What of Jamie Smith’s critique from Part 1 that many nuclear families are “closed, self-sufficient, autonomous” units with little concern for others, including a church or spiritual family? He’s right but the reasons for this are myriad and complex and certainly not an indictment of the traditional family itself. Further, being self-sufficient isn’t always bad. Paul tells us to “bear one another’s burdens” but he also says that “each one should bear his own load” (Gal. 6:2-5). How can a family share if it has no strength itself? Let’s be real: in certain seasons of life many of us are so caught up with survival, battling health concerns, providing for kids, parents, etc. that there’s nothing left for anything else. Or, worse, we’re so focused on building the “white picket fence” that there’s no space to get to know our neighbors or meet needs in our communities. Yes, some of us may need to address debt to have more margin to love (Rom. 13:8). But few families (traditional or non-traditional)—especially if they’re close—don’t wrestle with self-focus and a lack of care and inclusion toward others. It’s the shadow side to family strength and closeness. Again, Smith’s critique is accurate and can provide helpful reflection, however, that reflection will never lead to the proper repentance and correction by making the nuclear family structure the scapegoat.
Another line of attack against the nuclear family is related specifically to its exclusion of the extended family.[1] And there is certainly much to say on the value of grandparents, aunts, uncles and the role of shared parenting. Or even the value of the larger community (think tribe or village) including a healthy church family. The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology attempts to speak into this conversation while also addressing whether the nuclear family is rooted in Scripture, or not:
Many biblical references to parenthood relate to the concepts of protection and inheritance, often strictly codified. Yet parenting itself was clearly shared within the extended family or household, possibly with servants. There is no description of the nuclear family, considered so desirable recently in the West. Perhaps Christians adopted the model as it seemed a practical outworking of the NT teaching on sexual continence within marriage, as well as honoring the teaching codes of conduct and respect between parents and children (1 Cor 7 and Eph 6:1–4). The criticism of muddled families often springs from that teaching, in so far as biblical descriptions of extended families sharing their caring is one thing, but widespread marital infidelity, breakdown and cohabitation is quite another. Children regarded as precious in the sight of God, may be seen as, and sadly often are, innocent victims of irresponsible adult behavior.
The family of Jesus himself is the only clear NT model [of the nuclear family- emphasis mine]: the son of Joseph and Mary, he is known to have brothers and sisters (Matt 13:55–56). The only extended family member referred to is Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin (Luke 1:36), and she was not local. Christians, therefore, may well also have tended to adopt this pattern as supporting the idea that the nuclear family is the norm in present times. They have generally paid less attention to the extended family, though worldwide there are, of course, cultural variations.
Despite intentions, the authors leave the waters muddy regarding whether the nuclear family is biblically supported and thus should be championed and protected, or not. Notice the contradictory statements I’ve bolded above and placed below:
- “there is no description of the nuclear family”
- “the family of Jesus himself is the only clear NT model”
It’s yet another clear example of the unwarranted hesitancy—again, even among Christians—to acknowledge the antiquity of the nuclear family or extol its virtues. Yes, the extended family is also important in raising children and should be valued and affirmed. This is no reason, however, to dismantle the nuclear family or denigrate the model in which Jesus himself was born into and raised (for more on this, see here). Indeed, you can’t have an extended family without first having a nucleus. Moreover, many individuals and social workers today have no choice but to focus on extended kin because the nuclear family is weak, fragmented, or non-existent.
Finally, in making the case for strong, loving, outwardly-focused nuclear families we need to make one final point: Denigrating the traditional nuclear or natural family ignores basic biology and the findings of evolutionary psychology. These show that “individuals are not only concerned with their own specific genes; they are also concerned with the survival of those who carry their genes—offspring.”[2] In other words, we are most likely to care for what is part of us.
And, being part of a culture that values evolutionary psychology, it’s important to also point out that we crave something beyond our biology—intimacy, and that marriage—far from being obsolete—is actually the context that best protects that craving. Andy Stanley, pastor and author of The New Rules for Love, Sex, and Dating, makes this case brilliantly:
Cassettes are obsolete. Monogamy is more like an endangered species. Rare. Valuable. Something to be protected.
Women and children do not fare well in societies that embrace polygamy and promiscuity. Sexual freedom undermines financial and emotional freedom. If we are only biology, monogamy was probably a flawed concept from the start. But very few of us live as if we were only biology. I’ve officiated my share of weddings and done my share of premarital counseling. I always ask couples why are they getting married. Survival of the species never makes the list.
We desire intimacy—to know and be fully known without fear. Intimacy is fragile. Intimacy is powerful. And intimacy is fueled by exclusivity.[3]
[1] Natalia Sarisian and Naomi Gerstel’s Nuclear Family Values, Extended Family Lives (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2012) is an example, although a poorly written and reasoned one.
[2] The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012), 264.
[3] Nancy Gibbs, “Is Monogamy Over?” Time, September 21, 2015, accessed November 14, 2016.