What would you do if you were given a voice in defining our denomination’s social witness policy toward understanding and undergirding today’s “changing families”?1 Hopefully you would speak out clearly for reclaiming a biblical definition of family. You would advocate robust, compassionate, restorative action into the complexity of human relationships today, with spiritual and moral redemption as its core value. Hopefully you would not let such an opening pass without your input. Yet I wonder what percentage of the Theology Matters readership has taken advantage of this course-plotting opportunity?
It’s not too late for a large number of us to respond to the invitation of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) to join in the formulation of their upcoming recommendations to the 215th General Assembly (2003) concerning “the church’s 21st century ministry and witness to all families in both church and society.”2 ACSWP is encouraging comment from individuals, sessions and study groups at every level of church organization, through June 30, 2002. Timely feedback will be considered as the Task Force prepares their report. The forum provided is the churchwide study document, “Changing Families,” which has been in circulation since January 1, 2001. We dare not relinquish our right to be involved in the process, and then complain about the outcome!
The purpose of this review is to supply a first view of the study document, its underlying assumptions, format, strengths and weaknesses, and to provide some recommendations for a response to the “Changing Families” Task Force of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy.
Underlying Assumption of the Study Document
The principal assumption of the study document is that the church must continually update its understanding of “family” in pace with a changing social and cultural context, in order to effectively minister to the needs of families and especially, children:
Clearly, it must be recognized that no singular or narrow definition of “family” can be adequately descriptive or definitive for all times or for all social and cultural contexts, even within Christian history or culture.3
The Task Force views “changing families” as an “idea” that requires definition in order to proceed with social witness policy. Family forms listed in the purview of the study include, among other variations, “same-sex partners (sometimes raising children) for whom there is little consensus today concerning the use of the term ‘family’.”4 Could we identify a specific Task Force direction in highlighting the homosexual household as an item for study? The list does not specifically address concern for unmarried heterosexual persons living together or the children of such households. We are not directed to consider the needs of children raising each other when parents are absent or incapable due to incarceration or substance abuse, although these are critical. In any case, the need for study and comment by the church on all family matters is clear, whether or not we agree that our understanding of “family” needs to change.
Format
Beyond the introduction, called “Concerns and First Questions,” the document consists of four study sessions, appendixes and a response form. Each session contains a selection of Scripture references with questions for interpreting them into the context of the study, excerpts from the Book of Confessions with questions about their continued “helpfulness,” and a variety of other study materials, including research findings, an excerpt from the Book of Order G-5.0102, and most notably, the 1992 document “A Vision for Family Ministries” with attending questions of application. The response form is brief and open ended.
Strengths of the Document
The foremost strength of this document is in its invitation to open response. Although one might feel led by some of the questions in a certain political or hermeneutical direction, there is freedom to answer according to conviction. In addition, there was clearly an attempt to honor theological diversity in the formulation of the study questions, although this gives a bit of a “teeter-totter” effect as the study attempts neutrality. Finally, it is a helpful preview of the contributing influences and type of thought process through which the Task Force is constructing their policy recommendations.
Weaknesses of the Document
A major weakness of “Changing Families” and a primary caution to study groups is its approach to biblical material. For example, Session I includes a lengthy list of “select, but not exhaustive passages for discussion that may directly or indirectly inform your understanding of the Bible’s various perspectives on family.”5 These passages are all about diversity, humility and acceptance of one another within the Body of Christ, and gracious evangelism towards those outside. The accompanying study questions lead toward the redefinition of “family,” as if these passages spoke to a biblical model for constructing and understanding families. There are many passages of Scripture that do speak to family structure, directly or indirectly, but none of these is mentioned. For example, we in the Body of Christ (The Bride) are ourselves not a complete family without the Bridegroom, who is Christ. Why not include some of the many biblical references to the manner in which the believer’s intimate family relationships reflect the relationship of Christ and the Church? These are conspicuously absent. There is none of the Haustafel for relationships inside or among households (e.g. Titus 2:3-5). Are we not to wrestle with these texts in the context of understanding families? Thus one gets a feeling of dishonesty and manipulation from the very outset of the document. Throughout the four sessions the hermeneutic unabashedly lodged in the study questions is that of applying biblical texts out of context. Responders need to speak clearly to this flaw, an abuse of Scripture.
In each Session, the study questions the ongoing validity of the Confessions for guidance on family matters and then almost parenthetically allows that they may still apply. On the other hand, the authors make extensive positive use of the resource “A Vision for Family Ministries,” which tends to define families and households much more loosely, equates “the relationship of marriage” with “relationships of mutual love and commitment,” and makes other statements of inclusion that might make someone committed to homosexual “exit ministries,” for example, feel quite unwelcome. Thus the study presents a consistently liberal slant that might be seen as courting the theological and political middle of the church too much.
Recommendations
What can you do to make the most of this open forum on families? Don your spiritual armor and jump into the fray! Argue for the authentic, timeless precepts of Scripture that have the ability not only to speak to any culture and society, but also to heal it. Suggest additional biblical, confessional and social visioning resources that must be taken into account as policy is formulated. Object to the hermeneutic of proof-texting and re-contexting Scripture. Propose social witness policy toward change in keeping with our biblical mandate to make disciples of all people groups, teaching them to obey everything Jesus has commanded. In the words of Paul, “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.”
This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Mar/Apr 2002).
