“Conservatives have nothing to say to the kid whose dad has split, whose mom has had three other kids with different dads; ‘go live in a nuclear family’ is really not relevant advice. If only a minority of households are traditional nuclear families, that means the majority are something else: single parents, never-married parents, blended families, grandparent-headed families, serial partnerships, and so on. Conservative ideas have not caught up with this reality.”—David Brooks

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/

Although I’m no longer a registered Republican, I am a conservative that believes in the traditional nuclear family; that is, that kids do best in homes with a mom and a dad united in healthy marriage. In my 30-plus-year career in social service and as a pastor, I’ve often spoken or written on this theme, and I’ve certainly personally tasted the blessing of God’s design. (See pic above from two weeks ago when my mom got to meet all her great-grandchildren for the first time!) I’ve learned by experience (and, yes, I’m still learning) to sing “I Love Your Ways.”

All this being said, I want to take David Brooks’ critique seriously. It’s a helpful mirror and raises some questions for those of us who would celebrate or defend the nuclear family:

• Are we irrelevant ideologues with little to offer anyone whose situation looks different than ours?
• Are our onramps to (what we call at Care Net) Pro Abundant Life accessible? That is, do we have anything to say to those who’ve been hurt, abandoned, or abused? To rebels? To those who are powerless or have fallen off the cart of life? To those whose families are a maelstrom of confusion?
• Is the language we use sensitive to the growing number of broken or alternative family structures?

As Christians, we have to live with the fact that our religion is one with exclusive truth claims. This means that, whether we or anyone else like it or not, sometimes there is just one way that leads to life (e.g. John 14:6) vs. many ways that seem right but lead to death (e.g. Judges 21:25; Prov. 14:12). We believe God, the Creator, has the right to call the shots on what is or isn’t His design and/or how humans approach Him. We can’t change, for instance, the fact that “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). Nor can we remove the requirement of repentance in making God’s ways accessible:

“This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: ‘In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.’”

Isaiah 30:15, NIV

In thinking about the last bulleted question, we need to be sensitive when using the term “natural” to refer to the traditional nuclear family. With the widespread breakdown of the family, many individuals may view their family situations as sub-par, that is, broken or unnatural. Yes, sometimes becoming aware and honestly acknowledging that our current situation is less than ideal can bring hope and be a step toward healing. The point I’m trying to make, however, is related to sensitivity and compassion. To say it another way: we want to be conduits of God’s goodness that leads to repentance (Rom. 2:4), not purveyors of shame.

We need to love all, pointing each (including ourselves!) to the One whose “mercies are new every morning.” (Lam. 3:23) Our challenge in doing this is to stay strong in holding up God’s ideal or design. The Apostle Paul provides us with a great example. He strategically reached households (Acts 10-Cornelius,16- Lydia and the Philippian jailor). In first-century culture, this included the nuclear and extended family, as well as servants—all who lived under the same roof. The heads of household in these examples were forces for good, bringing blessing to all through their decision to embrace the gospel. 

It’s a good thing that we live in a culture that cares about the well-being of children, at least those that have been born. It is also a good thing that we live in times where most have abandoned authoritarian and ugly forms of patriarchy. It is to the detriment of many of these same children and the human connection to God, however, that the nuclear family is regularly deemphasized or disparaged in favor of alternative family structures. Thankfully—for the well-being of children, some of these “alternative” families still include some mix of caring adults.

As we continue to wrestle with the realities and challenges of alternative families, we have some choices to make. We can sit smugly inside our own walls, thanking God that we are not like those out there. A fortress mentality like that, however, is a far cry from the one Jesus, “the friend of sinners,” had. It’s also opposite the prayer for mercy at the heart of true Christianity. Other choices we might make include panic or preparation. My heart is that we would reject panic (2 Tim. 1:7) and choose preparation, courageously tearing down walls like Joshua (Joshua 1:9). I pray that we will do this, however, with the love and grace of the later Joshua (Joshua means “Savior”), who died to justify the ungodly (Rom. 4:5).

Lest we forget, we are among the ungodly who Jesus died to justify.