Only slightly related:

I'll admit to, in the few weeks since the "Christmas church cancelled" brouhaha erupted, finding all the posts that seem denigrating of the Christian family disconcerting. Who knew so many thought the family was worthy of such disdain?

Luther called the family "the little church." There is absolutely no replacement for the body of believers and one's participation in a local congregation of that body. But family seems to be taking some hits these last few weeks, and I suppose folks would say there's good reasons for it. But the very fact that we have so many single parents and troubled kids in love with the world says to me we don't value the family enough.

Hard subject.

File me under failed family. November was family month for my pastor. He gave 4 sermons on how to fix the foundation in your family, how women should behave in the family, how men should behave in the family, and how children should behave in the family.

Those four weeks just hurt. I don't know that I would recommend changing them, but an acknowledgement of us failed people might have helped.

I read half of a paper not too long ago on singleness in the church. At the time that I read it I was still hanging out without a church, so I did not understand a lot of its motivations. I am now more anxious to see how that paper ends.

Just as an example of what I'm talking about, here's something I just now read at the BHT, although it is a quote, I think, from a CT article:
The church has subordinated to cultural icons, and family is one of them

The family is a cultural icon? I mean, I know it can be, especially as so many today run their families like little companies and overextend themselves and overburden and overschedule their kids in the name of family, but when did we get to setting up Church/Family as a Spiritual/Worldly dichotomy?

Jared - those are good points you're making.

On a very, very side note, I see a lot of disparaging of Focus on the Family these days too - although no group is above criticism, I see some piling on there.

What resonated with me from Dan's post wasn't so much that the church is doing "too much for the family" (because if you look at families out there it's obvious this isn't true) - but that the church isn't doing enough to be family to those who have no family.

I think that there is always more that can be done to include those who are left out. There is never a question of that. The church will always need to strive to meet the needs of people inside and outside her walls.

I think that there is another issue here, that is a part of culture, and a part of church - the John Wayne/Rambo do-it-yourself egotism that doesn't want to admit to weakness or the need for help. You rarely hear about someone's loneliness until it is too late, even if you know it is there and you ask. They won't admit it. And some of that goes back to those churches that will look down on someone for being weak and vulnerable. But not all churches are like that.

I know that in college I would always invite my friends who were stuck in town over the holidays to come visit my family (who lived in the same town). At some point, I quit asking because so many people said they wanted to stay in their dorm, alone, for the whole holiday. There were some takers occasionally, but it made me realize that for some people, there is no substitute for not having a family to spend the time with. They would rather wallow in misery rather than at least have some love and human interaction.

I think it can be hard to invite people to share a family Christmas. I'd worry that all the family stuff, banter and inside jokes and teasing, would exclude the visitor. Perhaps that's an argument for being more of a church family throughout the whole year, then when it came to Christmas that non-biological-family-member feels naturally part of the family and not just an add-on.

the church isn't doing enough to be family to those who have no family

Yeah, I completely agree with that. That's why I said my comment was only "slightly related." I did bristle at Dan's remarks about family photos and what-not, but I know those were meant to serve his larger point, which is a valid one and agreeable to me.

I'm just coming off a previous week where the Christian family took a lot of hits from folks objecting to the Christmas church thing. I think there are probably some good points to make in that discussion, and the anti-cancellation folks make some good ones. Just some of their stuff contra "family" is troubling and, in my opinion, unbiblical.

Good point, PWF. I wonder how true it is that churches (or families within them) aren't doing enough to make the family-less feel included. We invited an older single woman we know (and that my parents are friends with) over for Thanksgiving and she was all set to come, but the day before, she backed out because she was inflexible about eating at a certain time (we were having the meal too late for her) and instead decided to go to her pastor's house (she has a standing invitation there every holiday, along with everyone else who is family-less).

These kinds of things really confuse me. I mean, on the one hand, I'm sure there is a valid complaint and need. On the other hand, so many times it seems like people are saying "What has the church done for me lately?"

I'll use myself as an example. Yesterday I got all misty-eyed because I didn't feel like anyone much reached out to us at the church we're visiting. This was our second Sunday, and our first time at the late worship service. I felt neglected - during greeting time people seemed not to be, well, greeting us much. But then I had to say to myself, "Well BWS, did you reach out and greet anybody?!" I hadn't. I just stood in my pew, smiling hopefully, waiting for people to come to me. I could have done better.

Oh. I just don't know...

Jared, there is no doubt that the family in America is in a state of decline and degeneracy. That's not the issue and those who have criticized the decision of the Southlands that dominate the evangelical presence in every American suburban community do not disagree on that matter of fact. The symptoms are obvious; the cause for them and the path to health is not. I disagree with the offered cure of the Willow Creeks, and to some extent, the diagnosis. Just read the response by the young pastor of Southland to this fiasco and you'll get all the evidence you need to see that there is simply a very different philosophy of what the church community is and what it's for than you find in the run-of-the-mill church on the corner and those that have some concern for their connection to the more "traditional" and anciently-grounded forms of church life and practice. It's fundamentally a difference over what the church is and what it's for.

As far as the outlook that leads to "family as cultural icon," I think the better word there would be 'idol' rather than 'icon'. Lots of good and holy things can be twisted out of their biblical shape into idols. Well, icons would be one of those. Political agendas. Social causes. The arts. And yes, the idolization of children outside and above (Reformed alert!) their larger covenant family.

Now, connecting this to De's post, here's a real-life concrete example of what these different outlooks entail. One of our members committed suicide (apparently) last week. His widow and grown children are in for a rough season. If we adopted the model of the church typified by Southland, then what the hell are these survivors supposed to do with their "family" time? Instead of having Christmas Day (and Sunday) to gather for the ministry of the gospel through Word and sacrament (even if it's only with a few others), it's left to the charity of individuals to comfort her. I'm sure that would happen, but the question is: is that the way to do church? Do we want to effectively kick all of the people who don't have the nuclear Norman Rockwell family to the curb as second-class citizens? Are they an afterthought (oh, well, we'll be serving meals to the shut-ins so we've got that mercy thing covered) or are they the very heart of who the church is? The broken, the ruined, the grieving, the tarnished.

As you can probably tell, I have strong feelings about this and I am inclined to be very uncharitable in both my thoughts and words on this subject. Part of it has to do with my grief over this widow who is one of my shepherding responsibilites and the probability that there are many like her who will have to rely on the charity of individuals for their comfort rather than the gospel comfort of the communion of saints gathered to be ministered to by the Word. I'm not trying to excuse my diatribishness, but I'm profoundly disturbed by some of the answers I've already heard (not here at Thinklings, btw): "Well, she can just go somewhere where they are having church and stop complaining." This comes across as: "[Four-letter-word]-off and stop trying to ruin my (I mean, our) Christmas." Of course, a Christian would never say or intend such a thing, but if you have a very limited view of who you think "is" your church, then this kind of rank ordering is inevitable, one's good heart notwithstanding.

Sounds like people just don't do a good job of really getting to know their church family.

There could be a lot of reasons for this.

I think that churches focus on family stuff because they think they can do a pretty good job at that. Helping out the widows or the fatherless or the new single women in town is harder to do. It can be intimidating on both sides of the equation. It can be ambiguous what someone really needs when they do or don't ask for something.

It's a lot easier to tell families they need to shape up. It's a lot harder to really make a newcomer feel welcome or a widow feel included.

Joel, I did read the Southland pastor's response. I hesitate to say I didn't find it near as "whiney" as I was prepared to as I read the responses to it at the BHT prior to reading it.

I'm not sure why we can't offer some charity on this thing. It's one thing to disagree with these cancellations, to provide reasons why one thinks it's wrong or inappropriate, etc. It's entirely something else to blast the churches doing it as examples of worldliness and not understanding church and choosing family over God, etc etc.
The nonstop character assassination that even celebrates after reading this:

"People e-mail me, calling me pathetic, a disgrace to the church and the kingdom, a child of Satan. That one came from Montana. Steve in Vermont called for my resignation."

The criticism comes at a time when Weece's mother-in-law is battling cancer. The preacher's father is also gravely sick.

As Weece described their condition, he paused and stared at the ground, unable to continue speaking.

After 10 seconds of silence, a woman in the audience shouted, "We love you, Jon." As Weece struggled to continue, the crowd rose to its feet and gave him a thunderous ovation.

. . . confounds me.

I also find it somewhat ironic that a bunch of dudes who keep defending the iMonk from those who would claim to be the arbiters of all that is Reformed and Proper, soteriologically and ecclesiologically speaking, can't help but roast these other guys for not obeying liturgical traditions most Protestants haven't followed for years.

Isn't it possible that these guys aren't examples of all that is wrong in evangelicalism? I mean, not any more so than you or me or Michael Spencer?
---

Agree with you on "idols," btw, and would include family as idol potential, also.

My observation is that so often we criticize the church for not doing enough in one area or another and we fail to realize that we don't have to wait for the church to take action. How many of us have stepped out and taken the initiative to reach out on an individual basis to those who will be alone for the holidays?

On a different topic, but to demonstrate a similar point, we recently had a meeting at church to discuss ways in which the church can become better at evangelization. While there are plenty of things the church (institutionally)can and should be doing better, how many more people might come to church if only someone sitting in a pew bothered to invite them?

I get tired of having 20 planning meetings about what we want to do while no one bothers to do the simple things that would work. It starts with individual people.

I often find that I too am guilty of not reaching out because it doesn't fit with my plans. I know that if I told my grandma that I was bringing a stranger from my church home for the holidays she would scoff. Its that kind of attitude that has to change. Family means more than "my four and no more."

I can't really add anything constructive to this debate. I can, however, shar my experiences with my church.

Go here.

There are a lot of problems with The Church but there are many things that are right.

I identify with the people who said they'd rather spend a holiday alone than join someone else's celebration. It's really nice to be asked, but I wouldn't be able to help feeling like an outsider and the object of charity. However, it should be noted that I suffer from a personality disorder, and my response can't be taken as a normal one.

American churches as a whole have lost the ability to provide true community to all people, not just families in need. That said, as a divorced mom of two elementary kids, I feel incredibly alone and lonely in a church full of married people/families.

An example? All the "womens" events our church organizes are for adults only, no kids -- so financially challenged moms like me can't attend. (I'd have to be able to afford a babysitter just to attend the women's events, then I'd have to have the money to pay for the dinner out, movie out, etc.)

Christmas is a rotten time for many people -- for divorced parents it can be especially painful, if the day is one which "belongs" to the other parents. We may not even see our kids on those days.

Single people, divorced people, elderly widows, people with health problems -- we are consistently overlooked by the church. That's my experience at the age of 40, in a large city. My experience as a child attending church in a small town was different -- people there actually cared if you lived or died, showed up or didn't.

I should add this to my above comments: it's not that some of us are overlooked by "the church" -- we are overlooked by individuals within the church who know us, know our struggles, but choose not to involve themselves in our lives.

Jared, I hear you. This issue has worked up a lot of passion on all sides and serves as good example of something that blogging does NOT help to foster in our communities: granting the benefit of the doubt and charitable deportment. There must be some Law of Blogging waiting to be discovered that explains why events that hit a hot button result in Chicken Little-like frenzies.

I don't know that "whiney" is the best description of the pastor's response either. But I think he does manifest an incredible lack of self-reflection. (Now that's not character assassination, especially from someone who will be the first to admit publicly that he needs more self-criticism himself; it's just a critical evaluation, an attempt to understand large-scale phenomena from particular symptoms.) That's not a sin, but it probably hinders honest analysis beyond the utterly simplistic.

I mean, even our secular columnists in the local paper, those who hate conservative churches of every kind, have opined with a scratch of the head. The political cartoonist had a devastating comic on Sunday--and he hates all things conservative. This pastor can't blame that on whatever ill-informed or wrongly-motivated criticisms are leveled by fellow believers. He ought to ask himself an obvious question: why do the agnostics and atheists in our community and elsewhere across America give a rip what we're doing on Christmas? Why are fellow believers reacting with embarrassment? Is it really because they're just jealous and mean-spirited? That level of analysis only perpetuates what divides our different faith communities from achieving any sort of mutual understanding.

Some honest evaluation of social and cultural attitudes and agendas would be helpful. I can tell you as a resident of the community dominated by Southland and the Southland model for doing church that they are far more effective at beckoning and coaxing the members of their "competition" away than they are at making inroads into our very secular city. But as you say, maybe they aren't indicative of everything that is wrong about evangelicalism. Maybe the mass-mediated criticism they're getting validates their defensiveness and is evidence that they are in the right. But if I disagree, can someone tell me when it's appropriate to raise my hand to question this hegemony? (BTW, that--hegemony--is the difference in comparing this criticism to imonk criticism.) Grant me the presumption that I can raise these questions charitably, desiring what is best for all and the greater glory of God, and if I fail to do so, then rip me to pieces as a character assassin and call for my repentance.

Grant me the presumption that I can raise these questions charitably, desiring what is best for all and the greater glory of God

I will.

I appreciate knowing, also, that you have a greater "inside" feel for that particular church, as well.
The things you bring up in your comment are good and valid points of dissent.

My main concerns with the debate were the way people were speaking of the family and the way some people were speaking of the motivations of strangers. But mainly the family thing. ;-)

I can't change the world. Someone has already done that.

But, I can look around and see where I can be useful to someone.

Besides being the church custodian and all that entails on Christmas Day (and Christmas Eve - we are open BOTH) I will host my extended family on Christmas day. My son's first college roommate can't afford to go home this year, so he will be coming here. Although, my son won't be here. We have considered this friend our "Thanksgiving Cousin" as he has spent the past 5 years with our family on Thanksgiving day.

Really, I can't solve the problems, but I can be available and willing.

Sometimes I truly believe we make too big of a deal about having perfect celebrations on Christmas day.

Celebrate Jesus, love your family and pass the cookies!

My post was written with a few things in mind:

1. You, me, us--we are the Church. Whether our formalized churches sanction the work of Christ we ought to be doing or not, we should fill the void when it is not done. Nothing is stopping any of us as individuals (or individual families) from doing any of the things mentioned in my post. Everyone can think of others, no matter how destitute one might be

2. I hate millstones. A millstone--to me--consists of saying, "This is what everyone must do," but then not equipping anyone to do it (or worse, those people have no physical possibility of doing the thing they are asked, yet it is asked all the same.) If I have one overarching issue with the Church in America today, it's this. Whenever our churches say, "You should...," they better have a way to make that "should" possible. The people who are on the fringes in our churches are the ones who typically suffer most from being "should-ed."

3. I'm not against the family; I have one of my own. The difference is that I like looser boundaries on what defines "my family." I think we give too much attention to nuclear families and not enough to what family means from God's perspective.

4. I truly believe the reason that some people are uncomfortable with some aspects of what I suggest is that those things aren't normal in our culture today. We've made what should be normal superlative. Because of this, it's easy to explain superlative away as "too different." But that's the world speaking and not God. If everyone in our churches were living superlatively, then we'd have a whole different definition for normal, wouldn't we?

5. The Kingdom goes against standard operating procedure. I hope that we Christians are always thinking counterculturally. That countercultural distinctive is what makes the world want to be us and yet hate us at the same time. The American Dream has led too many of us down a path of exclusion, "what's mine is mine because I fought and sweated to get it," but that's not the Kingdom. I think instead that our attitude should be more like that of the bishop toward Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. If we thought that way, I think our hospitality would go up measurably. We'd be more concerned with people than things.

As was already said, "we *are* the church". I try to reach out to other people; say hi to those around me; ask how their weeks were. About 10 years ago my husand left me so when "the ex" (I hate that phrase) has the kids, I'm alone. And when I'm alone, I don't think I can really invite other people to celebrate the holidays with me ("gee you want to come over and then there'll be two of us"), that's not much of a party. People from my church will walk past me alone in the pews at Christmas one year and alone at Thanksgiving the next - small church, everybody knows everybody - never had an offer for "come over for lunch." I don't think anybody is trying to be mean. I think 1) some people are way too isolated from what it means to be alone in the world (I've learned to take it in stride that I can go a month or two in between times when someone asks me how my day was), and 2) I think we've forgotten that love and fellowship are supposed to be on our priority list as a church. Those are things we cannot afford to forget.

but when did we get to setting up Church/Family as a Spiritual/Worldly dichotomy?

I don't remember what the verses were, but I was definitely taught, "The family and the church are permanently at odds. One can only win at the expense of the other." I never went to that end of the spectrum, but those were some strong words, and they pulled me in that direction.

Bill,

but that the church isn't doing enough to be family to those who have no family.

I cannot complain about my church. I was invited in for Thanksgiving this year, and I'm sure I will be invited into other things again. (It was an elder's wife who invited me, and I believe that's a good pattern, BTW.) They take good care of everyone, it seems.

I think the church fails to take advantage of their singles. Good googly-moogly, when the kids are gone, I am hunting for things to do (as appealling as the singles-scene might be ;-). I would love to be producing a skit, hanging decorations, or proofreading bible study notes before Sunday School. Put me to work. The singles should be a ready-reserve for everything at the church, and known as go-to people. Somehow that doesn't seem to happen, and I don't know why.

All I ask is that if you are going to spend 4 weeks preaching on the family, spend some time acknowledging that 1/4 of your congregation needs to hear something different. Try preaching just a little bit about how to spend time alone with the Lord. Everyone could use that message (just like everyone can use the message about loving your wife as Christ loved the church...)

Matt,

the John Wayne/Rambo do-it-yourself egotism that doesn't want to admit to weakness or the need for help.

Grrrrr.

for some people, there is no substitute for not having a family to spend the time with.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Make up your mind, Matt. Are we too stuck up to be with other people, or too weak to be with other people.

Your comment makes me genuinely angry. I think you are just repeating some else's insults, but they are unhelpful either way. In Galatians, Paul tells the brothers and sisters to bear each other's burdens, and to bear their own burdens. Completely contradictory, and only a couple sentence apart. (Nowhere does anyone tell anyone to find someone else to bear his burdens, but we'll drop that.)

In Rambo you find a fictional psychopath suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and going over the deep end. I'll just assume you are not really trying to accuse anyone of that. In John Wayne's movies you find a man who could stand on his own two feet and helped anyone he could, whenever he could. Well, yeah, I can see why you wouldn't want that to show up in the church.

They would rather wallow in misery rather than at least have some love and human interaction.

Yep, that's pretty much it. Glad you diagnosed me so thoroughly.

Weekend Fisher,

I don't think I can really invite other people to celebrate the holidays with me ("gee you want to come over and then there'll be two of us"), that's not much of a party.

Hehehe. Yeah.

You know, I've started to say something several times and just closed the window without submitting because I was having a hard time adding something new to the conversation.

All I will say is that I agree with Dan to an extent, but that I, as a single person living away from family, experienced unbelievable welcome into my church families homes on several occasions when I was unable to return homne to be with my own family. There were several Thanksgivings when I had more than 2 or 3 invitations from friends.

There are folks in the church who will reach out. It helps if those who need to be reached out to are accessible - hiding in anonymity makes it hard for people to make overtures.

Hi Jen

It helps if those who need to be reached out to are accessible - hiding in anonymity makes it hard for people to make overtures

I'm sure that people lurking in the shadows may not be noticed -- but it's simply not the whole story. Maybe your church is more special than all the rest (I hope so). But in my church, the other single mothers and I actually joke around about how often they say "anytime you need something just tell us" -- but when we do, NOTHING happens. Then soon they're right back up there again saying "anytime you need something". We just roll our eyes. Because when we say things like "Gee I wish I could get my kids to VBS but I have no transportation for them, can't take off work 2x/day for a week" -- nothing happens. I'm sure it helps if (as you say) the people who need help are accessible. But it also helps if the people offering generic help are sincere in their offer so that when a specific need arises they're still there.

It would be better to have no offer made at all than to have a "whatever you need" offer made again and again ... but never met when a specific request is made. That kind of thing is adding insult to injury.

WF, that's a valid complaint. I'm the blunt type, but maybe saying that to those folks might wake them up to the problem.

[...] (Hat tip: Thinklings.) [...]