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.