Is the family 'under attack'?

[Billy Cox]

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.

I understand that the seven sacraments had become instruments of tyranny wielded by the church. I'm not sure how that's good for any family, except perhaps for the families of those in the upper reaches of the church hierarchy.

The Roman Catholic church still has all of the sacraments. Are Catholic families any better off than their sacramentally impoverished Protestant cousins? Have you heard Dobson suggest that we rediscover the sacraments as a way of rescuing a particular notion of family?

[Jim Chabot]

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


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

And that is a leap that superman couldn't make. You clearly have no idea of what I am talking about. I'll try to clarify a bit tomorrow night, if the hotel there has wifi.

This has nothing to do with those who you say deserve to be punished. This has to do with how my family has had to fight against the church in order to stay a family. And it has to do with other families who possibly would still be together if it wasn't for the helpful meddling of the church.

[Jim Chabot]

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.

Thanks John, my experience tells me that the issue is with a lack of conviction in regards to God's instuction for our lives, it seems that everything must be viewed through some sort of culturally relevant lenses. I didn't realize that the erosion started way back with the reformation.

With the exception of the selling of annulments (my cousin bought one a few years back.) I would say that the Catholics have a superior view of marriage and family. We could learn from them in this regard!

Thanks again!

[Billy Cox]

Churches that treated us like second class citizens, as they poured their energies into families already broken.

This is what I was responding to. I can see that there is more context than originally met the eye.

And that is a leap that superman couldn't make. You clearly have no idea of what I am talking about. I'll try to clarify a bit tomorrow night, if the hotel there has wifi.

This has nothing to do with those who you say deserve to be punished. This has to do with how my family has had to fight against the church in order to stay a family. And it has to do with other families who possibly would still be together if it wasn't for the helpful meddling of the church.

Well, you won't catch me coming to the defense of the organization - especially when it intends good and does harm.

[Tim Bourland]

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?

I was responding - in like manner - to this statement that was offered without any substantive clarification.

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

When you say "conservative" just exactly what is it you mean? There are many types of "conservative." And...even those who would be found in the "conservative" tent would strongly disagree with one another in any given topic.

When you say "legitimate" what do you mean?

When you say "family" what do you mean?

When you say "function" and "rule" what do you mean?

I'm not sure generalized statements really fit into this type of "family" discussion. It might just be that the "family" belongs to both ends of the spectrum.

[Steven Burton]

So which time period are we referring to with the idea of "family"? 1700's, 1800's, 1900's, or maybe even 1950's (good ole days from what I have heard.)

[Pete Vecchi]

So which time period are we referring to with the idea of "family"? 1700's, 1800's, 1900's, or maybe even 1950's (good ole days from what I have heard.)

That's easy--the days when we were kids! ;-)

[Diane Likens]

We are not a "traditional" family by any stretch of the imagination. There are former spouses and inlaws who are still very close members of our family and who are always invited to every family function. We use "former" rather than "ex" because "ex" sounds harsher.

There are divorces in my family, but we don't consider ourselves "broken". In most instances, children are not used as pawns. The separated parents have chosen to love their children more than they dislike each other. As for "steps" -- you'll find them on a ladder or staircase, but not in our family.

Many times I feel my family is under attack. And that attack is usually coming from the far-right extremists who truly think they have the rules for what constitutes a family. I refuse to accept anyone else's definition of what a family is or should be. We are a group of people, both related and unrelated, who love and care about each other and who would lay down our lives for each other.

THAT, my friends, is a family.

[Steven Burton]

That's easy--the days when we were kids! ;-)

Yeah that seem to be the great folly of topics such as this, because my idea is completely different from yours I expect and so on and .....

[Daniel Hamlin]

That's easy--the days when we were kids! ;-)

That doesn't really answer the question. The question remains: 1700's, 1800's, 1900's, or maybe even the 1950's?

[Rich Schmidt]

That doesn't really answer the question. The question remains: 1700's, 1800's, 1900's, or maybe even the 1950's?

What are you saying about Pete's age, Dan?

[Billy Cox]

That doesn't really answer the question. The question remains: 1700's, 1800's, 1900's, or maybe even the 1950's?

That's a good question... When we talk about the biblical ideal for the family, are people visualizing that as Little House on the Prairie, or The Brady Bunch or possibly The Cosby Show?

[Paul DeBaufer]

So, I have to wonder how the modern age's emphasis on the individual has affected the family. I mean, I think that in ages past family was extended to include grand parents, parents, children, grandchildren all living under the same roof or if not the same roof then on the same property. But these days we have parents who want their children out of the house when they turn 18 never to return except for the occasional visit. The family has become nuclear rather than extended and we then look forward to being empty nesters and applaud such. IF the family is under attack it is under attack from this avenue. I wonder, then, just how many of those who say that family is under attack from the politicians, whether they be "liberal" or "conservative", the media, etc. actually buy into this indviduaslistic concept of the family and want their kids out at 18 never to move back home again. Maybe, just maybe, what is perceived as an attack is actually the result of the modernizatipon/inmdividualization of Western society and family. Maybe what we are looking at is the symptom rather than the cause.

[Wayne Paul]

So, I have to wonder how the modern age's emphasis on the individual has affected the family. I mean, I think that in ages past family was extended to include grand parents, parents, children, grandchildren all living under the same roof or if not the same roof then on the same property. But these days we have parents who want their children out of the house when they turn 18 never to return except for the occasional visit. The family has become nuclear rather than extended and we then look forward to being empty nesters and applaud such. IF the family is under attack it is under attack from this avenue. I wonder, then, just how many of those who say that family is under attack from the politicians, whether they be "liberal" or "conservative", the media, etc. actually buy into this indviduaslistic concept of the family and want their kids out at 18 never to move back home again. Maybe, just maybe, what is perceived as an attack is actually the result of the modernizatipon/inmdividualization of Western society and family. Maybe what we are looking at is the symptom rather than the cause.

Paul,

Paul, Thank you.

I remembering asking a Japanese friend, while I was living in Japan, how many people were in his family? He hesitated and then finally said, "you mean living?" I answered yes, he then said "about a thousand or two."

It shocked me and I came to realize the we "Americans" have a very limited understanding of the concept of "family."

[Pete Vecchi]

What are you saying about Pete's age, Dan?

I can honestly say have have had no personal experience in any of those times that were mentioned!

[Jim Chabot]

I was responding - in like manner - to this statement that was offered without any substantive clarification.



When you say "conservative" just exactly what is it you mean? There are many types of "conservative." And...even those who would be found in the "conservative" tent would strongly disagree with one another in any given topic.

When you say "legitimate" what do you mean?

When you say "family" what do you mean?

When you say "function" and "rule" what do you mean?

I'm not sure generalized statements really fit into this type of "family" discussion. It might just be that the "family" belongs to both ends of the spectrum.

Funny how you initially responded to this:

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

With this:

"Liberals" don't either.

And then I responded with this:

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?

Now that we have this back in order it can be shown that you have already responded in a manner that indicated your understanding of my statement. So there shouldn't be a problem answering my legitimate questions, or should there?

I'll even help:

I believe that laws passed that increase government interference in family matters show a government interest in controlling family functions. I believe that these laws have been proposed and passed mostly with liberal support. I believe that this contradicts your statement in this regard. Please show me otherwise.

I believe that budgets passed with increases allowing for expansion of our social service agencies show a government interest in controlling family functions. I believe that these increases have been passed mostly with liberal support. Please show me otherwise.

And lets remember that your statement was in regard to "liberals" not to "conservatives" it was to that I responded.

[Jim Chabot]

That's a good question... When we talk about the biblical ideal for the family, are people visualizing that as Little House on the Prairie, or The Brady Bunch or possibly The Cosby Show?

I can't speak for others, but for me, I'm trying to look at some pretty minimal things scripturally. It's a pretty short list.

God hates Divorce. Pretty simple and for me it is an absolute. The only reason that Jesus allowed for was for fornication, and I don't believe that he was allowing for adultery.

For the victim of a divorce that he or she did not want, God's direction is to live a single life.

The husband is the head of the wife and the parents are the head of the children.

Hopefully we can keep in mind that those are what I see as God's rules for me. Let's not head down the rabbit trail that would suggest that I'm trying to impose this on others. I can point you to places on naznet where folks have indicated that they have acted differently, and I have not commented. This isn't about the prodigal's brother, not at all.

All I look for in a Church is that they don't teach against these rules. They don't have to have family retreats once a month, or even advertise that they are pro-family or anything like that. Of course doing pro family and pro marriage things is a good thing, I'm real glad when I see it. But my litmus test is at zero on the number line, a church doesn't have to do a thing, but I will not maintain fellowship with a church that attacks the family by way of condoning actions contrary to the short little list found in scripture.

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.

Exactly correct! And to do this we need to support these demonstrative examples. When a couple in the Church is having difficulty, we need to stand by them and do everything possible to support their relationship with each other. How easily we forget the lesson of Job, how easy it is to support the individual. Just like Job's comforters there are some who will support one against the other, comforting the one while villianizing the other. Yes Job had some incredible difficulties, I would say that his problems were greater that any domestic problems that we might face today. His friends sought to comfort him, they sought to help him in his time of distress, but it was God's will that he endure rather than escape. Sometimes when we seek to comfort the one, we actually attack the family as a whole. I'll stay in Churches where my family is safe, my family is job one, community is job two.

We support these examples and minister to others when we use these folks in ministry positions. We send a mixed message when we use others prominently. Scripture teaches the same.

We support these examples when we eschew popular outreach programs like "Divorce Care" that teach an ungodly message.

It has been said that some folks whose marriage has not worked out sometimes feel like second class citizens. Of course they shouldn't be made to feel that way, they should be shown love and compassion. We shouldn't throw it in their face that they have failed, however we cannot cross the line and condone divorce. If we must condone this and accept it, then please can I add to the list? You see there are some shortcomings and failings that have plagued me over the years, I would like to be vindicated as well, exonerated and told by all that everything I have done is ok.

[Steven Burton]

What are you saying about Pete's age, Dan?

The 1950's is in response to most of the talk about the "good ole days" which always seem to be a conversation about life after world war 2 and before vietnam.

[Greg Farra]

That's a good question... When we talk about the biblical ideal for the family, are people visualizing that as Little House on the Prairie, or The Brady Bunch or possibly The Cosby Show?

We were the Bunkers. My mom and dad strongly resembled Archie and Edith, my sister was a hippie wannabe and her husband looked like Meathead.

[Paul DeBaufer]

How easily we forget the lesson of Job, how easy it is to support the individual. Just like Job's comforters there are some who will support one against the other, comforting the one while villianizing the other.

Thank you!!!!!!!

[Jim Chabot]

Thank you!!!!!!!

You are most welcome my friend. I earnestly pray for your situation, admittedly I don't know the whole of it, but I can pray that God's will be done. I do believe that you know firsthand how the Church can come to actively participate in the attack on the family. We need to do better!

[Billy Cox]

It has been said that some folks whose marriage has not worked out sometimes feel like second class citizens. Of course they shouldn't be made to feel that way, they should be shown love and compassion. We shouldn't throw it in their face that they have failed, however we cannot cross the line and condone divorce. If we must condone this and accept it, then please can I add to the list? You see there are some shortcomings and failings that have plagued me over the years, I would like to be vindicated as well, exonerated and told by all that everything I have done is ok.

In my experience, 'showing love and compassion' to divorced people looks suspiciously similar to condoning divorce. This statement seems to pay lip service to love and compassion but, it's quite clear that calling sin 'sin' is the overriding concern.

What exactly does it look like to warmly embrace someone into the fellowship without condoning their past? Is this a situation where the church gladly accepts their tithes and offerings but locks them out of any position of responsibility, teaching, or (gasp!) leadership? That sounds like second-class citizenship to me.

[Jim Chabot]

In my experience, 'showing love and compassion' to divorced people looks suspiciously similar to condoning divorce. This statement seems to pay lip service to love and compassion but, it's quite clear that calling sin 'sin' is the overriding concern.

What exactly does it look like to warmly embrace someone into the fellowship without condoning their past? Is this a situation where the church gladly accepts their tithes and offerings but locks them out of any position of responsibility, teaching, or (gasp!) leadership? That sounds like second-class citizenship to me.

You can call it lip service if you wish, but of course you are only guessing. You have also read me wrong, which will of course happen when one does a lot of guessing. I did not say that we must call it sin, what I said was that we cannot say that it isn't sin. There is a difference. Although I fail to see where calling it sin should be a problem. After all it actually is sin, is it not?

I'm still not grasping your idea of "second class" citizenship here. I have to wonder if the Samaritan woman felt "second class" when Jesus reminded her that she had lived with five men and the current one was not her husband? And yes I've heard the symbolic explanation, there always has to be one of them. So how about the woman caught in adultery, do you think that she felt all warm and fuzzy when Jesus said "go and sin no more"? Then there was Zachaeus, we don't know what Jesus said to him, we do know that he immediately turned his life around. So maybe that is what it looks like, all are welcome, all are accepted and loved just the way they are. And all are asked to surrender their lives to the one who gave his. All are asked to submit to His claim upon their lives. So maybe that's exactly what it should look like

It just seems curious to me that John the Baptist was sent to call people to repentance as preparation to Jesus ministry. Now we seek to turn all of this on it's head and turn the Church into a love in. So what exactly should "church" look like.

We have gone down this road before, but I'll repeat myself. We are not always talking about the "past" when we talk of broken marriages and families. Jesus was quite clear that one who remarries after a divorce is presently committing adultery against his or her first spouse. This is the present and it is a continual sin. Jesus forbade the throwing of rocks and I am glad for that, he did not declare the woman innocent, rather he pronounced her guilty and commanded her to change her ways.

I'm glad that you mentioned tithes, because one cannot ever hold any position without paying tithe! Heaven and the manual forbid!! Funny how we seem to care more about money that we do about sin eh?