbs 15:22 to say that seeking counsel from others is wisdom, not gossip. Agreed. But Proverbs 15:22 does not give someone a license to spread private matters through mutual family members, extended relatives, in-laws, and church communities. Wise counsel is meant to help a person see clearly and handle a matter with truth and restraint. When private conversations get shared in ways that shape how others view or treat the person being discussed, that’s *not* counsel. Proverbs 16:28 calls it plainly: “A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.” Proverbs 26:20 says, “For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases.” The distinction between counsel and gossip has never been simply whether someone needed to talk. It is whether the speech remained private and limited, led them *to* the person they have an issue with, or whether it spread beyond what was necessary and functioned as whispering that spread strife and separated people. And the fruit of that gives us the answer.
You cited Galatians 6:2 on bearing burdens. But the verse right before it says, “If anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” *Restore.* The burden-bearing Paul has in mind is helping someone face their sin and walk through repentance. It is not circulating someone else’s private pain among people who weren’t part of the conversation.
You said repentance is about turning from sin before God, not agreeing with another person’s interpretation. I actually think that’s exactly right. If a professing believer is engaging in gossip, triangulation, and refusing to go to a person directly to resolve an offense, those aren’t matters of interpretation. Scripture speaks to each of them explicitly. Matthew 18:15 is a command. The Proverbs on gossip are not ambiguous. Asking someone to repent of things God already calls sin is not asking them to agree with a human framework. It’s asking them to respond to God. You can’t simultaneously affirm that repentance is “turning from sin before God” and then argue that no one should have to repent of behaviors God has already called sin. Those two positions cancel each other out.
You raised Matthew 7:3 about the speck and the plank, and that’s a fair standard. It applies to everyone, including me. But Matthew 7:5 finishes the thought: “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Jesus doesn’t say stop addressing the speck. He says do your own work first so you can help clearly. The question Matthew 7 raises is whether both parties have done their own examination. And absolutely, that question stands for everyone.
Now, you argued that when a parent blocks their child or cuts communication, they are “governing their own proximity,” and that this is, by the logic I’ve laid out, simply a boundary. This sounds symmetrical, but it collapses under its own weight.
Think about what the symmetry argument actually requires you to accept: if every decision to cut off communication counts equally as “a boundary” regardless of the reason behind it, then a husband who refuses to discuss his drinking and blocks his wife’s number is just “governing his proximity.” An employee who’s been confronted about embezzlement and stops returning calls is just “setting a boundary.” The logic makes accountability impossible in any relationship, because any person confronted with sin can simply withdraw and call it self-governance.
The reason behind a boundary is not irrelevant to its moral status. A boundary that says “please stop doing something Scripture calls sin so we can have a relationship” and a response that says “I will sever contact rather than engage with whether I’ve sinned” are not morally equivalent actions. One moves toward repentance and reconciliation. The other forecloses both. Calling them both “boundaries” strips the word of any moral content.
You wrote that my framing “places me as the final authority on what is true, what is sin, and what counts as repentance.” This is the most serious charge in your comment, so I want to treat it seriously. If asking someone to repent of gossip and slander makes a person “the final authority on sin,” then every pastor who preaches against gossip and slander is guilty of the same (final authority) thing. Every elder who initiates church discipline is exercising “conditional access.” Every believer who follows Matthew 18:15 and goes to a brother directly is “placing themselves as the authority on what counts as repentance.” That standard would dismantle mutual accountability entirely within the body of Christ. I don’t think you actually believe that, which means the standard is being applied selectively, and I’d invite you to consider why.
If my reading of these passages is wrong, I genuinely welcome the correction. Show me where I’ve mishandled the text. Show me where Matthew 18 doesn’t apply, or where the Proverbs on gossip mean something different than what they say. Luke 17:3 also came to mind. That’s a productive conversation, and I’d take it seriously. But asserting that someone has “made themselves the final authority” without identifying an exegetical error isn’t a theological rebuttal. It’s a way of discrediting me (the person making the argument) without engaging the argument itself.
One last thought. Your comment seems to frame this as two sides with competing interpretations, and positions the wise move as holding them in tension. I understand the appeal of that, and in many situations it would be the right call. But Scripture does not treat every relational conflict as symmetrical. Sometimes one party has sinned and needs to be called to repentance. That’s what Matthew 18 exists for, as well as Luke 17:3. The call to repentance is not an assertion of personal authority. It’s an act of love that Scripture commands believers to carry out.
If we’ve reached a point where asking a fellow believer to repent of something God calls sin gets labeled as “control,” then we’ve made repentance functionally impossible to request within the church. And that should concern *everyone* reading this, regardless of which side of this conversation they identify with.
At a certain point, this stops being a conversation and becomes a closed loop. The same concerns are raised, reframed, and returned in a way that never allows for real resolution or forward movement. I see this pattern consistently in how you respond when you’re challenged.
It’s not hard to imagine how a family could spend years trying to engage this in good faith, hoping for something to shift, and eventually reach a point of exhaustion and step back. I don’t fault them for that. I also hope, for their sake, that they are not reading this blog, because I can understand how painful that would be. You’ve mentioned your dad is a pastor, and I can only imagine how especially difficult this must be for him.
I will be praying for clarity, humility, and peace for everyone involved.
Michael Brearley, I appreciate that you’ve engaged this far. I mean that.
Being unconvinced by an argument is not the same as being unable to hear one. Every point in this thread was engaged. Every verse was answered. Correction was invited and genuinely meant. And when none of it landed, the conversation moved from what Scripture says to what’s wrong with me.
I hear the frustration in your final comment, and I know this conversation carries real grief for everyone involved. I still hope genuine reconciliation is possible someday. At the same time, reconciliation that skips over truth to get to peace is the kind Jeremiah warned about. And I care too much about the people in this story to settle for that.
This was such a beautifully balanced and graciously truthful article. Just wanted to appreciate how you shared a hard message with gentleness and Scripture. Thanks for offering this to the church as a reminder, encouragement, and challenge!
Ashley, super curious to hear your perspective and what you’ve learned about similar situations but when the parents are not Christians / followers of Christ. I have my own thoughts but I would love to hear yours!
Ashley, super curious to hear your perspective and what you’ve learned about similar situations but when the parents are not Christians / followers of Christ. I have my own thoughts but I would love to hear yours!
I love your comment about the grace to change starts by accepting the truth that we need change. I’ve learned the hard way no matter how loving I tell the truth, or point to the abounding grace and forgiveness of the gospel, I can’t force someone to stop running from truth and accept it. But if the actions from their denial (even when the harm they’re doing is obvious) continue to cause harm, firm boundaries have to be put place. For me it was removing them from social media and going no contact. God did so much healing in me and I learned a lot about soul ties when God created distance between us. It’s strange, now I hardly think about the entire situation. And it’s backwards thinking that the prodigal son only applies to children and not parents. It’s really to anyone running from God. And for many cases, that applies to parents.
Thanks for being a voice for the anointed adult children.
I have never heard this perspective before. I can tell you it is not the norm, as you have portrayed it. I know there is always more to the story. The vast majority of parents I know who are estranged were cut off abruptly. No explanation, no second chances. Done. The grandchildren they loved and who loved them are severed. Any attempts at reconciliation are one-sided (on the parents side) and immediately labeled as manipulating, narcissistic, controlling, weaponizing (especially the Faith). I would never have a social media account where I had to see my children and grandchildren living full, vibrant lives while they are dehumanizing and erasing me. I'm not really understanding what your situation is, but if your parents are saying lies, slanders, gossip, etc to others behind your back, you all need to get to a good impartial therapist who can help with healthy communication. I don't hear anything that would justify taking their grandchildren away or stopping any type of communication. This is such a sickness that has to stop before the entire family structure of our civilization crumbles. My advice? Call your mom. Meet her for coffee. Explain how hurt you have been and get her perspective. You hold all the cards. There are always two sides. Will be praying for you and your family.
Christian culture has offered little support to children as they grow up and have to navigate the complexity of extended family and their family or origin as they seek to live in obedience to Christ and establish their family.
I think it’s awesome that you’re ministering to that community.
You also did a phenomenal job of shining a light on what it can really look like to “provoke” or “discourage” your children.
There’s an inherent power dynamic in play that many don’t want to acknowledge. Parents have the upper hand in the relationship and as such need to recognize the diversity of how that dynamic can cause real harm.
Well done!
I offer a challenge. I've read much of your Substack and don't know your situation personally. But this post specifically made me feel something that I do have experience with.
Paul is trying to protect vulnerable dependents (children) from overbearing authorities. Engaging on social media isn’t a true conversation, nor is it a healthy place for family discourse. There is a clear power dynamic in Paul’s words that simply doesn’t apply to adults engaging on Facebook.
You’re an adult with kids of your own—a life your parents likely want to be involved with. You are actually the one with the upper hand now. You hold something they yearn for, and by your own admission, you are holding it back.
That cumulative effect you mentioned is now being enforced by you onto them. You are highly capable of crushing their thumos. They have likely thrown up their hands saying, 'What is the point of even trying?' In this modern dynamic, they are the ones experiencing the exasperation Paul was warning about.
I would also caution that by invoking God, the Bible, and a need for repentance, you are elevating your personal demands to divine mandates. You are equating your own personal conditions for a relationship with God’s conditions for a relationship. Whether intentional or not, this is a tactic often used to make others feel spiritually inadequate and guilty.
You are obviously feeling deep pain. Even digital doors being shut can feel like a profound rejection. However, please don't discount your own role in this. Your essay is filled with the language of reconciliation and boundaries, yet it ultimately demands compliance and control. You have played a role in their response, regardless of whether you agree with their methods.
If you truly want reconciliation: Set aside the clinical labels. Know the difference between boundaries and demands. Boundaries protect you; demands try to control others. A list of demands is not conducive to healing. Speak without theological debates. Speak practically about how you can begin to progress privately.
Wishing you healing and love.
Hey Mike, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I completely agree with your conceptual point. A list of demands designed to control someone else is absolutely not conducive to healing.
I do want to ask for a gentle point of clarification: out of genuine curiosity, what list of demands are you referencing?
If you are just speaking generally about estrangement dynamics, l am in complete agreement with you. But if you are responding to my situation specifically, I would love to know where that idea came from, as it is not in the article and was never part of our situation.
Hi Ashley. The demands are outlined explicitly throughout your Substack as conditions for the relationship. A few examples:
-Demanding the family hierarchy be "Surrendered in repentance."
- Demanding the answering of your "two direct questions" before you will accept a holiday greeting.
- Demanding that a parent "be wretched and mourn and weep" with a sorrow that "levels you" before reconciliation can occur.
Framing these conditions as "biblical" boundaries doesn't change their function: they are a list of demands for compliance. I won't be debating the semantics of it further, but I do sincerely wish you and your family peace.
I think your read on this is more accurate than she’s acknowledging.
She doesn’t publish a literal list of demands, but her writing consistently establishes conditions for relationship.
Across multiple posts, the pattern is the same. Reconciliation is only possible if others accept her version of events, stop discussing the situation with anyone else, bring concerns only to her directly, and demonstrate “repentance” in the way she defines it. At the same time, normal attempts at connection such as calls, messages, holidays, or simple gestures are dismissed as invalid if those conditions have not been met first.
When access to a relationship depends on agreement, behavioral change, and alignment with one person’s framework, that is not simply a boundary. It functions as a set of demands.
That distinction matters. A boundary governs your own behavior and limits. A demand governs what others must think, say, or do in order to have access to you.
It is not about whether the word “demand” was ever used explicitly. It is about how the system operates in practice.
When the path to reconciliation is defined entirely by one side, and disagreement itself is treated as evidence of pride or wrongdoing, it stops being a mutual process and becomes conditional access.
Calling that a boundary does not change how it functions.
Michael Brearley, your comment summarized my conditions for reconciliation as asking that people stop discussing the situation behind my back, bring concerns to me directly, and demonstrate repentance. You mentioned this is “one person’s framework” and argued that calling it a boundary doesn't change its function as a demand for compliance.
But going directly to a person to resolve an offense (Matthew 18:15), refraining from gossip (Proverbs 16:28), and demonstrating repentance are not a personal framework. They are the biblical baseline for conflict resolution between believers.
Choosing to build my relationships on these principles is not elevating my personal preferences to the level of God’s, because these are standards God has already set.
You are right that function matters. The function of a demand is to force compliance and control another person’s behavior. The function of my boundary is simply to govern my own proximity. As a Christian, my choices must submit to what God requires of me. I do not demand that anyone else follow this biblical model; adults are completely free to handle conflict however they choose.
Because I leave others free to act as they wish, my choice not to participate in a rug-sweeping dynamic functions exactly as a boundary should.
I will say this, though. When professing Christians dismiss the biblical path to reconciliation as a "controlling demand," their disagreement is no longer with my boundaries. Their disagreement is with the text itself.
Ashley, no one is challenging that those verses exist or that they can guide healthy, mutual relationships. What’s being challenged is how you are defining, applying, and enforcing them.
You have required that family members “surrender” their position in repentance, that your specific questions be answered before even basic connection like a holiday greeting is acknowledged, and that others demonstrate a level of grief and sorrow that you define as sufficient before reconciliation can occur. Those are not abstract principles. They are explicit conditions
In your writing, “go directly to the person” has been expanded to mean others cannot process their experiences with anyone else or seek counsel. But scripture also says, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15:22). Seeking perspective is not rebellion. It is wisdom.
You frame nearly all outside conversation as “gossip,” yet the Bible also calls believers to “carry each other’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2) and acknowledges that “there is a time to be silent and a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:7). Not every difficult conversation about harm is sinful speech.
You emphasize repentance, but repentance in scripture is about turning from one’s own sin before God, not agreeing with another person’s interpretation of events. “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the plank in your own?” (Matthew 7:3). That standard applies in both directions.
You say people are “free” to act as they wish, but in practice any disagreement with your definitions results in loss of relationship, loss of access, and public framing that casts the other person as prideful or unrepentant. When the only path to relationship is agreement with you, that is not simply governing your own proximity. That is conditional access.
And this is where your framing breaks down in real time. When your parents step back, limit access, or block you on social media after years of this dynamic, you describe it as rejection and moral failure. But by your own logic, that is them governing their own proximity. That is a boundary.
Scripture also speaks to this. “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18) and “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). Those are mutual commands. And “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged” (Colossians 3:21) acknowledges that relational dynamics can wear someone down over time.
Disagreement with your interpretation is not disagreement with God. It is disagreement with how you are using scripture to define reality, assign fault, and determine the terms of relationship.
That is why this reads as control, even to strangers. Not because the Bible is being rejected, but because it is being applied in a way that places you as the final authority on what is true, what is sin, and what counts as repentance.
Michael Brearley, I want to note something before I respond. Your first comment argued that my conditions for reconciliation function as demands. I answered that those conditions are biblical standards God has already established. Your second comment opens by conceding that point: “No one is challenging that those verses exist or that they can guide healthy, mutual relationships.” The new argument is that the problem is my application. I’m glad to engage that, but I want you to notice that the ground shifted.
Now, to your points.
You cited Proverbs 15:22 to say that seeking counsel from others is wisdom, not gossip. Agreed. But Proverbs 15:22 does not give someone a license to spread private matters through mutual family members, extended relatives, in-laws, and church communities. Wise counsel is meant to help a person see clearly and handle a matter with truth and restraint. When private conversations get shared in ways that shape how others view or treat the person being discussed, that’s *not* counsel. Proverbs 16:28 calls it plainly: “A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.” Proverbs 26:20 says, “For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases.” The distinction between counsel and gossip has never been simply whether someone needed to talk. It is whether the speech remained private and limited, led them *to* the person they have an issue with, or whether it spread beyond what was necessary and functioned as whispering that spread strife and separated people. And the fruit of that gives us the answer.
You cited Galatians 6:2 on bearing burdens. But the verse right before it says, “If anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” *Restore.* The burden-bearing Paul has in mind is helping someone face their sin and walk through repentance. It is not circulating someone else’s private pain among people who weren’t part of the conversation.
You said repentance is about turning from sin before God, not agreeing with another person’s interpretation. I actually think that’s exactly right. If a professing believer is engaging in gossip, triangulation, and refusing to go to a person directly to resolve an offense, those aren’t matters of interpretation. Scripture speaks to each of them explicitly. Matthew 18:15 is a command. The Proverbs on gossip are not ambiguous. Asking someone to repent of things God already calls sin is not asking them to agree with a human framework. It’s asking them to respond to God. You can’t simultaneously affirm that repentance is “turning from sin before God” and then argue that no one should have to repent of behaviors God has already called sin. Those two positions cancel each other out.
You raised Matthew 7:3 about the speck and the plank, and that’s a fair standard. It applies to everyone, including me. But Matthew 7:5 finishes the thought: “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Jesus doesn’t say stop addressing the speck. He says do your own work first so you can help clearly. The question Matthew 7 raises is whether both parties have done their own examination. And absolutely, that question stands for everyone.
Now, you argued that when a parent blocks their child or cuts communication, they are “governing their own proximity,” and that this is, by the logic I’ve laid out, simply a boundary. This sounds symmetrical, but it collapses under its own weight.
Think about what the symmetry argument actually requires you to accept: if every decision to cut off communication counts equally as “a boundary” regardless of the reason behind it, then a husband who refuses to discuss his drinking and blocks his wife’s number is just “governing his proximity.” An employee who’s been confronted about embezzlement and stops returning calls is just “setting a boundary.” The logic makes accountability impossible in any relationship, because any person confronted with sin can simply withdraw and call it self-governance.
The reason behind a boundary is not irrelevant to its moral status. A boundary that says “please stop doing something Scripture calls sin so we can have a relationship” and a response that says “I will sever contact rather than engage with whether I’ve sinned” are not morally equivalent actions. One moves toward repentance and reconciliation. The other forecloses both. Calling them both “boundaries” strips the word of any moral content.
You wrote that my framing “places me as the final authority on what is true, what is sin, and what counts as repentance.” This is the most serious charge in your comment, so I want to treat it seriously. If asking someone to repent of gossip and slander makes a person “the final authority on sin,” then every pastor who preaches against gossip and slander is guilty of the same (final authority) thing. Every elder who initiates church discipline is exercising “conditional access.” Every believer who follows Matthew 18:15 and goes to a brother directly is “placing themselves as the authority on what counts as repentance.” That standard would dismantle mutual accountability entirely within the body of Christ. I don’t think you actually believe that, which means the standard is being applied selectively, and I’d invite you to consider why.
If my reading of these passages is wrong, I genuinely welcome the correction. Show me where I’ve mishandled the text. Show me where Matthew 18 doesn’t apply, or where the Proverbs on gossip mean something different than what they say. Luke 17:3 also came to mind. That’s a productive conversation, and I’d take it seriously. But asserting that someone has “made themselves the final authority” without identifying an exegetical error isn’t a theological rebuttal. It’s a way of discrediting me (the person making the argument) without engaging the argument itself.
One last thought. Your comment seems to frame this as two sides with competing interpretations, and positions the wise move as holding them in tension. I understand the appeal of that, and in many situations it would be the right call. But Scripture does not treat every relational conflict as symmetrical. Sometimes one party has sinned and needs to be called to repentance. That’s what Matthew 18 exists for, as well as Luke 17:3. The call to repentance is not an assertion of personal authority. It’s an act of love that Scripture commands believers to carry out.
If we’ve reached a point where asking a fellow believer to repent of something God calls sin gets labeled as “control,” then we’ve made repentance functionally impossible to request within the church. And that should concern *everyone* reading this, regardless of which side of this conversation they identify with.
At a certain point, this stops being a conversation and becomes a closed loop. The same concerns are raised, reframed, and returned in a way that never allows for real resolution or forward movement. I see this pattern consistently in how you respond when you’re challenged.
It’s not hard to imagine how a family could spend years trying to engage this in good faith, hoping for something to shift, and eventually reach a point of exhaustion and step back. I don’t fault them for that. I also hope, for their sake, that they are not reading this blog, because I can understand how painful that would be. You’ve mentioned your dad is a pastor, and I can only imagine how especially difficult this must be for him.
I will be praying for clarity, humility, and peace for everyone involved.
Michael Brearley, I appreciate that you’ve engaged this far. I mean that.
Being unconvinced by an argument is not the same as being unable to hear one. Every point in this thread was engaged. Every verse was answered. Correction was invited and genuinely meant. And when none of it landed, the conversation moved from what Scripture says to what’s wrong with me.
I hear the frustration in your final comment, and I know this conversation carries real grief for everyone involved. I still hope genuine reconciliation is possible someday. At the same time, reconciliation that skips over truth to get to peace is the kind Jeremiah warned about. And I care too much about the people in this story to settle for that.
You’re right, these are circumstances it’s rare to find real advice for. I’m glad you’re writing about it.
This was such a beautifully balanced and graciously truthful article. Just wanted to appreciate how you shared a hard message with gentleness and Scripture. Thanks for offering this to the church as a reminder, encouragement, and challenge!
Ashley, super curious to hear your perspective and what you’ve learned about similar situations but when the parents are not Christians / followers of Christ. I have my own thoughts but I would love to hear yours!
Ashley, super curious to hear your perspective and what you’ve learned about similar situations but when the parents are not Christians / followers of Christ. I have my own thoughts but I would love to hear yours!
I love your comment about the grace to change starts by accepting the truth that we need change. I’ve learned the hard way no matter how loving I tell the truth, or point to the abounding grace and forgiveness of the gospel, I can’t force someone to stop running from truth and accept it. But if the actions from their denial (even when the harm they’re doing is obvious) continue to cause harm, firm boundaries have to be put place. For me it was removing them from social media and going no contact. God did so much healing in me and I learned a lot about soul ties when God created distance between us. It’s strange, now I hardly think about the entire situation. And it’s backwards thinking that the prodigal son only applies to children and not parents. It’s really to anyone running from God. And for many cases, that applies to parents.
Thanks for being a voice for the anointed adult children.
I have never heard this perspective before. I can tell you it is not the norm, as you have portrayed it. I know there is always more to the story. The vast majority of parents I know who are estranged were cut off abruptly. No explanation, no second chances. Done. The grandchildren they loved and who loved them are severed. Any attempts at reconciliation are one-sided (on the parents side) and immediately labeled as manipulating, narcissistic, controlling, weaponizing (especially the Faith). I would never have a social media account where I had to see my children and grandchildren living full, vibrant lives while they are dehumanizing and erasing me. I'm not really understanding what your situation is, but if your parents are saying lies, slanders, gossip, etc to others behind your back, you all need to get to a good impartial therapist who can help with healthy communication. I don't hear anything that would justify taking their grandchildren away or stopping any type of communication. This is such a sickness that has to stop before the entire family structure of our civilization crumbles. My advice? Call your mom. Meet her for coffee. Explain how hurt you have been and get her perspective. You hold all the cards. There are always two sides. Will be praying for you and your family.