In today’s Collect we
prayed “O Lord, mercifully receive the prayers of your people who call
upon you, and grant that they may know and understand what things they ought to
do, and also may have grace and power faithfully to accomplish
them…..” Have you wondered what we “ought to do” with
regard to some challenges to family and church? Of course, we are all
pro-family and pro-church. That being said, we might wonder what could be
challenging about either.
In 1974, with permission from
the state college where I taught fulltime, I was called to the part-time
pastorate of a small, rural Connecticut parish in Litchfield County. First
established in 1796, St. Paul’s Church had fallen on hard times. The
previous rector’s ministry had fallen apart, and a remnant of about 130
people remained. When I arrived, I discovered that some members were
considering a revitalization by referring to it as a “family church.”
I soon gathered that divorced individuals, widows and widowers, and other
single people felt a bit second-class, because they did not qualify as
“family” people. Moreover, I came to realize that a few “family
people” led lives that were stagnant or embattled. Eventually we decided
to refer to the whole membership as a “parish family” or “parish
community.” This development raised for me, in my role as a philosophy
teacher, the question, “Just what is a real family?”
I looked to the Bible; here is
what I discovered. The foundation of the family in ancient Israel is marriage,
understood as a covenant between the husband and wife. In early periods
polygamy was an accepted practice, enlarging the scope of the family. In a
broader sense, the extended family included other relatives (grandparents,
grandchildren, siblings), as well as slaves, servants, concubines, and resident
foreigners. The authority of the father was the strongest cohesive force, and
he exercised legal control over his wife and children. He even arranged
marriages for his children, generally within the clan. In the teachings of
Jesus, we hear no condemnation of polygamy, and, in a revolutionary way, he
makes clear that his true family are those who do God’s
will.1
When I hear some preachers and
politicians exhort their congregations and constituents to return to biblical,
family values, I have to chuckle. Do they wish to include slaves, servants,
concubines, and resident foreigners? Should fathers assert all of their ancient
prerogatives? What's more, should fathers be allowed to put their misbehaving
sons to death, as provided in Deuteronomy (21:18-21)? In addition, should all
the biblical dietary, dress, and purity codes be observed? And, what of St.
Paul’s warning against getting married at all as well as his notions of
the subordinate place of women in home, synagogue, and society?
As one of our own New Testament
scholars has noted, the Bible “no longer functions well as a (detailed)
blueprint for Christian living. The rules for family relationships laid down in
the New Testament epistles, for example, seem as unusable for educated Western
adults as the most time bound elements in the New Testament. … What we
expect to find in the Bible is not an absolute blueprint either of belief or
behavior, but an ongoing conversation that includes us as well and that can
give rise to reflection on how God is dealing with us in our own
times.”2 To be sure, the Bible contains
all things necessary for salvation; but, it does not contain all things!
Although the Word of God about ultimate reality, creation, human nature,
revelation, and covenant living is everlastingly true, cultural traditions
within which God’s Word evolves are temporary, limited to their own age.
Our present concerns ought to
be not only with the external form, but also the internal substance of family
life. To duplicate an Ozzie and Harriet form – husband, wife, and two
children – without attention to the quality of their life together
is superficial. How can Christians support any particular form of family life,
unless it is open to grow in mutual love? So often in the past, and not
altogether absent from the present, the primary focus was on external
appearances of relationships and traditions. Too many people have remained in
loveless marriages over the years, just to preserve a conventional form. How
cruel, sad, and unethical it was for them to be forced by church and society
(including many employers) to keep up appearances, to perpetuate a form without
due regard for substance!
In recent history we have seen
the emergence of additional public forms of family life: the couple that
chooses to not have children, the single-parent family, the blended family
combining children from previous marriages, and individuals who “live
together.” At St. Paul’s Parish we had all of these styles. I
remember a touching moment when I first arrived. A lovely couple in their 70s
(now deceased) came to me a bit sheepishly; they told me that they had been
living together for many years, that this was well acknowledged in the
community, that they could not marry, because their minimal Social Security
benefits – on which they both relied almost totally – would be
significantly reduced. They said that they would continue to worship at St.
Paul’s, but asked whether I would allow them to continue to receive
Communion. I responded with a question: “Do you really love each other;
are you truly committed to each other?” “Absolutely! Yes!” they
replied. “Of course, you’re welcome to continue to receive Communion
in your Church,” was my response. Just this week, 26 years later, our
triennial General Convention has recognized that in addition to married
couples, there are those in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are
living in other life-long committed relationships that deserve prayerful
support, encouragement and pastoral care. In another Convention decision, an
expansion of ministry to single people was adopted. While upholding the
sanctity of Christian marriage, the Church will study and interpret the full
implications of these new acknowledgments.
I realize that these
developments are unsettling for many people; what was regarded in the past as
clearly wanting or decadent is now recognized as an option chosen by many
faithful Christians. Among other issues modified in our time are divorce and
remarriage as well as family planning. I would suggest to you that such matters
continue to evolve, first in secular society and afterwards in religious
institutions. However, not only do some faithful church members feel angry that
we appear now and then to sell out to the secular world, but also some others
are furious that they did not have the same recognized opportunities.
As with views of the family,
understandings of the Church are in flux. The Church is no longer the province
of dictatorial clergy, no longer an institution inducing fear-driven rules, no
longer an oasis of ignorance hiding from the sciences, no longer isolated in
prayerful delusions of authority, no longer a pretentious association cowering
behind superficial graciousness, no longer immune from constructive criticism
by the faithful. And, most certainly the Church is not a public utility for
uncommitted people who expect to acquire on their terms: baptisms,
confirmations, weddings, funerals, and entertainment. This attractive building
is not the Church; we just don’t “go to” Church. Instead, you
and I ARE the Church, this fallible fellowship on a corporate journey toward
full communion with God through Christ. As such, we are all sorts and
conditions of women and men and children united not by total agreement or
conformity, but by our common baptism and in our worship together. We organize
our shared ministry around the broadest meanings of worship, religious
education, and pastoral care – especially of those who have committed
themselves within this community of faith. We focus not just on the external
forms of the Church (buildings, ceremonial, program, and regulations), but on
its heart - our inward dispositions and qualities.
While I was on vacation in May
I had the opportunity to worship and preach at a breakaway Episcopal Church in
another state. The 1928 Prayer Book Service of Morning Prayer was used, and it
was wonderful; for much of my life I was graced by that Service. The people
were a splendid, caring community. However, I have the impression that they
prefer the 1940s in just about every way. I wondered whether they would truly
welcome the bachelor Jesus of Nazareth and his unusual friends to full and
equally regarded participation. I speculated about the status of other people,
single for whatever reasons. I saw only elderly singles. I doubt that a senior
or any other couple living together in a committed relationship would be well
received. I sensed that this might be a fellowship which only welcomes its own
kind. I wonder what the longterm future of such a limited congregation is.
The contemporary challenge to
you and to me with reference to family and church is that we not settle for
only familiar and comfortable forms that too often reflect a clouded vision of
life’s possibilities in Christ. St. David’s Parish, and all local
congregations, are called to gather inclusively, to intentionally and
enthusiastically invite all who earnestly confess Jesus as Lord and Christ,
people who gracefully live within the Faith and Love we profess. In so doing,
we open ourselves to God’s Holy Spirit to grace us with new wisdom, new
depths, to true substance within a variety of forms, indeed to the ever
renewing and unfolding life in Christ!
O Lord, grant they we may know and understand the
things we ought to do, and also have the grace and power to accomplish them;
through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy
Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen!
1paraphrased from
“Family” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible and The
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
2The Rev. Dr. L. William
Countryman, Professor of New Testament at the (Episcopal) Church Divinity
School of the Pacific, in the April, 1998 Newsletter of the Anglican
Association of Biblical Scholars.