Families—Reading the Signs of the Times

Don H. Compier

Don H. Compier is the dean of the new Community of Christ Seminary, a part of the Independence Campus of Graceland University. He is very proud to be the spouse of Yolanda Santos Compier and the father of Nancy J. Compier. Don received his Ph.D. in theological studies from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. For nine years he served as professor of theology at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, the Episcopal seminary of the Graduate Theological Union, an ecumenical and interfaith consortium in Berkeley, California.

The phrase “signs of the times” comes from a saying of Jesus recorded in Matthew 16:3. It represents his prophetic interpretation of the meaning of historical events, offered to the people as admonition. Today we are called to be a prophetic people. We, too, must pay close attention to what is happening in our contemporary world. While not overlooking the obvious, we must go beyond the surface to perceive the deep currents of both promise and danger. And we must have the courage to “call ‘em like we see ‘em.”

Many people today worry about the crisis of the family. In these remarks I offer my own assessment of this question. I have attempted to compare notes with other scholars and to pay attention to reports in newspapers, magazines, and the like. I have made personal observations and tried to listen closely to the stories of other persons. I’ve reflected on my own life’s experience. I cannot evade the responsibility of taking the risk of offering my own vision for your consideration. I welcome your response to my preliminary proposals. In dialogue with one another we may find the sense of direction we need to proceed boldly in ministry to families.

Those who speak of the family crisis often point to two key indicators. First, they speak of the high rate of divorce in the United States. Second, they point to the growing number of children born to a single mother outside the bounds of matrimony. Sometimes observers also note that in a world of globalization these same trends begin to show up in a multitude of nations. In and of themselves these realities need not alarm us. For instance, if the divorce rate indicates a growing freedom of women to leave abusive relationships, we should not lament this development. More recent scholarship, however, also strongly suggests that divorced and single mothers and their children often suffer loss of both emotional and economic support and well being. The fact that fewer and fewer men seem to be involved in the rearing and sustenance of their offspring leads some to identify a “male problematic.”¹

What are the causes of these developments? As in medicine, the diagnosis goes a long way toward determining recommendations for treatment. To oversimplify a bit, the study of social trends in history still tends to address this fundamental question: is human history driven by ideas or material realities? And respondents tend to fall into one of two camps. The champions of ideas follow in the path blazed by the German sociologist Max Weber. They are interested in developments in reigning cultural assumptions, ideologies, pedagogy, etc. Thus Weber concluded that Protestant doctrine opened the way for capitalism to emerge.² Proponents of material explanations trace their roots to the historical work of Karl Marx. They are interested in the influence of concrete economic realities such as competition between classes, technology, the organization of work, etc. Thus Marx argued that the emergence of a new urban middle class and the development of new technologies led to the adoption of the capitalist economic system.³

For reasons I will make clearer later (though you will probably guess that the Cold War has something to do with it), most U.S. scholars tend to avoid a structural analysis, preferring to probe the cultural assumptions that inform individual choices. In 1991 practical theologian Don Browning organized the Religion, Culture, and Family Project. Over the past twelve years Browning and his team produced an impressive number of books seeking to open up a broad-based dialogue about U.S. families (and they also pay attention to other cultures). I am deeply grateful for these contributions, and have learned much from their findings. Yet Browning’s group generally chose to avoid careful assessment of economic realities affecting the state of our families. They do introduce us to scholars who focus on this dimension, but rather quickly conclude that we should concentrate on the cultural work needed to promote better individual choices, especially by men.⁴

I certainly would not care to deny the importance of these aspects in our diagnosis and treatment plans. In this talk, however, I hope to demonstrate the need for a more complex vision which honors the necessary contributions of both of the trends in social science that I have discussed. Yes, we need to pay careful attention to ideas. But without adding sober observation of material, economic realities we will neither understand the full nature of the family crisis nor find effective ways to offer family ministry. In short, I join scholars such as the Christian social ethicist Lisa Sowle Cahill in contending that we must wed the theme of last year’s colloquy, economic justice, with this year’s emphasis on nurturing families.⁵

Let’s begin, then, with attention to the ideas that seem to be creating serious problems for many families, and particularly for women and children. Then we will attempt to understand the economic realities placing stress on numerous families. I hope you will notice that in fact these two dimensions become intertwined in all sorts of interesting and challenging ways. Once we have (hopefully) deepened our understanding of the current situation, I will conclude by offering some suggestions for the ministry persons of faith might offer in times like these.

Bad Ideas

Scholars and religious persons of Browning’s persuasion point to a pervasive ideology of individualism that in their view undermines the commitments and acceptance of responsibility crucial to healthy families. According to this analysis excessive attachment to individual fulfillment, and sometimes downright selfishness, allow persons (men more often than women) to find justification for their decision to walk out on relationships and evade their financial responsibilities. To a lesser extent they also point to poor choices about sexual behavior and unwise choices of partners or spouses. Browning and company would lament the promotion of promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility they often detect in products of popular culture such as films and music.

To counteract all these factors, these scholars and ministers call for an inclusive cultural dialogue about families and individual values. Above all, they seem to promote educational work which could lead to outcomes such as clear societal disapprobation of selfish and reckless conduct; renewed cultural endorsement of responsibility for others, and especially for children; and promotion of premarital counseling and education about sex and relationships. I should note that while Browning and company are willing to dialogue with conservative proponents of “family values” such as James Dobson, they sharply differ from their fellow citizens on the “religious right” by calling for cultural support for the equality and mutuality of men and women in family matters. The Religion, Culture and Family Project thus endorses what many would consider to be the central aim of the feminist movement.

I certainly accept the validity of this diagnosis centered on the problem of excessive individualism and hedonism. The qualifier “excessive” is important, however. We should not condemn individualism altogether. Without the greater insistence on personal rights in the West since the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, I doubt if women could have come as far as they have in the ongoing struggle for freedom. Many of us here have surely enjoyed two wonderful recent films, My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Bend It Like Beckham. Though one concerns a Greek family in the U.S. Midwest, and the other features an Indian family in London, both depict similar dilemmas. The female protagonists, Tula and Jessmander, must find a way to be themselves and to choose their own romantic partners while continuing to be an integral part of the wonderful traditions and community of their extended families. Their eventual success is contrasted to the less felicitous family relationships of their Anglo love interests. And so we see that our problem is that we have lost the proper balance between the demands of personal freedom and the bonds of family life.

I must wonder, moreover, if this type of analysis has grasped the full extent of the problems posed by runaway individualism. By relegating economic factors to less important status, I suggest that this explanatory trajectory overlooks the powerful links between hyper-individualism and the mandates of a thoroughly consumerist and materialist economic and cultural system. We are all bombarded everyday with commercials that encourage the most craven sort of individualistic striving. I always remember a Pacific Bell ad for internet connections that ran in California a few years ago. It depicted the social ills and antisocial behavior resulting from having to share uplink time. No one could be happy, according to Pacific Bell, until we each had our very own private connection to the web! It will do us very little good to decry excessive individualism in familiar contexts unless we are also willing to raise fundamental questions about our entire “American way of life.”

As long as we fail to question the dictates of our consumerist culture, we will inevitably import the logic of the market into places where it really doesn’t belong. We are already seeing the negative effects of such boundary crossing in the case of our health care system. Little wonder that consumerist modes of behavior also increasingly undermine family ties. We are all familiar with men who trade in their aging wives for a newer model “trophy bride”—as if women were cars! Some reason, “Since I don’t have to put up with a less than perfect toothpaste why should I stick with this relationship when it gives me anything but absolutely customer satisfaction?” We are also inclined to treat our children like commodities. William Doherty, a professor of marriage and family development at the University of Minnesota, has recently lamented the effects of enrolling our young in a large number of after school programs in our passion to spare them no opportunity for personal enrichment. He speaks of an emerging “culture of parenting…more akin to product development”!⁶

I am arguing, in short, that the prevalence of excessive individualism in the breakup of stable family relationships is one example of a much broader trend. The consumerist materialism and hedonism promoted by contemporary capitalism inevitably offers strong support for exaggerated personal freedom and egotistical behavior, and steadily erodes the bonds of human community. To truly help families, then, we would have to avoid the temptation of focusing on them too much. Unless we are willing to tackle the larger cultural configuration, families will continue to be in trouble.

To conclude this section, I would like to suggest that this scholarly temptation to focus exclusively on harmful ideas is itself a manifestation of the widespread exaggerated individualism permeating all dimensions of capitalist consumer culture. For Browning and company clearly seem to think that everything will be well if only we are better educated to make sounder individual choices. To a limited extent, of course, this is true. But if we are thoroughly social beings as well, as Tula and Jessmander know, it’s very difficult for us to change one by one while the larger structures of which we are all a part abide. So let’s turn to the material factors placing considerable obstacles in the way of our wise personal choices.

Bad Practices and Structures

Examination of the history of the family reveals that the shape of domestic relationships has always tended to follow economic trends. The historical trajectory of the family therefore displays many discontinuities. These are easy to miss, for the biologically set roles of procreation and child rearing naturally remain constant. But the setting within which these roles unfold has often shifted considerably, and the understanding of one’s place in the biological pattern also goes through transformations.⁷

The nuclear family as we understand it is primarily a US phenomenon. It emerged as a result of the considerable mobility already characteristic of the western frontier. Its development was greatly accelerated by the migrations and transportation capacities characteristic of our economy in the twentieth century. As persons moved, the bonds of extended family became more and more attenuated. Without the traditional supports of the clan, the nuclear family became a unit unto itself, with its own division of labor. Women were given the greatest workload. Prior to World War II women did most if not all domestic chores. If they lived on farms they also provided considerable assistance in the raising of crops. In the cities they might well take in washing, clean the homes of other persons, look after other people’s children, or supplement the family income in other subsidiary ways. Women of “leisure” with the “freedom” to attend “only” to domestic chores were a minority before the rise of the middle class in the twentieth century.

And here we see perhaps the most obvious example of the ways in which economic life shapes the forms of family existence. During World War II, women were needed for war production. “Rosy the Riveter” and other propaganda urged females to join the mainstream of the industrial economy. Then, quite suddenly after the conclusion of hostilities, jobs had to be vacated for all the returning GI’s. Within the span of a decade Rosy is replaced by the heroines of the Donna Reed Show, Leave It to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, and Father Knows Best. Women are supposed to stay home, be good consumers, excel in domestic labor (with the help of all that nifty new technology, of course), and provide the tranquility and emotional stability their men need as they face the tensions of the workaday world—or in the case of the boys like Wally and Beaver, preparation for it.

And the next change, ushering in a now quickly vanishing era, comes not much later. The expanding economy requires new workers, and since you can always pay women less, females are a plentiful source of cheaper labor. Feminism is co-opted by business to encourage those ladies to find their self-fulfillment outside the home (while doing little, of course, to encourage dad to assume more of the childrearing burden—let alone providing adequate childcare facilities for working women). The price inflation and rising expectations characterizing constant economic growth from the 1960’s into the 1980’s means that in any case few can afford to live on just one income. Suddenly both partners have paying jobs, and the era of the latchkey children and day care is upon us.

I am, of course, painting with very broad brush strokes. But I trust you recognize the general picture emerging. I hope it is already evident just how limited theories are which suggest that family problems result primarily from bad individual choices. We all have to make ends meet, and most of us don’t want to be out of step with the social consensus promoted by the mass media sponsored by major corporations. Under the guise of a reigning ideology of personal freedom we actually find ourselves quite constricted in our options.

Once we adopt this structural perspective, it’s much less surprising to note that the beginnings of the rising divorce rate and the increase in out of wedlock child births correspond to the latchkey era. Isn’t it obvious that when two adults in a household are working, they have less time to nurture their own relationship or to provide guidance and support to their children? And we must still account for the most recent shifts, which are dramatically increasing the pressures on family stability.

We are now well into the transition to the new global economy.⁸ Corporations find they can attain greater profits by moving operations to a variety of locales around the earth. The economies of entire towns are suddenly undermined. I hope many of you have seen Michael Moore’s Roger and Me, a telling documentation of the abandonment of Flint, Michigan, by General Motors. For nine years I lived right next to Richmond, California, a once thriving shipbuilding town reduced to the very definition of urban decay and social despair. I’m sure many of you are familiar with the towns of the “rust belt” stretching from New Jersey to Illinois. Nothing undermines the family like unemployment and even homelessness.

Those of us still working feel the pressure, too. Corporations have no incentives to maintain the once comfortable lives of the middle classes. Quality medical care at an affordable price is disappearing even if you’re lucky enough to still have insurance. Retirement security is under attack. Vacation time is more reduced than ever. States steadily cut their educational budgets. College costs steadily rise, but scholarships can’t keep up. Well before 9/11 most Americans felt a lot less secure than they did just a few years ago. Serious economic worries don’t help families stay together.

As if all these realities aren’t bad enough, staff reductions and economic worries drive a culture of workaholism. A recent report found that 80 percent of men and 62 percent of women work more than the once standard forty hours per week. Since quite a few of those men and women live together, in many households we must assume that the parents are working a combined total of at least 82 hours. That’s well above the joint level of sixty hours considered the safe maximum by students of child welfare. Moreover, parents anxiously strive to prepare their children for this brave new world. They pile up one student activity after another. The amount of “quality time” left over for family life dwindles. As Professor Doherty warns, “Frantic families equal fragile families.”

Once again the choice model breaks down when we analyze the realities of work for the majority of persons. Sixty percent of the respondents in the just cited survey say they feel pressured to work too much. They speak of the fear of getting behind and earning poor performance evaluations. They know that they can often be replaced by plenty of eager job seekers. Eighty percent of these harried workers say that they want more time to spend with their families. A majority even say that they would take less money if that could buy more time with loved ones. But they simply do not feel that they have that option.

The numbers just cited suggest that while most people work too much because they have to, we do have a sizable minority of voluntary workaholics. Here ideas do play an important role. This phenomenon highlights other dimensions of the ideology of excessive individualism. First, note the competitive nature of this reigning mindset. Some are obsessed with success and will pay almost any price to win the race. We also see that excessive individualism equates hard work with personal worth; some feel that they would be bad people if they weren’t constantly busy. “Works righteousness”, whatever our theologies of grace may say, is our cultural norm. The previously discussed consumerist aspect also raises its head here. Many folks want more and more luxuries and other nonessentials, and are willing to work very long hours to achieve their goals, sometimes even taking on a second job. As one father recently commented, “I’d love to cut back…but I also want to maintain the lifestyle we have.”⁹

Alas, we can’t have our cake and eat it, too. Voluntary or involuntary, our culture of overwork consistently damages our closest relationships. And of course the youngest members of our society suffer most. Yes, they lose out on priceless time with their parents. We decry the loss of values, but how could our children even know what our values are when we don’t have enough opportunities to pass them on? Many precious dimensions of our heritage simply can’t be put into sound bites. Character is not formed on the fly.

But the harm goes deeper. First, we are teaching our children to become workaholics. My daughter Nancy is the depth editor for the newspaper at Truman High School. Recently she wrote a story about sleep deprivation among her peers. I was alarmed to learn how many of our teenagers get far less than the eight to nine hours their healthy physical and emotional development requires. Patterns acquired early are hard to break later in life.¹⁰

And finally, we are so busy working that we have no time left to be good citizens. We should be taking time to advocate for the welfare of all children. I simply cannot believe what is happening to our public schools. In a typical instance, the Independence school district was forced to reduce its teacher corps by 110 persons last year. Nancy’s research for a recent editorial disclosed that Alabama school children face dire cuts. They may well be left without any textbooks. These precious young people face the prospect of nothing but required courses, with all enrichment programs cut out—no athletics, music, journalism, debate, or art.¹¹ Such harsh realities represent nothing less than a serious crime against future generations. They constitute a betrayal of one of our nation’s core values, namely the provision of opportunity to everyone to make something of their lives. The deterioration of our public school system is a craven reversal of over a century of social progress. Everyone will be hurt. Businesses and institutions of every type will have a smaller pool of qualified employees. I don’t understand how we can tolerate this disgrace. We should be beating down the doors of all of our elected representatives. I for one, however, find it very difficult to find the necessary time to be an activist.

The confession just uttered reminds me of the classical Christian realization of our sinful condition. We are in a mess. We seem unable to help ourselves. How are we going to experience abundant life? How will we find salvation? It’s high time that we turn to the gospel. Let’s see what promise might be found in the Christian message.

Good News!

Many voices in our contemporary culture claim to speak for Christianity. But do they? Let’s ask some questions that may aid our ongoing discernment.

First, does the message center on God’s judgment or on God’s love? My read of the Bible suggests that the latter theme must always predominate, for “God is love.” (I John 4:8, 16) John says that Christ did not come to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17). Christian proclamation in the spirit of Jesus does not single out individuals or groups for condemnation. Christians following Jesus do not look for scapegoats, and they always avoid blaming victims. In the opening chapters of Romans (1-3) Paul carefully describes the universal responsibility we all have for the mess we are in. All need grace. So beware of those who would lay blame for the family crisis at the feet of single mothers facing difficult choices, or who single out that small percentage of our population with “alternative lifestyles.” What a convenient way to evade our responsibility. How useful such tactics are in deflecting attention from the larger problems we all face. And how they may justify returning to the age-old sin of discrimination against women. How can these attitudes be assumed in the name of the Nazarene who so consistently associated with the outcasts and “sinners,” including women?

Second, ask this question: is the message I am hearing one of law or one of grace? We should always keep in mind Paul’s brilliant interpretation of Jesus’ proclamation of God’s abba-like compassion for all. In Galatians and Romans Paul shows that none of us need to earn God’s favor, for we already have it. With much psychological insight he uncovers the dead end that religions of law represent. For we have constant anxiety if our salvation depends on us. And we are sorely tempted to self-righteousness, which dries up the wells of compassion God’s spirit seeks to deposit in us. This is why the way of the law leads inevitably to spiritual death. Its promotion of subservience blights the development of Christian maturity.

Yet those who are supposedly great defenders of the literal truth of Paul’s preaching want to resolve the family crisis by calling people to obey the supposed law of the family laid down in the New Testament!¹² The very form of the argument ought to arouse deep suspicion among Christians. As I suggested above, promotion of works righteousness only reinforces some of the most harmful tendencies of our contemporary culture. Our misgivings about the “law of the family” grow when we read the New Testament in its entirety. For then we see how selectively quotes are being used. You do not hear much discussion of passages like Luke 18:28-30, where Jesus praises those who have left “house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God.” Or how about I Corinthians 7:8-9, where Paul says that unmarried folks should stay that way, unless they just aren’t strong enough to control their passions!

So what does the Bible say about families?¹³ Well, in one sense, little that we can directly apply today. As we’ve already seen, our family situation is a rather unique product of historical and cultural forces in the modern U.S. We will find no blueprint for a contemporary solution in the pages of scripture. A movement that values agency should not seek such an easy way out in any case. Yet study of scripture can help us discern very important general values that we should promote vigorously.

The Community of Christ has rightly interpreted a very important motif present at least latently on nearly every page of the New Testament: the great worth of every person. Jesus vigorously promoted the dignity and fulfillment of all those whom their Creator loves. Alas, the family structure that our Master encountered usually failed to promote God’s purpose. For in the Mediterranean world of the first century patriarchy was firmly in control. Neither women nor children had rights, but were treated as inferior citizens, in fact as almost equivalent to property. Jesus therefore became a passionate defender of these marginalized persons. His often quoted prohibition of divorce (Mark 10:2-12 and parallels) represents this endeavor. For men in his time could cast out their wives arbitrarily. And alimony did not exist then! So divorce placed the affected women (who, by the way, had no right to initiate separation from abusive spouses) in a very precarious position. They either had to rely on the help of relatives, or become beggars or prostitutes. Jesus’ association with “women of ill repute” surely reflects his awareness and denunciation of these harsh realities. Also recall Jesus’ stirring and then unusual appreciation of children (Mark 10:13-16, etc.). He sought to provide an alternative community in which all were his mothers, brothers, and sisters.

The divorce teaching shows that in at least some cases Jesus also hoped that existing family structures could become more just and compassionate. Paul would extend this dimension of his Lord’s teaching. The gentile families he encountered in his extensive travels also displayed a patriarchal character. Paul, too, seeks to provide an alternative community wherein all are equal—remember his glorious vision of unity in Christ in Galatians 3:28. His preference for the unmarried state must be interpreted in that context. By the same token, as we have seen, Paul understood that many Christians would continue to marry. In those cases he counseled a new mutuality (Ephesians 5:20, for instance). When we read his advice to husbands and wives today, it’s easy to forget how revolutionary it was in his social setting. Few others in his world would go so far to defend the humanity and dignity of wives.

Please note that neither Jesus nor Paul would have had much tolerance for our culture of excessive individualism. Like most persons prior to the coming of modernity in the West, and like most persons outside the West even today, they assumed the basic sociality of human beings. Nowhere does this find clearer expression than in Paul’s description of the body of Christ in I Corinthians 12. While the Lord and his great disciple both sought to reform and provide alternatives to then normative family patterns, both ultimately hoped for a larger “household” or “family” of God, a beloved community characterized by mutuality, equality, and service one to another and to those in need. The expansive character of their conception of family, then, is unmistakable. Christians were and are challenged to ever widen the circle of concern to embrace more and more of the persons—all persons—for whom Paul believed Jesus had died and rose again. In focusing on family ministers we must be cautious lest we inadvertently promote an idolatrous attachment to the nuclear family that would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the gospel found in the New Testament.

Let us summarize the basic principles learned from the New Testament. Our ministry today should stress: (1) God’s profound, unmerited love for all persons and the consequent worth of every human being; (2) an appreciation for the variety of family options that persons might be called to; and (3) the universal call to service to an inclusive community. How might these values be expressed in the church’s ministry to families? A number of ethical corollaries follow from each of these principles. But let’s try not to fall into yet another version of the religion of law! The logic of love does issue into vigorous action, but not because “we have to” or because God will be really mad if we don’t! As the new stewardship theology of the Community of Christ proclaims, we give because we have received so much—love answers love in a grateful response.

First, then, what values and behaviors do we advocate when we take God’s love and each person’s worth with utter seriousness? Well, persons must respect the inherit dignity of all and care for one another. Promiscuity is not consistent with an affirmation of the worth of persons, for people are far more than ways for me to obtain pleasure. Steadfast loyalty and long-term commitment express our respect for the dignity of partners in all the dimensions of their humanity. While embracing healthy physical expressions of love, we thus refuse to reduce one another to sexual objects. By the same token we demonstrate our firm decision to care for someone over the long run, not deterred by the inevitable dry patches and difficult stretches of our lives.

The prophetic religion that Jesus inherited stressed the need for special consideration of those most vulnerable. Children and the aged therefore always deserve our highest concern. The great worth of persons also demands that we practice mutuality. We have no basis upon which to act as if some classes of humans have more inherent rights than others. Abusive behavior of any sort need not be tolerated, and no one should feel obligated to continue in relationships that demean and degrade the worth of any party. If Jesus came that we might have life in abundance, we have every right to avoid and step away from ties that bring emotional or physical harm to anyone. At the same time we recognize that entering into healthy relationships and nurturing their growth requires blocks of life away from work and other pursuits. We must strive to structure our common life so that persons can “take their time,” avoiding hasty decisions and neglect.

Second, we have seen that the New Testament does not lay down a single model of family life to which all persons must conform. It is therefore high time that we stop browbeating single people. Unattached persons of either sex do not necessarily “have issues” about relationships, and we shouldn’t assume that they are “probably gay.” Persons remain single for a variety of valid reasons. Some have simply never had the fortune to find their soul mate, but enjoy fulfilling lives none the less. I have also known individuals who sacrifice normative family life to answer the higher call of service. One example: Ed Guy, the legendary Community of Christ missionary in Central America. We should honor such persons, even admire their exemplary dedication, rather than insinuate that something just has to be wrong with them.

Similarly, some find and commit to long-time partners but either choose not to have children or find themselves unable to do so (remember that there may be economic as well as biological obstacles; adoption, for instance, can be a very expensive process). We should honor and respect their status as well. Often such persons are very involved in the service of other human beings, young and old. Let us offer our full support to adoptive and foster parents. Anyone who takes major responsibility for a child merits our admiration. And please let us foreswear our at least tacit disapproval of single parents! We all know persons raised by one adult who turned out rather well indeed. My mother is one such person. We should also appreciate persons who take their aging parents into their home. One of my dear colleagues in Berkeley showed exemplary dedication in caring for his mother until her death, in spite of the growing burden placed on him. I believe he understood the spirit of prophetic religion’s commitment to “widows and orphans.”

Whatever diverse configuration of the family we may find today, let us remember that no matter how these relationships came into being, unless we encounter an abusive situation all the persons involved need and merit our full support. We should give thanks for anyone willing to make a long term commitment to another. Love is always a rare and precious commodity. As I John 4:7 says, “love is from God.”

Finally, how do the needs of families help us to fulfill our servant call to inclusive community? First of all, let us re-create the bonds of supportive extended family. In the vision of Jesus and Paul, biology really makes no difference. During our years in Berkeley, very far from our natural brothers, sisters, and parents, Nancy received much tangible love from her “adopted” Chinese-American grandparents, the Rev. Fran Toy and her husband Art. When we couldn’t afford to do so, they made sure Nancy could go to Disneyland. They still remember Nancy at every birthday and all of us at Christmas. When we receive the warm support of community and our loving creator we find ourselves able to make the right choices after all. Because we are so well loved, we become more loving human beings.

Second, let us advocate for families in every way that we can. I hope that I have made the case that in the long run we will support healthy and enduring family ties best by taking on our consumerist, unequal, and ever more anxiety producing economic state of injustice. We help families by advocating decent universal health care, adequate vacation and leave time, affordable and sound education from kindergarten through college, and secure pensions plans. We should support the creation and preservation of decently paying jobs for all citizens of the earth. We must return to the principle of work weeks of no more than forty hours per person or sixty per married couple, and assure that people can live on the wages thus earned. This isn’t utopian dreaming. A number of European countries have gone a long way toward these goals by enacting progressive legislation. We must overcome our nationalistic pride and be willing to learn from the example of others.

I leave you with a final challenge. We will be more supportive members of extended families and better pro-family citizens when we find the time to do so. I know that most of us are trapped in jobs that demand far too much from us. If somehow you can find a better job, even if it pays a bit less, do so! And those of us who don’t strictly have to work all those long hours have a special responsibility. I call particularly on the leaders of churches and all not-for-profit organizations. We simply cannot be persuasive in our support and advocacy for families while we continue to set the very bad, even destructive example of constant overwork. The time has come for us to live the truth of all those lovely words we proclaim about “life balance” and “prevention of burnout.” Let us support one another in finding the courage to say no to our constant multi-tasking. Let’s change not just individual behavior but the structures that can promote workaholism. I just don’t believe that a loving God requires that we place our own health and the welfare of our families on the altar. Gods that demand human sacrifice are idols, not the abba of Jesus. May our shared life of ministry become a vibrant example of true life in community, for community—for the sake of all God’s children called to be part of the family of God, where all of us are truly at home.

Endnotes

1. Don S. Browning, Marriage and Modernization: How Globalization Threatens Marriage and What to Do About It (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003), 1-29.
2. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Scribner’s, 1958).
3. Marx’s most developed argument concerning capitalism is in his massive first volume of Capital (New York: Vintage, 1977). For a shorter example of his materialist approach to history, see “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker, 2nd ed. (New York: Norton, 1978).
4. The group’s work is summarized in Don S. Browning, Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore, Pamela D. Couture, K. Brynalf Lyon, and Robert M. Franklin, From Culture Wars to Common Ground: Religion and the American Family Debate (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1997). This is one of many volumes in the series edited by Don Browning entitled The Family, Religion, and Culture (all published by Westminster/John Knox).
5. Cahill, Family: A Christian Social Perspective (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress, 2000).
6. “Ready, Set, Relax!,” Time (October 27, 2003): 38-41.
7. For a good recent overview of the history of women’s roles in U.S. families, see Gail Collins, America’s Women: Four Hundred Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines (New York: William Morrow, 2003).
8. On globalization, see Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (New York: Farrar, Sraus, Giroux, 1999).
9. “Ready, Set, Relax.” See also Michael Adams, Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values (Toronto: Penguin Canada, 2003), 60-62, for evidence that “Americans” work far longer hours and are more stressed than their neighbors to the north. Not surprisingly, young people in the U.S. are also far more addicted to material consumption at the expense of other values (Adams, 89-92). I am grateful to William Main for this reference.
10. Nancy Compier, “Are Students Getting Enough Sleep?” Spirit of 2004 [student newspaper of Truman High School, Independence, Missouri] (October 9, 2003): 8-9.
11. Nancy Compier, “Would You Like Some Cheese With That Whine?” Spirit of 2004 (November 20, 2003): 14.
12. For a recent example, see “Baptists Issue Declaration on Marriage,” The Kansas City Star (November 15, 2003),: G3
13. For a fine short discussion of this theme, see Cahill, 18-47. For fuller treatment, consult the contribution to Browning’s series by Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1997).