Not perfect, but good
"Transforming Families" is focus of Semper Reformanda / Witherspoon
conversation
[6-26-04]
The policy paper on "changing families" has been in the
works of the Presbyterian Church for more than five years, and it's back
again this year for (maybe!) final action by the 216th General
Assembly. As people trickled into the Richmond Convention Center on Friday
afternoon ahead of the beginning of the Assembly, some 60 progressive folk
gathered at Second Presbyterian Church of Richmond to hear a variety of
perspectives on the paper, now called "Transforming Families."
Four people who have been directly involved in shaping
the document shed light on the process by which the paper has been formed,
some of the important points made, and criticisms being leveled against
the paper in its latest form.
The Rev. Dr. Barbara Gaddis, a minister and family
therapist who
served as chair of the original task force, led off by
describing some of the twists and turns of the paper's journey. At one
point the committee was told the paper needed more sociological data as a
basis for its observations on the state of the family in American society.
So Gloria Albrecht, a professor of Christian ethics, was brought into the
writing process to provide new sociological content for the paper. Then
last year's General Assembly declared that the paper had too much
sociology and not enough theology. So the Office for Theology and Worship
was called in to provide some theological and biblical content - an
element represented in the discussion by Charles Wiley of the Theology and
Worship office, who drafted - and redrafted through many versions - a
theological statement for the paper.
Gaddis said that the original committee decided clearly
that their mandate was not to define "family," but to describe what it is
in today's society. Under pressure from those who want a clear-cut
definition, "there's nothing left of the original document," she declared.
Dr. Eric Mount, recently retired as professor of
Christian ethics at Centre College in Kentucky, spoke as a member of last
year's General Assembly committee who had drafted the minority report
which would have approved the study substantially as written, but which
was rejected by the Assembly in favor of a substitute which essentially
called for further revision of the document to add more theological and
biblical material. As Mount described the committee process, the
substitute motion, which was written by Alan Wisdom of the Institute for
Religion and Democracy, was an effort to "draw some lines ... against
adultery and such things," which conservatives saw the report as
tolerating too easily. These people feared that the report was drawing no
limits, and sought to add them, and what they saw as the biblical basis on
which they would stand.
Mount was asked to serve as "editor" for the new
document, but much of the writing, he said, was done by Alan Wisdom, who
was invited to join the committee. The Advisory Committee on Social
Witness Policy raised some concerns about the emerging report, and some
were concerned that the theological content that were being contributed by
Charles Wylie and Joseph Small of the Theology and Worship Office might be
change. It has, he said, survived largely intact.
The Rev. Gloria Albrecht, who provided the sociological material
for the paper, began her comments from the understanding that Christian
ethics cannot be done in a vacuum, but must reflect the changing realities
of the world in which we live - in this case, the changing forms and
realities of family life. This means understanding the different ways we
organize our intimate lives together, and the very practical questions of
how we deal with things as inheritance, medical care, insurance, and, yes,
sexuality.
Albrecht listed and then responded to some of the main
criticisms currently being leveled against the report, even after all the
revisions:
One question is "Why haven't we said that the family is
two married biological parents and their biological children?" There are,
she said, sociological reasons for saying this: The data are not that
clear in showing that "traditional" families do a better job then other
family forms in enabling children to thrive. While some 90% of children
living in their biological families are seen as "doing well," about 75 to
80% of children in non-traditional families do equally well. Yes, there's
a difference, she said, but much of that seems to result of economic
factors: non-traditional families are more likely to be poor, and thus
their children are less likely to thrive. There is also a theological
reason for being open to non-traditional families, she added, for the
committee heard many testimonies from single mothers and others who are -
with their children - "doing very well." Theologically, such human
realities and strengths could not be ignored.
Another question raised has been "Why don't we come
right out and say cohabitation is wrong?" First, she noted, such
"bumper-sticker" formulations of ethics are not a good way to deal with
complex issues. Beyond that, it appears that many low-income people want
to marry, but feel they can't until they are on more solid financial
ground. Many older people want to be together, but can't take the risk of
entering into new legal and financial "entanglements." And it is clear
today that many people see cohabitation as a natural part of the time of
engagement - "betrothal" in the old days.
Some object that the paper does not affirm individual
responsibility enough, because it emphasizes the obligations of the wider
community for the well-being of children and families. Albrecht responds
that this simply reflects the Reformed conviction that we need
connections, relationships, community, to live a good life. And many of
the problems experienced by families are in no way their own
responsibility, but are simply part of the normal "vicissitudes of human
life," such as the death of a spouse, that are in no way the result of
someone's personal "sin."
Charles Wylie spoke out of his experience of writing the
theological
section added to the report at the behest of last year's
Assembly. He said his work began with the Christian experience of baptism,
in which we affirm that a child is never simply the property of its
parents, since it has now become the child of a wider community. So for
Christians, "family" is never simply two biological parents and their
children. And the real question is not "what is a family?" Rather
it is "what are families for?" The vocation of the family, he
asserted, is to "nurture the growth of all its members into Christ."
Our theology leads us to affirm, Wylie said, that the
family is "basic" in human life, but it is not an "ideal" toward which all
people must strive. After all, he added, "it seems difficult to describe
something as ideal in which our Savior did not participate." So while
"there is something basic and good about the union of a man and a woman in
covenant," that does nothing to reduce the value of life in singleness, or
of adoption as a form of parenting.
If nurturing our children in reverence for God is a
central part of the family's vocation, he added, we're not doing a very
good job these days of teaching the basic Christian beliefs that would
help our children resist the temptations of our culture.
The final presenter in the panel was Jennifer Stone, who
has not been involved in the writing or rewriting of the paper, but who
used her perspective as a therapist with theological training to add some
comments from a little distance. Her central point was that this paper,
like most of what we do in our church and our society, reflects the
perspective of privilege. Since most of the authors of such a document see
reality from the standpoint of being safely in the system (married,
employed, financially secure, and so on), they tend to accept traditional
patterns as "normal," and to see other forms of life together as somehow
inferior, a failure, or even an offense against established patterns. "One
thing we learn from the Bible," she added, " is that we often find the
holy where we would least expect it: in the youngest son, the prostitute,
and so many more."
So, she said, we must not "shrink and domesticate the
church by seeing only through the lens of the privileged, and refusing to
see the holy in unprivileged places."
In the question-and-answer time after the panel's
presentations, commissioner Martha Cross of Cincinnati said she was glad
to hear the problem of "idolatry of the family" mentioned, and declared
that is a major concern raised for her by the "Christian Declaration on
Marriage" which may be proposed as a substitute for, or an addition to the
present "Transforming Families" paper.
Pam Byers of the Covenant Network staff asked what
people might say in testimony before the committee, to support the paper.
Gloria Albrecht simply suggested the people say what they find more
helpful or relevant in the paper for themselves. Charles Wylie noted that
the paper is intended to be helpful for study in congregations, and that
its useful might be emphasized.
Les Stansbury of Ohio asked whether the theological
additions to the paper are simply aimed at softening the impact of the
message about the realities a family life today. Albrecht responded that
the paper's consistent emphasis on justice as a foundation for
healthy families, and on community, and on economic factors
as vital to family well-being, could make a real contribution to our
congregations as they work to respond to the changing families with which
they minister.
Ken Smith, who moderated the panel, noted the importance
of the recommendation that the whole paper - complete with the
sociological background - should be published. Efforts to dilute its
effectiveness by removing that section should be resisted, he said, for
the sake of our churches, and for the sake of our children.
Got comments?
Please send a
note
and we'll share it here.
General Assembly 2004