Is the family 'under attack'?

[Billy Cox]

A refrain that I hear frequently in Christian circles is that the (traditional) family is under attack.

Questions that arise in my mind:

1. Who/what is attacking the family?

2. What is the nature of the attack?

3. What if anything should the Church do about it?

4. What has been the outcome of past and/or present responses?

[David Graham]

I would rephrase the statement by saying that the "Place of the traditional family unit as normative" within the society is under threat. In such a scenario I would answer your questions as following:
1. Other philosophies/concepts of "family" are challenging the "primacy" of the traditional family unit within western society.
2. It is an attack of ideas and values
3. Preach the gospel in word and deed (Christ has given us a mandate to do that), oh, and to pray!
4. Widely varied for good and bad, depending upon what your philosophical/theological perspective on the meaning of "family".

[Chris Yates]

1. Who/what is attacking the family?

I'm fairly certain that this refers to the role of women in the family. We've gone too far in letting women work outside of the home and it's caused irreparable damage to the fabric of society.

2. What is the nature of the attack?

It's an insidious plot by the liberals to destroy the God given role of the man to be the head of the household and sole provider.

3. What if anything should the Church do about it?

Preach that women should not speak in church, have leadership over men, and wear headcoverings in public. It's pretty clear in the word... :P

4. What has been the outcome of past and/or present responses?

Well - the perpetuation of a male dominated clergy and family structure of course!

Sarcacm aside, I believe this particular topic has caused a considerable amount of misdirection of effort and resources, and has been a general waste of the Church's time... Until we have a graceful, practical way to respond to the inevitable changes in society (women working, geographic decentralization, etc), we will simply be that "sounding gong and clanging cymbal". The "attack on the family" is no different than the "liberal agenda". It's a convenient way to anthropomorphize societal change into something we can label, name, and then fight and tear down.

The example I used, of women working outside of the home, has a number of very complex and intertwined reasons, which I'm not entirely qualified to elaborate on). Suffice it to say that to assign a "good" or "bad" value on that particular change is really missing the point. It simply IS... We can discuss its effects, and understand the reasoning, but it's not as simple as a binary evaluation of either good or bad. We need to respond to "What does it mean to be Christian?" in the new societal context where _____________. (Insert your favorite attack on family values issue here - women working outside the home, no prayer in schools, birth control, homosexual accaptance, etc)

So in short, it's my opinion that the "war on the family" that's been happening for nearly 30 years (according to Dr. Dobson) has either been a hopeless loss, or was never really a war at all... (Quixotic beating of the windmills and all... )

I think what the church lacks is a view of the Christian family that is substantially different than the one presented by society at large. The Mormons have us beat in this area for sure - we could take some cues from them about how to be family in the midst of the rapidly changing cultural and societal landscape we find ourselves in.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I wanted to respond to the questions but Chris beat me to it and said it so much better than I could have. Thank you Chris.

The whole family values, attack on the family bit is a political agenda and doesn't really exist. A contrivance designed to manipulate the voting populace by creating yet another fear taps right into the fusion of conservative politics with Christian faith, a form of idolatry.

[Sarah Smith]

I do believe the family is "under attack" but not from the usually spouted culprits.

I do believe that greed, selfishness, and laziness are being welcomed into many families, and that results in fractured families.

edited to add: I've lived among the Mormons and see nothing good in their concept of family. Ick.

[Andy Mistak]

I do believe the family is "under attack" but not from the usually spouted culprits.

I do believe that greed, selfishness, and laziness are being welcomed into many families, and that results in fractured families.

I definetely agree.

These forces are active in every relationship, not just family relationships, so I wonder if we can say that the family is in more urgent danger than any other category of relationships today?

[Benjamin Burch]

The "family" as a category is not and cannot be under attack. Nor can anyone's definition of it. A certain idea of family as the norm may be changing, and may even be "under attack" but we should be honest enough to state that this in no way attacks my individual family, those who desire to have a certain concept of the family, nor our ability to have such a mindset and practice it.

The whole idea of "The Family is under attack" is ridiculous. Certain ideas of the family may be losing out and it may be a good thing to retain them. But that is very different.

[Billy Cox]

I wanted to respond to the questions but Chris beat me to it and said it so much better than I could have. Thank you Chris.

The whole family values, attack on the family bit is a political agenda and doesn't really exist. A contrivance designed to manipulate the voting populace by creating yet another fear taps right into the fusion of conservative politics with Christian faith, a form of idolatry.

I think that in large part, the 'family in crisis' narrative is shorthand for discomfort with the changing role of women, though I'm not sure that it is as simple as a conservative political agenda. If there is an agenda, what is the goal or desired political outcome?

[Susan Unger]

I do believe the family is "under attack" but not from the usually spouted culprits.

I do believe that greed, selfishness, and laziness are being welcomed into many families, and that results in fractured families.

edited to add: I've lived among the Mormons and see nothing good in their concept of family. Ick.

My dad's family is dysfunctional, many of my friends where I used to live came from highly dysfunctional families and have read many stories of misogyny in families. I would say that the family has been under attack for millenia and for reasons such as you've mentioned above.

[Jim Chabot]

I wanted to respond to the questions but Chris beat me to it and said it so much better than I could have. Thank you Chris.

The whole family values, attack on the family bit is a political agenda and doesn't really exist. A contrivance designed to manipulate the voting populace by creating yet another fear taps right into the fusion of conservative politics with Christian faith, a form of idolatry.

All well and good, if one is a liberal then they should have no cause to fear. Excepting for one thing. The thing is that whenever one allows for greater government oversight and control, one should count the cost. One should stop and think, "how would this control and oversight be exercised in the hand of those whom I disagree with the most?" Now I realize that is a ridiculous question on its face, because conservatives have no interest in government control of legitimate family function and rule. But you can't completely rule this out and compassion would dictate that you stop and think of how this affects those who would suffer under the rule of those who disagree so much with them.

Here is a case heard in Washington State under a law that was eventually repealed. Look carefully at the burden of finding and ask yourself two questions. Would you agree that it is reasonable that you child could run away for the express purpose of seeking alternate residential placement. And remember this is as simple as to approach a law enforcement officer and ask. Now for the second question. Once your child has obtained a separation from you, there will be a hearing to determine the outcome of family unit cohesion. Sitting on a three judge panel will be myself, Jim Franklin and Sarah Palin. I would be quite comfortable with that panel, how about you?

http://www.martinlegalservices.com/s...ie%20Sumey.pdf

I for one am very grateful for those on the front lines fighting government intrusion into the family, and into the free exercise of my religion. I am glad that there are Nazarenes also involved. We will be attending the showing of a film titled "The Child" on the ninth of January at the Uxbridge Church of the Nazarene, and I am glad that they are speaking out on this issue.

[Tim Bourland]

conservatives have no interest in government control of legitimate family function and rule.

"Liberals" don't either.

[Paul DeBaufer]

All well and good, if one is a liberal then they should have no cause to fear. Excepting for one thing. The thing is that whenever one allows for greater government oversight and control, one should count the cost. One should stop and think, "how would this control and oversight be exercised in the hand of those whom I disagree with the most?" Now I realize that is a ridiculous question on its face, because conservatives have no interest in government control of legitimate family function and rule. But you can't completely rule this out and compassion would dictate that you stop and think of how this affects those who would suffer under the rule of those who disagree so much with them.

Here is a case heard in Washington State under a law that was eventually repealed. Look carefully at the burden of finding and ask yourself two questions. Would you agree that it is reasonable that you child could run away for the express purpose of seeking alternate residential placement. And remember this is as simple as to approach a law enforcement officer and ask. Now for the second question. Once your child has obtained a separation from you, there will be a hearing to determine the outcome of family unit cohesion. Sitting on a three judge panel will be myself, Jim Franklin and Sarah Palin. I would be quite comfortable with that panel, how about you?

http://www.martinlegalservices.com/s...ie%20Sumey.pdf

I for one am very grateful for those on the front lines fighting government intrusion into the family, and into the free exercise of my religion. I am glad that there are Nazarenes also involved. We will be attending the showing of a film titled "The Child" on the ninth of January at the Uxbridge Church of the Nazarene, and I am glad that they are speaking out on this issue.

So the "family values" "family under attack" has exploited and tapped into your fears through your political opinions. Then you must be in the target audience for said manipulative technique. And are proof that it works as intended as yo are an intelligent and well informed member of the voting populace.

Oh, by the way I have no problem with you of Jim Franklin sitting as judges hearing a ridiculous law as the one you mention. And lets face it "liberals" are not the only ones guilty of making ridiculously stupid laws that's why we have the appeals system and the Supreme Court, because politicians can't be trusted to make sensible laws, sycophants that they all are.

[Tami Martin]

All well and good, if one is a liberal then they should have no cause to fear. Excepting for one thing. The thing is that whenever one allows for greater government oversight and control, one should count the cost. One should stop and think, "how would this control and oversight be exercised in the hand of those whom I disagree with the most?" Now I realize that is a ridiculous question on its face, because conservatives have no interest in government control of legitimate family function and rule. But you can't completely rule this out and compassion would dictate that you stop and think of how this affects those who would suffer under the rule of those who disagree so much with them.

Here is a case heard in Washington State under a law that was eventually repealed. Look carefully at the burden of finding and ask yourself two questions. Would you agree that it is reasonable that you child could run away for the express purpose of seeking alternate residential placement. And remember this is as simple as to approach a law enforcement officer and ask. Now for the second question. Once your child has obtained a separation from you, there will be a hearing to determine the outcome of family unit cohesion. Sitting on a three judge panel will be myself, Jim Franklin and Sarah Palin. I would be quite comfortable with that panel, how about you?

http://www.martinlegalservices.com/s...ie%20Sumey.pdf

I for one am very grateful for those on the front lines fighting government intrusion into the family, and into the free exercise of my religion. I am glad that there are Nazarenes also involved. We will be attending the showing of a film titled "The Child" on the ninth of January at the Uxbridge Church of the Nazarene, and I am glad that they are speaking out on this issue.

I read through the first part of the link, Jim, then stopped because what I was reading is part and parcel of my daily grind. From reading your post before the article, I assumed that the parents were blameless Good People who had been burdened by a Horrible Child. Or that Someone Else had come in and corrupted the Innocent Child (probably a homosexual - all the PSA's of the 60's assure me that this is what They intend).

However, what I found was a family in crisis where likely the parents were as much - if not more - at fault. I read between the lines and found parents who failed at their job of parenting from the earliest stages and are now reaping the whirlwind. I suspect that the non-licensed home she moved into was a friend or relative who was not already a licensed foster home. That's the only strange part. The rest of it is stuff we deal with every day. Parents get surprised that their kids have a mind of their own and after a certain point, don't want to deal with the crappy parenting. Now, certainly it's possible that the daughter has her share of blame. But I know there's plenty to go around. That's what we as a society have decided is in the best interest of society as a whole. If you can't take care of your children - we'll do it for you, at your expense.

edited to add:
I found this quote especially interesting:

The legislature has specifically “declare(d) that the family unit is a fundamental resource of
American life which should be nurtured” and that accordingly, “the family unit should remain intact in the
absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.”

[Mike Schutz]

I'm going to do something I hardly ever (maybe never) do - defend James Dobson.

He has a point.

For those of us who spend most of our time with children and teens and their families, the anecdotal evidence we see every day is that MANY of our children are being raised in horrible environments. There is a relationship between the physical and emotional health of children and teens, and whether or not the following factors are present in their life:
1. They are being raised by two parents who are married and living together,
2. The parents completed high school or more education before they had children,
3. The father is significantly involved in their lives.

Are there exceptions? Of course. Are there successful families who do not fit this model? Absolutely. Are there "traditional" families who are dysfunctional? Yep, and we see those as well.

Teens tell us that:
*When he is at his dad's house he doesn't eat breakfast because there is no food there,
*She can't find her sheet music because mom's boyfriend went into a rage and trashed the apartment,
*He can't perform at the concert because he has to take care of his six siblings, as mom is always drunk and dad is gone,
*Her picture cannot go on the band poster because her mom's boyfriend - who molested her and her sisters - is getting out of jail soon, and they are in hiding,
*His mom took away his guitar, because her boyfriend doesn't like the "noise,"
*His dad won't be there to hear him sing his senior spotlight solo, because dad's girlfriend thinks it is a "waste of time."

Our preschool has a constant stream of paperwork dealing with restraining orders, custody battles, and divorce decrees, and the kids are being used by parents as weapons to hurt one another.

So, James Dobson has a point. It is better for a child is to be raised in a healthy, functional, two-parent family. Can a child overcome a dysfunctional family? Yes, some can. Can a single parent do a wonderful job as a parent? Yes. Do some traditional families fail to provide healthy environments for raising children? Of course.

James Dobson goes too far, in my opinion, in connecting healthy families with a certain type of family dynamic, and with a certain type of cultural dynamic.

Is the family under attack? Yes. The attack is by the enemy of our souls. Sin, and the selfishness of parents who put their happiness above the welfare of their children (and there are certainly cultural dynamics that encourage this) have led to a crisis for our children.

[Glenn Messer]

Mike, this thread could end with what you have posted. Excellent!

Of course, it won't end there because I have already posted after you.

[Pete Vecchi]

OK, I'll add to it then...

Mike's list from Dr. Dobson is a great ideal. But we live in a world that is far from ideal. The bottom line answer to the question of whether or not the family is under attack is "Yes." That's because society doesn't live by that norm anymore (although it once did--at least in theory).

The question then becomes, what should the church do to minister to these non-traditional families in this culture?

Let's even more narrowly define a "traditional" family as one that currently includes one or more children living in the home of their biological mother and father, who are married to each other in each of their first marriages. This means that there are no "step children" in the picture, and this means that this does not include "empty nesters" or married couples who have no children.

I realize that this is a VERY narrow definition of "traditional" family, but using that definition, I want to ask people to consider this question: What percentage of people who have come through your local congregation's doors in the past 2 months have met that narrow definition?

I can answer that for our congregation. The percentage is zero.

[Tami Martin]

How far back are we going to establish what is traditional?

It seems strange to me to go back 60 or 70 years. Especially in light of the fact that we're all looking for some spiritual, godly or Biblical directions. If we were to go back that far, back to early biblical times, what did the "traditional" family look like - and do we want to try to replicate it?

[Jim Chabot]

How far back are we going to establish what is traditional?

It seems strange to me to go back 60 or 70 years. Especially in light of the fact that we're all looking for some spiritual, godly or Biblical directions. If we were to go back that far, back to early biblical times, what did the "traditional" family look like - and do we want to try to replicate it?

Well we certainly don't want to continue in the spiral of utter failure we have seen transpire since the sixties. As Janis Joplin once sang "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

Yes we absolutely should be looking to replicate that which we have lost. Mike Shutz recounting of some of the sad tales he has heard turned my stomach with sadness and despair. The thought that parents cannot remain monogamous and together when there are children involved is nothing short of sick. Innocent children do not deserve the mess we have turned society into.

[Jim Chabot]

So the "family values" "family under attack" has exploited and tapped into your fears through your political opinions. Then you must be in the target audience for said manipulative technique. And are proof that it works as intended as yo are an intelligent and well informed member of the voting populace.

Oh, by the way I have no problem with you of Jim Franklin sitting as judges hearing a ridiculous law as the one you mention. And lets face it "liberals" are not the only ones guilty of making ridiculously stupid laws that's why we have the appeals system and the Supreme Court, because politicians can't be trusted to make sensible laws, sycophants that they all are.

I'm glad that you did see this law as ridiculous. To think that they would allow a child to arbitrarily decide out of a family in such a cavalier fashion is deplorable, I'm glad that they saw fit to repeal this. No one has exploited my fears. To think that a law such as this could have actually been put in place is proof that our politicians are no friends of the family.

[Jim Chabot]

"Liberals" don't either.

Really? Then who passes the laws that increase the governments interference into our families? Who passes the budgets that increase our social services spending, using our own money against us?

[Tami Martin]

Who passes the budgets that increase our social services spending, using our own money against us?

Let me wholeheartedly affirm this - NO ONE increases social service spending. NO ONE. I don't want to have to say when I last got a raise.

[Tami Martin]

To think that they would allow a child to arbitrarily decide out of a family in such a cavalier fashion

did we read the same article?

Let me guess. In your hypothetical household, no matter how awful, ineffective or abusive the parenting, the child should always submit to the authority of their parents.

[Tami Martin]

Well we certainly don't want to continue in the spiral of utter failure we have seen transpire since the sixties. As Janis Joplin once sang "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

Yes we absolutely should be looking to replicate that which we have lost. Mike Shutz recounting of some of the sad tales he has heard turned my stomach with sadness and despair. The thought that parents cannot remain monogamous and together when there are children involved is nothing short of sick. Innocent children do not deserve the mess we have turned society into.

Well, hmmmm

It was traditional in my family to have dinner together. In the last five or six years, through chaos that I admit I had a part in creating, we've lost that. I would LOVE to go back to that and am working toward it.

But then it wasn't that long ago that it was traditional for family units to live together. And when I say family unit, I'm thinking Father Abraham, not mom-dad-junior-and-jane. I do not want to live in that kind of situation.

[Susan Unger]

But then it wasn't that long ago that it was traditional for family units to live together. And when I say family unit, I'm thinking Father Abraham, not mom-dad-junior-and-jane. I do not want to live in that kind of situation.

This had gone through my mind, too. I spent a summer in Mexico during college and noticed that the 'traditional' family unit was one large extended family living in a large house together. It made it kind of nice for one mother whose husband abandoned her and their kids. She was assured of support in raising them without a husband.

[Paul DeBaufer]

All well and good, if one is a liberal then they should have no cause to fear. Excepting for one thing. The thing is that whenever one allows for greater government oversight and control, one should count the cost. One should stop and think, "how would this control and oversight be exercised in the hand of those whom I disagree with the most?" Now I realize that is a ridiculous question on its face, because conservatives have no interest in government control of legitimate family function and rule. But you can't completely rule this out and compassion would dictate that you stop and think of how this affects those who would suffer under the rule of those who disagree so much with them.

Here is a case heard in Washington State under a law that was eventually repealed. Look carefully at the burden of finding and ask yourself two questions. Would you agree that it is reasonable that you child could run away for the express purpose of seeking alternate residential placement. And remember this is as simple as to approach a law enforcement officer and ask. Now for the second question. Once your child has obtained a separation from you, there will be a hearing to determine the outcome of family unit cohesion. Sitting on a three judge panel will be myself, Jim Franklin and Sarah Palin. I would be quite comfortable with that panel, how about you?

http://www.martinlegalservices.com/s...ie%20Sumey.pdf

I for one am very grateful for those on the front lines fighting government intrusion into the family, and into the free exercise of my religion. I am glad that there are Nazarenes also involved. We will be attending the showing of a film titled "The Child" on the ninth of January at the Uxbridge Church of the Nazarene, and I am glad that they are speaking out on this issue.

Having read the opinions of the court you provide in your link I find that I am in agreement with the opinion of the majority. I find that their finding does NOT amount to an attack upon the family, but that the attempts under this particular law were in an effort to restore broken familial relations. Further I do not see how, from the facts presented in the ruling, the dissenting judge arrived at his conclusion. It seemed as though he had a different set of facts in front of him.

In this particular case the parents were the ones to seek state intervention and had their daughter removed from their home to what I presume was a lockdown facility. I assume this due to the daughter's subsequent petition for placement in another facility, a non-secure facility. This case and application of this particular law was not one of a child simply being tired of living with her parents and asking to be placed in alternative living situation. Nay, the question of the child's removal from the home was that of the parents--they initiated that. When reconciliation could not be reached the court ordered that the child stay in the lockdown facility, an action that the parents had no problem with. It was AFTER this decision that the child petitions for placement in a non-secure, non-lockdown facility. It was never a question of the child petitioning the court to remove her from her parents custody. This is NOT an attack on the family.

To see it as such is suggestive that this manipulative agenda by whomever is very effective. Manipulative propaganda usage which taps in to our fears as a society is not a "conservative" "liberal" issue as both of these utilize these despicable tactics. However, I think that in this particular issue it is the "conservatives" who are behind it.

[Bob Carabbio]

Does an alligator have Bad Breath??

Does a bear - never mind

"A refrain that I hear frequently in Christian circles is that the (traditional) family is under attack."

True -

"1. Who/what is attacking the family?"

Obviously SINCE the "Family unit" is a "TYPE" of the relationship between Jesus, and his Church/Bride, It's being attacked under satanic leadership by demonic influences that DESIRE to destroy the Image/function that God desires for it.

"2. What is the nature of the attack?"

Ideological, intellectual, and Sensual.

Since the SEXUAL aspect of marriage is "typical" of the relationship between Jesus, and His bride, the SEX itself is being divorced from any "Limited use" (between ONE man, and ONE Wife), and transformed ideologically into a "Feel good thing that's O.K. to do with anybody handy after a couple of beers - whether either or both participants are "married" or not.

"Commitment" (till DEATH do us part) is out the window, and being replaced by "As long as it's "good" for both of us", and prenuptials so that he/she doesn't "Get more of their share when one of both decide to seek "greener Pastures"

And Kids - Growing up often WITHOUT any sense of "Father", or "Mother" to act as a foundation for their OWN time of relationship, or concept of God's "Fatherhood". Or often being murdered before they're born - for "convenience sake".

AND, of course, the utterly false concept that "Same sex" couples are actually "Capable" of anything remotely resembling a true "Marriage".

"3. What if anything should the Church do about it?"

The only thing the Church CAN do is to present the truth of the WORD about what Marriage is all about.

It should include what to do in times of trouble, teaching on the Forgiveness for SIN (including divorce), and providing a "Family of Faith" for support. Chances are that a significant portion of YOUR church includes divorcees, or "Common law" families.

"4. What has been the outcome of past and/or present responses?"

Not sure what this even means - but obviously, the "Church generic" has / has had little IF ANY "Practical Effect" whatsoever in the general direction that U.S. society is moving. The divorce rate IN the church isn't different than that of pagan society.

The smiling couple that visits your/my church next Sunday for the first time is as likely to be on their "Second time around" as not, and be dealing with all the confusions/agonies/hatreds inevitably incorporated into the death of a previous marriage. How will YOUR church minister to 'em????

[Jim Chabot]

Having read the opinions of the court you provide in your link I find that I am in agreement with the opinion of the majority. I find that their finding does NOT amount to an attack upon the family, but that the attempts under this particular law were in an effort to restore broken familial relations. Further I do not see how, from the facts presented in the ruling, the dissenting judge arrived at his conclusion. It seemed as though he had a different set of facts in front of him.

In this particular case the parents were the ones to seek state intervention and had their daughter removed from their home to what I presume was a lockdown facility. I assume this due to the daughter's subsequent petition for placement in another facility, a non-secure facility. This case and application of this particular law was not one of a child simply being tired of living with her parents and asking to be placed in alternative living situation. Nay, the question of the child's removal from the home was that of the parents--they initiated that. When reconciliation could not be reached the court ordered that the child stay in the lockdown facility, an action that the parents had no problem with. It was AFTER this decision that the child petitions for placement in a non-secure, non-lockdown facility. It was never a question of the child petitioning the court to remove her from her parents custody. This is NOT an attack on the family.

To see it as such is suggestive that this manipulative agenda by whomever is very effective. Manipulative propaganda usage which taps in to our fears as a society is not a "conservative" "liberal" issue as both of these utilize these despicable tactics. However, I think that in this particular issue it is the "conservatives" who are behind it.

We see this differently, it is stated that the parents asked for help to keep the child from running away. In my opinion a huge mistake. Once the authorities began to help, they refused to stop helping, thus abrogating the parents wishes and what should be their right. In effect they aided the child in her attempt at running away

Lesson learned, never allow outside intrusion into the family unit. They should have known better.

[Jim Chabot]

did we read the same article?

Let me guess. In your hypothetical household, no matter how awful, ineffective or abusive the parenting, the child should always submit to the authority of their parents.

You have completely missed the point of my post. And it is clear that we have substantial differences of opinion here. You have said yourself you are reading between the lines in your judgement call against the parents.

The point is in regard to the law in effect at that time. Your opinions regarding the family have nothing to do with this.

[Jim Chabot]

Well, hmmmm

It was traditional in my family to have dinner together. In the last five or six years, through chaos that I admit I had a part in creating, we've lost that. I would LOVE to go back to that and am working toward it.

But then it wasn't that long ago that it was traditional for family units to live together. And when I say family unit, I'm thinking Father Abraham, not mom-dad-junior-and-jane. I do not want to live in that kind of situation.

We clearly disagree.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Lesson learned, never allow outside intrusion into the family unit. They should have known better.

I'll take that one further, NEVER invite the government in. Of course they can and will force their way in as we have given up far too many of our civil liberties buying their propaganda that they can protect us if only we allow them to shorten this or that civil right. I don't think the government has existed that did not fall right into what God told us they would be like in 1 Samuel 6. Trust God not the government (any of 'em).

[Jim Chabot]

Does an alligator have Bad Breath??

Does a bear - never mind

"A refrain that I hear frequently in Christian circles is that the (traditional) family is under attack."

True -

"1. Who/what is attacking the family?"

Obviously SINCE the "Family unit" is a "TYPE" of the relationship between Jesus, and his Church/Bride, It's being attacked under satanic leadership by demonic influences that DESIRE to destroy the Image/function that God desires for it.

"2. What is the nature of the attack?"

Ideological, intellectual, and Sensual.

Since the SEXUAL aspect of marriage is "typical" of the relationship between Jesus, and His bride, the SEX itself is being divorced from any "Limited use" (between ONE man, and ONE Wife), and transformed ideologically into a "Feel good thing that's O.K. to do with anybody handy after a couple of beers - whether either or both participants are "married" or not.

"Commitment" (till DEATH do us part) is out the window, and being replaced by "As long as it's "good" for both of us", and prenuptials so that he/she doesn't "Get more of their share when one of both decide to seek "greener Pastures"

And Kids - Growing up often WITHOUT any sense of "Father", or "Mother" to act as a foundation for their OWN time of relationship, or concept of God's "Fatherhood". Or often being murdered before they're born - for "convenience sake".

AND, of course, the utterly false concept that "Same sex" couples are actually "Capable" of anything remotely resembling a true "Marriage".

"3. What if anything should the Church do about it?"

The only thing the Church CAN do is to present the truth of the WORD about what Marriage is all about.

It should include what to do in times of trouble, teaching on the Forgiveness for SIN (including divorce), and providing a "Family of Faith" for support. Chances are that a significant portion of YOUR church includes divorcees, or "Common law" families.

"4. What has been the outcome of past and/or present responses?"

Not sure what this even means - but obviously, the "Church generic" has / has had little IF ANY "Practical Effect" whatsoever in the general direction that U.S. society is moving. The divorce rate IN the church isn't different than that of pagan society.

The smiling couple that visits your/my church next Sunday for the first time is as likely to be on their "Second time around" as not, and be dealing with all the confusions/agonies/hatreds inevitably incorporated into the death of a previous marriage. How will YOUR church minister to 'em????

Amen to that! The divorce rate in the church is nothing short of shamefull, we are failling folks in a huge way.

I agree, we must minister to broken families. But what do we do about our failure to minister to traditional life long monogamous family units. How a church supports the traditional biblical family model is primary for us. The family is more important than the church.

[Jim Chabot]

I'll take that one further, NEVER invite the government in. Of course they can and will force their way in as we have given up far too many of our civil liberties buying their propaganda that they can protect us if only we allow them to shorten this or that civil right. I don't think the government has existed that did not fall right into what God told us they would be like in 1 Samuel 6. Trust God not the government (any of 'em).

Thanks Paul, I think that you hear where I'm coming from.

[Pete Vecchi]

Amen to that! The divorce rate in the church is nothing short of shamefull, we are failling folks in a huge way.

I agree, we must minister to broken families. But what do we do about our failure to minister to traditional life long monogamous family units. How a church supports the traditional biblical family model is primary for us. The family is more important than the church.

I don't disagree. At the same time, what do we do about the problems that arise when (as I mentioned in a previous post) the percentage of people coming through our doors that are currently in a "traditional" (based on my very narrow previous definition) family is zero?

It would seem that the way to ideally minister to the non-traditional families would be to be able to have genuine demonstrative examples of the "traditional" family within the congregation.

At the same time, I have heard more than once that people from "non-traditional" families have been made to feel as second-rate church members when compared to people from the congregation who are a part of "traditional" family--even though these "non-traditional" families are doing all within their power to live the Christian life (i.e., a blended family trying to live by traditional Christian values within their current given circumstances).

[Rich Schmidt]

The family is more important than the church.

I can't let that one slip by without commenting. On what basis do you make this claim, Jim? The family is more important than the church?

I assume you are using "church" to refer to the institution, not to the body of Christ...? That's the only way I can begin to make sense of your statement. Especially given what Jesus had to say about families in places like Luke 14:26...

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

FWIW, I do not view the family as "under attack," at least not in any way that is different from how Christians in general are "under attack" by our enemy the devil. I'm not a "culture war" kind of pastor. I don't present to my congregation a picture of reality that has "the world out there" doing its best to destroy the church, the family, etc. I'd much rather paint a picture of God at work everywhere: in the church, through the church, in the lives of those we are called to love, etc.

[Sarah Smith]

We exist. We are one of those traditional families. And we've been treated like second class citizens because of that. "Of course since you don't work you can...." or "no one ever wants to meet during the day because...."

Let's not even begin to imagine there are none of us out there happily monogamous, or happily living on one paycheck, or happily never divorced, or whatever.

Family takes many forms? Ok, include us!

[Billy Cox]

I agree, we must minister to broken families. But what do we do about our failure to minister to traditional life long monogamous family units. How a church supports the traditional biblical family model is primary for us.

How about if the church ministers to families and stop preferring one family type over all others?

[Jim Chabot]

We exist. We are one of those traditional families. And we've been treated like second class citizens because of that. "Of course since you don't work you can...." or "no one ever wants to meet during the day because...."

Let's not even begin to imagine there are none of us out there happily monogamous, or happily living on one paycheck, or happily never divorced, or whatever.

Family takes many forms? Ok, include us!

Same here. One marriage and one paycheck. We have had our ups and downs, times when we couldn't see how we could make our marriage work, and times when we wondered where the next meal would come from.

Yes we have been treated like second class citizens in a few churches. There are churches out there who encouraged us to take the easy route. Churches that treated us like second class citizens, as they poured their energies into families already broken. But we made the decision early on to trust God, church or no church. We claimed his promise of a better life through obedience to Him. He has blessed us with a wonderful family and we lack nothing.

Of course there are good churches out there that actively support families, we have been in a few. We have also been in churches that challenged our cohesiveness as a family. We have decided that this is a fight not worth having. I've said that the family is more important than the church, this is the context of which I speak.

[John Reilly]

Technically speaking the human race is a family. The church is a family of people who bring to church their family dynamics. The Pastor has three families, his/her own nuclear family, a part of each nuclear family of the church, and the congregation as a family unit. Dobson has been a proactive advocate for the family. The church represents God highest ideal for family dynamics. Unfortunately dysfunction in the church has hurt the church as an advocate for healthy family dynamics. The highest ideal of family functioning is represented by the sacraments. All the sacraments empower healthy family dynamics within the church and within the nuclear family. In AD 1517 when church reform began, the movement away from seven sacraments to two, began a slow decline in the highest view of family. Marriage as a sacrament imparted by the church is the highest affirmation of family functioning. Confirmation as a sacrament affirmed the highest functioning of family dynamics by empowering the family to support and to teach the grace of God to children and teens. Baptism and Eucharist affirm the highest functioning of both nuclear family and church family. Obviously people must be present in worship as a family to receive God's grace imparted through the sacraments.

[Billy Cox]

"1. Who/what is attacking the family?"

Obviously SINCE the "Family unit" is a "TYPE" of the relationship between Jesus, and his Church/Bride, It's being attacked under satanic leadership by demonic influences that DESIRE to destroy the Image/function that God desires for it.

I think Paul's bride of Christ imagery is intended to shed light on the nature of Christ's intimate relationship with the Church...not to reveal a template for the modern family.

Is selfishness the enemy of all types of relationships? Sure, so what good can come from blaming Satan or demonic activity?

"2. What is the nature of the attack?"

Ideological, intellectual, and Sensual.

How about financial? We have this idea that families of yesteryear stayed together just due to the content of their love and character. What if those families stayed together because the alternative was poverty and homelessness, not to mention the disapproval of the church?

"Commitment" (till DEATH do us part) is out the window, and being replaced by "As long as it's "good" for both of us", and prenuptials so that he/she doesn't "Get more of their share when one of both decide to seek "greener Pastures"

Selfishness is nearly as old as humanity itself. Since Genesis 3, 'what's good for me' has taken precendent over our relationships, both vertical and horizontal. So, what I'm saying is that commitment might never have any anywhere but out the window.

And Kids - Growing up often WITHOUT any sense of "Father", or "Mother" to act as a foundation for their OWN time of relationship, or concept of God's "Fatherhood". Or often being murdered before they're born - for "convenience sake".

If there is a biblical template for ensuring children are cared for, it's the extended family, not the two-parent family.

AND, of course, the utterly false concept that "Same sex" couples are actually "Capable" of anything remotely resembling a true "Marriage".

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Maybe it depends on one's definition of true marriage. Is it about compatible genitalia, or is it about love, commitment and caring?

"3. What if anything should the Church do about it?"

The only thing the Church CAN do is to present the truth of the WORD about what Marriage is all about.

The difficulty of this approach is that there is no idealized family presented in the Bible. The Bible has this nasty habit of portraying families and all of the underhanded things they did to each other...up to, and including murder. If I read each of the stories of Biblical families, I have to occasionally remind myself that I'm not watching The Godfather.

So maybe there is no idealized Bible family, but we have the New Testament, right? Most of which is written by men who either had no family or who abandoned their family for the sake of the mission. That's hardly a shining example to follow.

"4. What has been the outcome of past and/or present responses?"

Not sure what this even means - but obviously, the "Church generic" has / has had little IF ANY "Practical Effect" whatsoever in the general direction that U.S. society is moving. The divorce rate IN the church isn't different than that of pagan society.

Well, it looks like you understand what this means. The church has focused on the family for the better part of forty years, a few christian authors and 'family experts' are quite wealthy, and the average evangelical family is less ideal than The Simpsons. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we evangelicals have been duped?

Having said that, I don't think that the divorce rate is a helpful metric. Divorce rates may be higher today than 50 years ago, but if we had a way of counting loveless marriages held together only by financial necessity, I don't think we're any worse off today.

[Billy Cox]

Yes we have been treated like second class citizens in a few churches. There are churches out there who encouraged us to take the easy route. Churches that treated us like second class citizens, as they poured their energies into families already broken. But we made the decision early on to trust God, church or no church. We claimed his promise of a better life through obedience to Him. He has blessed us with a wonderful family and we lack nothing.

This is practically a paraphrase of Luke 15:25-30, the complaint of the older, faithful son.

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

You're certainly not the first person to be upset when the community of faith celebrates someone who deserves to be punished.