The Sociology of the Family and its Ministry Implications

Understanding the needs of families is becoming an increasingly complex issue.  Family crises are no longer obvious and predictable.  The Church can no longer assume that its families are “doing fine” until a clear catastrophe occurs.  If the church is going to effectively minister to families it will need to understand the sociology of families, specifically concepts that allow for the complexities that today’s family deals with.

Theories, Perspectives and Influences

The Changing Structure and Function of Today’s Family

At the closing of World War II the traditional nuclear family was the near undisputed ideal model of family.  Soon after however, the unified view of family found itself under fire.  The entrance of the 1960’s with its carefree lifestyles, as well as increased divorce rates brought a changing view of the American family (Anthony, 2011). 

Anthony (2011) sums up the changes in the American family as: a significant increase in premarital cohabitation, the increase in gay/lesbian unions, the continuing increase in single-parent families, the continuing rise of blended families and teenagers attitudes about marriage.  Perhaps the most striking change in the American family is how it is defined (Garland 2012).  Family is increasingly being defined by function (treating each other like family) as opposed to structure (who you are-brother, mother, cousin, grandfather) (Garland 2012). 

Developmental Stages

In addition to changes in family structure and function families also undergo developmental changes.  Garland (2012) reports that the developmental stages according to Duvall and Hill are:

·         Stage 1: Beginning Families

·         Stage 2: Childbearing famililes

·         Stage 3: Families with preschool children

·         Stage 4: Families with school-age children

·         Stage 5: Families with adolescents

·         Stage 7: Families in middle school years

·         Stage 8: Aging families

Understanding the developmental stages has its advantages for the church.  Stage changes among families present clear and predictable opportunities for the church to minster to families.  Stage development has clear limitations, however.  If a church looks only to stage changes as it seeks to support the family it will miss many times when the family needs support thus failing to effectively minister to families.   Additionally, stage theory focuses solely on those families that fit within the nuclear family model.  Since less and less families fit in that model, stage developments effectiveness is diminishing. 

Physical and Social Space Impacts on Family

Families are impacted by their physical and social state (Garland 2012).  To ignore that fact is to ignore the needs of the family.  In order to consider the impact the physical and social syates have on the family it is crucial that the church have an ecosystemic approach to understanding and ministering to the family.  This means considering the impact a families ecosystem has as you would consider the ecosystem of an animal in assessing its health.   

Assessing the Health of a Family

Scarf (1995) describes the Beaver Scale as a tool for evaluating the health of a family.  The Beaver Scale of Family Health includes the following levels:

·         Level Five: The Family in Pain (Severely Disturbed)

·         Level Four: The Polarized Family (Borderline)

·         Level Three: The Rule-Bound Family (Midrange)

·         Level Two: The Adaquate Family

·         Level One: The Optimal Family

While Level Five (chaotic with no control) and Level Four (dictator like control) families are concerning I found Level Three families to be more so.  Scarf (2012) concluded that the majority of families that the church minsters to are level three families.  Externally Level Three families appear healthy, mostly because they want to appear healthy.  Being the kind of family their supposed to be in more important than the health of the family members.  This attitude creates a lack of intimacy.  I found this particularly troubling as it relates to children and adolescents in the home.  Clark (2011) points out that intimacy is one of the biggest needs that today’s adolescents have.

Critical Concept

Amongst these various theories, perspectives, and influences I have concluded that the most critical concept to consider is the ecosystemic approach to understanding the family.  The ecosystemic approach allows the church to account for the wide variety of factors and needs that impact today’s families.  There are many challenges and stressors that a family will encounter that do not correspond to developmental phases.  Without considering a families ecosystem the church misses valuable opportunities to support and minister to its families. 

Subsequently, a family’s ecosystem plays into their overall health and structure.  For example, the changes taking place in the family are at least partially triggered by changing ecosystems.  Likewise, a family’s health is determined in part by the way they deal with their ecosystem.  Simply put the church cannot determine the true health of a family without first understanding their ecosystem.   

Defining the Critical Concept

Garland (2012) states:

 The ecosystemic perspective uses ecology as a metaphor for the relationships human systems (families) have with their physical and social environments.   It focuses not only on relationships within the family, but also on how the family interacts with other persons, social systems and the physical environment (243).

Simply put, the ecosystemic perspective considers both the internal and external factors affecting today’s families (Cardoza 2011).  It is my assumption that the ecosystemic perspective is the single most affective concept at considering the wide array of both internal and external factors that impact the family. 

Applications in Context: Rockford United Methodist Church

In the last week I have become aware of two different families tied to Rockford United Methodist Church (RUMC) whose parents separated shortly after moving to a new place.  In one of those instances both the husband and wife were unsatisfied with the place they were living.  After separating they both relocated.  While I can’t conclude that the move to this location is what ultimately led to the failed marriage I can safely assume that the couple, and anyone trying to support them and their marriage, did not consider that the couple might try moving to a more favorable location before deciding whether or not to separate.

RUMC has the opportunity not only to improve its understanding of when its families are in need of care, it also can enlighten families when they are being impacted by their environment.  Staff and members of the church can suggest to a couple in turmoil that they try changings shifts or switching jobs to decrease marital stress.  They can help the family see that allowing the new baby to spend the night at the grand parents might help to reduce the anxiety of an older sibling.  So many opportunities for care open up when we are able to consider all the factors that confront a family. 

Conclusion

If the church is going to effectively minister to families it will need to understand the sociology of families, specifically concepts that allow for the complexities that today’s family deals with.  The ecosystemic approach to understanding and ministering to the family takes into account all the factors, both internally and externally that impact today’s family.  This approach will allow for churches to consider all stressors in a family’s life rather than just focusing in on the more obvious ones.  By broadening its understanding of family stressors the church broadens its understanding of what ministering to families entails. 

 

An Accurate Description of Today’s Family

What does today’s American family look like?  Is it the picturesque husband and wife with 2.5 children and a well-trained dog? What about all the families who fail to live of this ideal standard?  Both the structure and the function of the American family is changing.  American churches must learn to address families within these new contexts if they are going to effectively ministry to today’s family.

The American Family: Past and Present

The American Family of Yesteryear

If asked to describe what a family from the past most individuals will describe what has been termed “the nuclear family.”  They will undoubtedly paint a picture that includes a “bread winning father,” married to a “stay at home mother” whose primary role is to care for their children.  Very little will be said about the role of extended family within this context.   According to most, this is the “ideal” family situation, and this is a picture of family that many (including the church) are lamenting. 

Garland (2012) points out, however, that today’s view of the traditional family hasn’t been “traditional” for all that long.   She states:  “The structure of the ‘traditional family’ – breadwinning father and homemaker mother and their dependent children- has not been the historical reality for more than 5% of the history of Christianity” (p. 40).  In both the early church and in Old Testament times the family core went well beyond parents and children and included extended family.  According to the bible the men in Abraham’s family numbered  at least 318 (Gen 14:14, NIV). The number of women and children within Abraham’s family were not even considered in the verse.

During biblical times and during the times of the early church the family household encompassed all aspects of one’s existence (Garland, 2012).  This remained true during the European Middle Ages.  Bennett (1996) observes:

At the Dawn of the European Middle Ages, a key role was played by extended family and kin relatives … The nuclear family-father, mother, children-was ‘no more than a loose core at the center of a dense network of lineage and kind relationships,’ and family life was, therefore, far from a private affair…Indeed, marriage itself was as much about a pathway to a new and larger kinship community as it was about a deep, intimate relationship with one’s spouse (52-53)

Even as Europeans began to settle in Colonial America (during the 17^th and 18^th centuries) families were much larger than today’s nuclear family.  The American nuclear family began to take form as a result of factors like exploration of the American Frontier and the Industrial Revolution.  These events gave birth to the “bread winning father and the “stay at home” mother.  (Garland, 2012). 

Today’s Family and its Changes

At the closing of World War II the traditional nuclear family was the near undisputed ideal model of family.  Soon after however, the unified view of family found itself under fire.  The entrance of the 1960’s with its carefree lifestyles, as well as increased divorce rates brought a changing view of the American family (Anthony, 2011). 

Freddy Cardoza (2011) concludes that there are both internal and external factors that are affecting changes in American families.  Key internal factors include breaking and broken homes, immature parents and hurried children, and nominal faith commitment.  Key external factors include alcohol and drug abuse, our oversexed society, and financial insecurity (Cardoza 2011).    

 Anthony (2011) sums up the changes in the American family as: a significant increase in premarital cohabitation, the increase in gay/lesbian unions, the continuing increase in single-parent families, the continuing rise of blended families and teenagers attitudes about marriage.  Perhaps the most striking change in the American family is how it is defined (Garland 2012).  Family is increasingly being defined by function (treating each other like family) as opposed to structure (who you are-brother, mother, cousin, grandfather) (Garland 2012).  The interesting thing about this is it creates an opportunity for the family to grow.  It allows for a congregation to function as each other’s family.

A Snapshot: Rockford United Methodist Church

            A snap shot of my ministry context (West Michigan) definitely mirrors the changing family.   Our families no longer resemble the picture of family depicted in shows like Leave it to Beaver.  I have not yet reached my three year anniversary with Rockford United Methodist Church and have already witnessed numerous divorces and marital separations.    Another clear example of the changing family right here in Rockford is that my wife and I became members of our church alongside a lesbian couple. 

If we gear our ministries solely towards the nuclear family than we fail to minister to many of the families attending Rockford United Methodist Church.  I am starting to see the exclusionary effect that our ministries have geared towards families has on our “non-nuclear” families.  Our small group for mothers meets on Tuesday mornings, ruling out participation for working mothers.  Our couples group sends a clear message that this is not the place for single parents to be ministered to.  Even the time we choose to offer our vacation bible school (9:30 AM to noon) is clearly designed for the nuclear family. 

These assumptions about the family are clearly hindering our ability to minister to the families of our congregation.  If Rockford United Methodist Church is truly serious about supporting its families then there must be family ministries in place that allow our families to come as they are.  This will mean that careful attention must be made in answering the question “Are we welcoming all of our families?”  Until we are able to do just that, we will not be a “family friendly” congregation.

Subsequently I am encouraged because I have observed that our congregants have a functional understanding of family.  I here phrases like “my church is my home” and “we are a family” at church gatherings.  There truly is an opportunity to bring family ministry to a whole new level.  It really is possible for Rockford United Methodist church to serve as the “extended family” of our congregation. 

Conclusion

Both the structure and the function of the American family are changing.  American churches must learn to address families within these new contexts if they are going to effectively ministry to today’s family.  Understanding the factors that are the driving force behind many of the changes taking place within the family allows the church to effectively minister to today’s family.  The changes being made to the family are scary but they also have a positive side.  Today’s church is blessed with the opportunity to fill a familial role in the lives of its congregation.  It is an opportunity we had better take full advantage of.

References

Garland, D. R. (2012). Family Ministry: A comprehensive guide (2^nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Bennett, W. J. (1996). The Broken Hearth. New York, NY: Double Day.    

 Anthony, M.J. (2011). The Morphing of the Family.  In Anthony, M. and Anthony, M. (Ed.).  A Theology for Family Ministries (2-20). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

Cardoza, F. (2011). The Family in Formational Years. In Anthony, M. and Anthony, M. (Ed.).  A Theology for Family Ministries (64). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

The Normal Family?

Our Genealogy

Defending the traditional family is a major goal for many Christian churches and their congregants.  But Garland points out that today’s view of the traditional family hasn’t been “traditional” for all that long.   She states:  “The structure of the ‘traditional family’ – breadwinning father and homemaker mother and their dependent children- has not been the historical reality for more than 5% of the history of Christianity” (Garland 40).  Holding on to what we know and seeing it as the “only way” seems to be a Christian phenomenon. 

Throughout human history economic factors have shaped what family structure looks like.  That remains true today (Garland 40).  I am struck by Garland’s description of the family as consumer.  The challenge of providing the income the family needs to “pay the bills” has huge implications on the family, especially children.  Garland points out: “Family members remain isolated from each other in their work and school activities – the vast majority of their time – and share only in periodic leisure pursuits” ( Garland 35).  This isolation leaves young people in the family feeling lost as they navigate through life without the presence of adult family (Clark 34-35). 

Perhaps if the church understands that economic need is a driving force behind many of the changes taking place within the family it will be less threatened by them.   Our perspective changes when we realize that mothers are working not because they are nontraditional, but rather, because they believe they have to in order to provide for their family changes perspective.   It allows the church to become less entrenched and to minister to the family in its current context. 

The American Family Today

                Today family is defined both structurally – based on biological and legal relation – and functionally – the way individuals relate to one another (Garland 53).  A structural understanding of family limits family to blood and legal relatives, regardless of whether or not they play a role in an individual’s life.  A functional understanding allows for family to be based upon whether or not an individual is filling familial roles.  Garland defines the function of family as “the organization of relationships that endure over time and contexts, through which persons attempt to meet their needs for belonging and attachment and to share life purposes, help and resources” (Garland 56)

                These are needs that individuals have always sought from their families.  The changes in the family structure have made it increasingly difficult for these needs to be meet by a structural family.  Individuals are increasingly choosing to define families in terms of function to get needs met.  This creates a great opportunity for the church.  By defining family in terms of function this allows the church and its congregants to fill one or more of the family functions in an individual’s life. 

                Within my ministry context at Rockford United Methodist Church meeting needs for attachment and belonging is the most vital family function for us to address.  I believe that belonging is the single greatest need that individuals have today.  Individuals today are looking to belong.  Addressing ones belief systems is all but impossible if he or she does not feel a sense of belonging (Wittmer  99-100).  For this reason, I contest that meeting the need for attachment and belonging is an absolute imperative if Rockford United Methodist Church is going to be “the home” of an individual. 

Garland, D. R. (2012). Family Ministry: A comprehensive guide (2^nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Clark, C. (2011). Hurt 2.0: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers (2^nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 

Wittmer, M.E. (2008). Don’t Stop Believing.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Youth Ministry Lessons from the Teen Choice Awards

After watching the 2013 Teen Choice Awards, it became quite clear to me that the individuals responsible for media campaigns targeting adolescents would have no problem engaging youth ministry researchers like theology professor Dr. Chap Clark in a lengthy conversation concerning youth. (I can’t help but think they’ve read Clark’s book “Hurt 2.0.”) If mass media is redefining its understanding of young people, should youth workers do the same? Here is what youth workers can learn from the Teen Choice Awards and the marketing around it:

Deep Down, Adolescents Know They Need Adults.  

This understanding led the contact company Acuvue to create a series of commercials that paired aspiring musicians and athletes with celebrity musicians and athletes. (Back in the day, we called that mentoring.) Acuvue also created much longer YouTube videos that showed the interactions between the adolescents and the celebrities. Throughout human history children have learned to become adults by observing, learning from and imitating adults. Indeed, this is still how things are done in many places around the world. In the United States, however, adolescents are learning how to become adults from and alongside other adolescents. It’s a classic case of the blind leading the blind. This cultural shift should be lamented by youth workers. (I believe that it is subconsciously lamented by adolescents.) Acuvue seems to believe something similar.   

Deep Down, Adolescents Long to be Truly Known and Unconditionally Accepted by Adults.

When actor Ashton Kutcher was awarded the Ultimate Choice Award (something like a lifetime achievement award), great effort was made to describe him as an adult who genuinely cares about adolescents "without looking down on them." Kutcher kept with the theme, at the beginning of his acceptance speech, sharing a personal secret. He revealed that Ashton is actually his middle name and that his first name is Chris. I don't know how intentional it was, but Ashton sent a clear message; "I am real with you; you can be real with me. I really care about you."  If youth workers can follow Ashton's lead, they have the opportunity to have a big impact on adolescents.  

Deep Down, Adolescents Want to Learn from Adults (Who Accept Them)

Ashton Kutcher felt he could do just that: have a big impact on adolescents. Because he felt accepted by the young people around him, he assumed that he had "earned the right to be heard."  Kutcher’s acceptance speech was not a speech at all, just some sound advice. He had three points to share with the teenage audience.  First, "opportunity looks a lot like hard work"; second, "The sexiest thing in the entire world is being really smart, and being thoughtful and being generous" and finally, "Everything around us that we call life was made up by people that are no smarter than you." While his advice falls well short of the Gospel message, it was, in my opinion, the most positive thing that came out of the night, and the young people in attendance were hanging on every word.  

If the brains behind the Teen Choice Awards were running your youth group, they would work hard to connect the youth to adults, show them that they are known and unconditionally accepted, and be taught by adults who accept them. There was a lot about the event that I disagreed with, but the bottom line is this: it connected with today's adolescents.

The Church and Monsters, INC

Mark 10:13-16

¹³ One day some parents brought their children to Jesus so he could touch and bless them. But the disciples scolded the parents for bothering him.  ¹⁴ When Jesus saw what was happening, he was angry with his disciples. He said to them, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children. ¹⁵ I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn't receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” ¹⁶ Then he took the children in his arms and placed his hands on their heads and blessed them.

Monsters, INC.

In Disney Pixar’s Movie Monsters, INC. there is a comical scenario in which Monsters rely on the screams of children for energy.  What makes things interesting is that the Monsters are deathly afraid of children, believing that if they are even touched by a child their life will be in danger.

This scenario may be outlandish, but the central theme might not be as far from our reality as we think.  The theme, in a nut shell is that children have their purpose and place but by in large should be feared and avoided.  I think we tend to share view sometimes…ever heard the saying “children are to be seen and not heard” or “I need a break from children when I am worshiping God.”  You should see some of the looks I get when I suggest to individuals that they volunteer in the middle school programs!  

The Lesson…

One thing is for certain, this is a theme that the apostles had.  The children just weren’t a high priority for Jesus’ disciples.  To them, following Christ was a grown up affair.  Surely, Jesus was too busy doing miracles and teaching to pay any attention to these young ones.  But Jesus had something to say about this attitude.  It is an attitude that still exists in today church, and Jesus’ words still ring true.