(With a clearer picture of the role the family must play in solving the mental health crisis explained in the last installment, now we consider the role of the church alongside the family.)
When the church of God gathers these resilient adults and the children within these families, the church finds itself far better prepared to withstand the world’s pressures. While the church can then divert attention from remedial efforts, the church should still reinforce these beliefs, values, and behaviors regarding family as well as safeguard the family from the world’s attempts to pervert this ideal for the Godly family. The church is called to work alongside in support of the family from the beginning rather than just try to benefit from the family’s foundation without contributing to its continuance.
The modern church does not always view its relationship with the Christian family in this way, but often sets itself over the family. The attitudes of the church as an institution towards the family as an institution often resemble the state in that the church looks directly to the individuals within the family for connection rather than viewing the family as the primary level of interaction. This attitude arises from the fact that the church considers itself as God’s primary institution of relating to God, as the primary manifestation of God’s people. There is no denying that Jesus emphasized that the church was His body on earth (Ephesians 1:22-23) and each one engrafted into Him was part of this church body. Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that God interacted with His people in the Old Testament through covenants which extended to the children and descendants of the covenants’ recipients. From there we must acknowledge that the apostle’s recorded proclamation in Acts 2:39 concerning the New Covenant was promised to the hearers and their children. God still works solely through covenant in the New Testament times and that work of God includes working through the generations of Godly families today as well as prior to Christ.
The institution of the family should be emphasized as strongly as that of the church in the propagation of the Gospel from one generation to the next. Furthermore, they should not be set in contrasting interests, but in terms of mutually beneficial concerns and goals. The family institution, when directed at the Godly beliefs, values, and behaviors previously noted will set the groundwork for a sturdy and resilient church. With this in mind, the church’s response of supporting the family becomes not only a command of God, but unavoidably simple logic for the church’s own benefit. By strengthening the families within the church and defending them from both worldly deceit and worldly intrusion, the church grows stronger.
With the commands for Godly families and the clear self-interest, churches can and should support families in several ways. Churches should instruct families, particularly parents on the Godly pattern for families. Without such clear instruction, the family may pursue worldly ideals for family rather than Godly ones. Besides the regular instruction delivered by preaching and teaching, this should also come in the form of modeling by church leaders. The qualifications for such elders and deacons (I Timothy 3 and Titus 1) requires Godly leadership at home for the men and this must be held up as a model for other families. For those families within its fold, the church should support them in various ways as the family is challenged by ordinary or extraordinary pressures of life. This should occur regularly in terms of mutual prayer and edification in the relationships of the church as well as discipling families to live under God’s covenant.
As these internal activities are occurring, the church must also speak to the broader culture in support of family, defending the Godly family from perversions by the claims of the world’s experts. In the church’s silence, families can be engulfed in false portrayals of the ideals for families or for parenting. For example the deceitful philosophy of “it takes a village to raise a child” can infiltrate even Christian families when the church is silent. This worldly philosophy distorts the emphasis of having community around a family and makes such community involvement in parenting to be on an equal footing with the child’s parents. It sounds enticing until you step back and realize its contradiction of Biblical instruction.
In another example, the capitulation of Godly principles to the repeated proclamations of the so-called experts occurred. Decades ago, Dr. Spock’s dreadful parenting guidance became prominent in the absence of the church’s true voice, even being echoed by the church. His book, Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, has sold over 50 million copies since first being published in 1946. One Christian parenting website wrote about the effects of this book on our society:
“Well, many politicians and church leaders blamed Dr. Spock’s advice for raising the rebellious hippie generation of the 1960s. Former Vice-President Spiro Agnew called hippies “the work of Spock”. Former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley blamed the ills of Chicago on Spock’s “corrupting influence”.
Critics also blamed Dr. Spock for undermining parental authority and producing an entire generation of disrespectful and disobedient children. In 1968, Minister Norman Vincent Peale said that the U.S. was paying the price of two generations that followed the Dr. Spock baby plan of instant gratification of needs.
Dr. Spock eventually revised his book several times because he realized much of his advice didn’t actually turn out well. Dr. Spock later ran for president as the candidate for the socialist People’s Party in 1972.”
Spock’ book, apparently by someone who considered socialism as something worth implementing in America, taught parents to be more permissive, allowing children to vent their anger. It taught parents to minimize consequences for bad behavior. The parenting website also notes:
“Dr. Spock advocated making the home child centered, instead of parent centered. He encouraged a more democratic approach to parenting, where children and parents had an equal say. Instead of training children to have respect and self-control, Spock advocated freedom of expression and less restrictions.”
Another Christian parenting web article noted:
“Doctor Spock was aware of his negative influence upon parents. In a 1968 interview with the New York Times, Spock admitted that the first edition of his child-rearing book had contributed to an increase of permissive parenting in America. “Parents began to be afraid to impose on the child in any way,” he said. In his 1957 edition he tried to remedy that, but his rewrite didn’t succeed. Spock failed to see the deeper problems of his philosophy, so subsequent editions continued to promote parenting that cultivated narcissism, entitlement, and victim thinking.” How Dr. Spock is Destroying America
The true church as a whole should have stood up against this flagrant disregard for Biblical truth. Parents are clearly told to raise up a child in the way he should go (Proverbs 22:6) not in the way the child wants to go or in the way the child feels like he should go. The Biblical teaching makes explicit that a right way exists and therefore other ways are wrong. Both the Bible and Dr. Spock cannot be right when they are opposed one to the other.
Besides these flagrant examples, the church itself has been further influenced to follow more subtle worldly patterns rather than Godly patterns when an active stance is not taken against such influences. In the church we see several subtle patterns and effects. In a general way, the church follows the worldly pattern of segregating its members by age during services rather than integrating families and instead of bringing different generations together to support one another. At various times, the church desires to minimize offending others and thus ignores various sins from the simple ones like gossip and favoritism to the cultural sins of homosexuality and social justice racism. For some churches, they follow worldly approaches to church services such that the service sounds like a production instead of worship. They can also strive after seeker sensitivity so much that they forget to seek after God. While not as obvious, their lack of understanding and preaching on the covenant between God and man leaves their guard down allowing many of these and other ungodly patterns to take root. Collectively these patterns then contribute to the church not being willing or able to stand for a Godly pattern in families as the state and the entertainment industry continue to pervert God’s design for life in the body of Christ.
(Having looked at ways the Church has followed the world rather than lead it as it is called to do, next time we consider how the Church should now respond.)
Recent Comments