It is very popular now among social scientists to produce research that debunks anything resembling the necessity for the nuclear family.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the studies in these types of fields follow trends just like hem lines and pop music. What's cool to say today will be replaced in ten years. Unfortunately for the broader culture, the field of scientific study is considered to be immutable and irrefutable. So the same type of understanding that I have that pictures of me ten years ago will look pretty dumb to my kids ten years from now is not a part of how we process or understand the latest study that's summarized in a Newsweek or Time magazine article.
I have a couple of operating assumptions after working with students for eleven years. One is that their family is dysfunctional to some degree or another, whether it's an intact family or not. And here is definitely where I would agree with the current research findings: screwed up families come in all shapes and sizes: divorced, intact, extended, whatever.
The second assumption is that their family dysfunction plays some role in their personal obstacles and struggles of living joyfully in a life of faith. And the third assumption I have is that the family dysfunction that they've experienced is in large part due to their father: he was physically gone, emotionally detached, physically or emotionally abusive, hyper-controlling, or some combination of any of the above.
In light of this, there's a stream of theological reflection that would have us to do away with calling God "Father." After all, this is just left over from a paternalistic worldview that oppressed women and the word is full of baggage in our modern era. Why hang onto it any longer?
The reason is simple: people need fathers. We just do. We were made to have a good father. Most of us (including my kids) have fathers that fall well short of this need. This is appropriate. God is our Good Father, the only Truly Good Father we could possibly have and that all of us need. And so we must hold onto this intimate, relational name that God has given to us to call him, or else we foolishly throw away the very strong medicine that so many of our souls are aching for.
4 comments:
What you just said was my pastor's sermon Sunday. He also said that IF we say that we must have a replacement father figure before we can rightly relate to God as Father, then we've put a false mediator in the way (he didn't quite say it that way, but that's the gist).
i love it
too bad the "nuclear family" is a modern invention and certainly was not the Biblical model.
royale, why do you always have to be so difficult :)!
certainly the scriptures didn't mean "father knows best"-style family. but hello, ephesians presents the rules of the house and it talks to what we today call "the nuclear family:" fathers, wives, children. certainly there was more extended family-type situations but to say that the nuclear family was foreign to the Biblical model is a bit of an overstatement...
Well then, at the very least that would make it "A" Biblical model and not "THE" Biblical model. The Bible has too many models for marriage.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm
Also - where in Ephesians does it supposedly discuss this nuclear family?
Post a Comment