See the stories at the Chicago Tribune and the Deseret News. If you’re in Chicago, there’s still time to join us at 10 am at Fourth Presbyterian Church for the release event!
Categories: Children of Divorce, Faith and Families, General
| « Does the Shape of Families Shape Faith? Press Release and Link | Do Fathers Matter Around the Globe? » |
I’d really like to see the actual publication; the Deseret News article especially conflated religion with Christianity (its graphic on adolescents and religion even featured a Christian church, and its descriptions of the different attitudes of teens on religion took a very dim view of those who had views of the sacred that departed from traditional Christian views, naming them as “avoiders” rather than “seekers”).
I think divorce does play in to why some people stop attending religious services, but it isn’t a primary reason. Yes, some religions and congregations are very hostile to divorced families, especially divorced women. I really think its more about “losing the faith”—not losing any and all spiritual feelings, experiences, or concepts; just not finding any room for differing or broader views of spirituality in the faith one was raised in. I also think that women in particular reject patriarchal views of religion—if one’s church doesn’t affirm women’s equality and/or doesn’t offer a nonpatriarchal vision, women are more likely to leave. And more often than not, women get custody of children in a divorce.
If it wasn’t for finding my UU congregation, I would be one of those people who never went to church and didn’t raise my child in a church. Not because I’m irreligious or nonspiritual, but because I didn’t think there was a community of people who believed as I did in my locale. I didn’t think I had any options for a religious community. But if I lived elsewhere, like where I went to high school? There would be nothing for me there.
yes, the faith in the title means christian faith
. not all religions use service attemdance as the primary marker of religiosity
elizabeth why do you view it as a bad thing if people become less religious following a divorce?
Here’s the link to the full report:
http://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/SOFSF.pdf
I look forward to discussing a bit later today on the blog. Heading to event now
Thanks, Elizabeth. Well, just read the report. It ought to be re-titled as “Does the Shape of Families Shape Christian Faith?” It was very Christian-centric (and included the classification of religiosity of teens in the Deseret article; I was wondering if that was their overlay–it wasn’t).
I was surprised to see that interfaith (including agnosticism/atheism) marriages as a source of conflict wasn’t addressed, nor the most common coping mechanism for interfaith couples who stay married—reduced participation in religious communities, and allowing their children to choose which religion (if any) they want to practice (children making the choice as to the level and direction of family participation in a faith community).
Anyway. Religion is not the same as monotheism, and spirituality is not the same as belief in a personal, singular, discrete, omnipotent Being. Writing a report that was inclusive of all faiths represented in the Parliament of World Religions would be a very daunting task (and longer than 77 pages!), but positing a Christian model as the only model of relevance is alienating.
@ki sarita – I think the report is aimed at religious leaders, so naturally they would think it is a bad thing if people become less religious and less likely to go to church because of divorce.
Reading through the report, I can find much I can agree with once I translate it. But I don’t understand why the Institute would use its funds towards a project that’s written only in the language of Christianity, and solely for the benefit of that community. Isn’t the Institute unaffiliated religiously?
I wouldn’t be so disappointed if you had at least acknowledged your total exclusion of non-Christian faith communities. The report reads as if they don’t exist.
I hope this isn’t what the Institute is going to look like in its post-gay-marriage form.
Diane, I know, but my question is, why does Elizabeth see it as important to call upon Christian leaders to retain these folks?
(note, since we are discussing Christian, I used the word Christian, not the word religous leaders. I agree with Ralph- studies that focus on Christians are totally cool, but should not be presented as universally representative).
I think a call to Christian leaders to try to retain these folks, presupposes that a “spiritual but not religious” is a negative trend. Why?
Good thread.
In my opinion, people who suffered childhood trauma in any way, and certainly divorce is trauma, are far more apt to choose a form of spirituality than religion. Why? It’s a way of gaining control in our lives. Someone from a pulpit, speaking ‘down’ to us is only reminiscent of everything we’ve been through. It’s a statement that says: where were y’all when we needed you, take your rules and shove it.
Persons are no longer going to buy into: if you don’t do this, or you do that … you’re going to hell. The following is a trite and in some ways not at all an accurate statement; but, it sure rings true for lots of us: Religion is for people who are scared of hell; spirituality is for people who’ve already been there.
If religion is only a liturgical service wrapped in rules, instead of a community where each of us binds one another’s wounds … what value is it?
Teresa, much of what you said rings true to me as well. But…there’s still no getting around certain required beliefs. People who leave a faith, or never develop a relationship with a particular faith (and that includes a significant number of people raised religiously but who never felt the truth of the religion in their hearts/minds) or those who feel more comfortable identifying as “spiritual, not religious” are often thought to be anti-authoritarian as a matter of course, but that’s reductive. It not (most often) an opposition to rules as much as it is specific rules and or the process/beliefs whereby those rules came into being.
La Lubu stated:
OK, I can agree with this to a point, La Lubu. I’d expand it to say in some sense it is anti-authoritarian and rightly so. It has to be seen in that light, at least for me … and, quite frankly that’s why I like personal prayer and meditation rather than the ‘religious’ stuff. The grand pooh-bah’s of religion are definitely authoritarian, and they make that quite clear when ‘push comes to shove’. My way or the highway. We only have this last election to see this.
For those of us who are dealing with childhood trauma, we have 3 choices, as I see it:
1. We’ll grab a religion and hold on for dear life, because we’re so fear-based and if we do the rules just right … we’re good.
2. We’ll say bye,bye to organized religion, seeing it as just another ‘beat me me up again’ authority figure … and, find solace in some form of spirituality, where we have the control.
3. Or, we may try like heck to integrate spirituality with an organized religion … and, that often means, we’ll take it on our terms. If we can see the rules as a way of caring for ourselves, we’re on it. If not, oh well.
I’d like to add a #4 to Teresa’s list. Sometimes people find an organized religion or congregation that is not authoritarian. The advantage of that is that you can get community fellowship and support in your spiritual journey
I might add that attending religious services means very little, at all. Let’s take a little trip down memory lane to the 1950′s or even the early 60′s. The Ozzie and Harriet and Leave To Beaver days, when church attendance was very high.
So, if church attendance was so important why did all those adults and children from those ‘happy marriages’ grab hold of the cultural revolution of the times. If being religious is so life-changing, it certainly didn’t show up then.
I contend, that even then, when couples were least likely to divorce, and very likely to attend religious services, something was tragically wrong. I liken it to all flower and no root. Religion was just something one did, not something one was. A commodity, bought and sold for through attendance. A bargain with a God few knew intimately; and, very few actually loved. But, hey, if I do the rules, I’m good, look at me … I’m on the glory train to heaven.
I think the better question we should all ask is … what happened to religion? When it really should have held the walls, when it should have been the ramparts withstanding the cultural assault; it proved weak, helpless and inconsequential.
If religion is not going to take those rules and humanize them, and take that 12 inch journey from the head to the heart … I have no idea what it’s about.
Teresa,
There is no doubt in my mind that the Church dropped the ball in terms of issues like marriage and divorce and caved to popular culture on those issues. I believe, like many other things, that is a black mark on the history of the church and lends credence to people who would argue that trying to fix that now is hypocritical. That said, Marriage and Family are institutions created by God, and as Christians I believe that we should stand for those institutions He created. We may not do it perfectly, but I’d rather do something imperfectly than do nothing at all.
I would add one very critical thing to your list #5 (actually number 1, but I’ll go along with your numbering), these children find out in Church about a God who desires a loving relationship with them and loved them so much that he was willing to die on the cross for them. They desire this kind of commitment so much that they form a lasting and personal relationship with God which is lived out in a community of faith not predicated on rules and earning your way to God but on an action taken by a loving God. This fills the void left in their lives by a childhood trauma.
As for the matter of using attendance as measure. I saw other measures in the data and the report – things like prayer and views of God. You are right that there are a multitude of non-Christians who dot the pews of Christian churches every weekend. They do not understand the grace of God and call of God upon their lives, and like many who have commented thus far, they view going to church as a checked mark in the “good” column on some cosmic grade card. That is not Christianity. Christianity, as defined by the Bible, is about a relationship with a loving God. It is not about our works but our faith.
That said, following accepting Christ as our Lord and Savior, there is a desire to fellowship with other Christians and to grow spiritually. God created the church so that believers could demonstrate His love to one another.
In short, I believe, with all due respect, that many of the comments thus far about the problems of the church are born out of a misunderstanding of what the church should be. Granted, Christians have not always done a great job of demonstrating the church as Christ intended it to be.
To get back on topic, I believe this report does a great job of exposing a critical issue that the Christian Church has to take notice of – not necessarily decrease attendance (though that is one measure) – that children of divorce suffer when their parents divorce, and one area that suffers is their faith. Thank you to the Institute and the authors for putting together this important work.
It’s funny. I stopped being a Christian when my dad explained to me that you didn’t really get to live forever. I was six. I almost became a Mormon when I was 11 but the people who were going to take me died in a tragic car accident picking up their son from his mission trip. I was never tempted again, the older I got the more the evil done by the humans in the various churches turned me away.
My son wanted to join the Catholic Church when he was 9. We lived by our city’s Cathedral so we met with the Priest. He listened and was encouraging. He made promises. But in our city there is a Catholic school system and incorporating my public school system child was too much effort. The priest didn’t follow up. It broke my son’s heart. And cured him of religion as far as I can tell.
As much as everybody like to claim that the Word exists and is worthwhile regardless of the failings of organized religion, it’s not true.
Vine Deloria discusses this in his classic, “God Is Red”, contrasting Christianity with indigenous religion.
With that said, the cultural revolution of the times was created by the same people who were leaving traditional forms of Christianity and exploring other religious viewpoints. They weren’t consumers of cultural or religious views, but participants. We need to keep in mind—when people are exposed to differing views, when previously high barriers are lowered, when opportunities of all sorts crop up where none were before….people go exploring. And that goes for their religious beliefs as well. The US is a very heterogeneous society; there’s a lot of mixing, blending and adapting going on.
The 60s didn’t come out of nowhere. It was preceded by the Beat Generation. Socialists, populists, communists, anarchists, syndicalists, and other radicals. The labor movement. Early incarnations of the feminist movement. The abolitionists and the resistance of enslaved persons. The Underground Railroad. Universalists. The Transcendentalists. To reduce all these movements to mere rebellion against authority is to miss the point—these were affirmative movements, toward something better (rather than primarily “against”).
We also need to keep in mind the role of scientific advancements and knowledge. When religion can’t integrate these, more people will look for an alternative (it’s no accident that interest in Eastern religion skyrocketed in the West at the same time science was undermining traditional religious views; this particular knowledge didn’t conflict with Eastern views the way it did in the West).
The report is addressed to the churches, so it does presuppose that churches would be concerned that young people from particular family structures are less likely to stay connected to faith communities.
This report focusses on the large numbers of people in the US who have or do identify in some way as Christian. The proportions of those in other traditions are relatively small (in our National Survey on the Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce survey, which was nationally representative, about six percent were Jewish, other faith traditions represented far smaller numbers). Analyzing family structure and religious identity across the generations in non-Christian faith traditions would be a fascinating project. Ralph, you mentioned gay marriage and, tho I’m not sure what in particular was on your mind, I would love to study the faith lives of persons raised by gay or lesbian parents.
Wayne Stock said:
In short, I believe, with all due respect, that many of the comments thus far about the problems of the church are born out of a misunderstanding of what the church should be.
Oops, the quotes are in the wrong place. Can someone fix this?
I’d like to add one last thing about the Church and Her response to people broken in some respect, or those living on the margins.
I’m really big on the complementarity of the sexes. That’s why, even though I’m a gay woman, I can’t support same sex marriage.
So, I see the Church through the lens of complementarity. We see the Church as the feminine; and, of course, Our Lord as the masculine. But, here’s where I think the Church; especially, the Catholic Church has difficulty. It’s hyper-masculine: in its hierarchical structure as all masculine, in its theology which has been all masculine thinking. Women’s only voice within the Church structure has been as nuns, and that was not a voice of input to the hierarchy.
Now, I’m not saying women should be priests; but, I am saying the Church has not demonstrated the feminine outreach to Her people. When I’m broken, bleeding and nye unto death; I don’t need a sermon on anatomy, or a rational discourse about the causative factors of the universe … I don’t need to hear how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I need the nurturing hand of someone to bind up my wounds, set me aright, and help me on my way. I think women can do this much better than men. It’s in our nature to do this.
With all the talk about complementarity in the battle over same sex marriage, it’s quite remarkable that the Church is the least complementary institution right now.
Elizabeth, I am afraid you have not answered the question. The fact that it is turning to churches doesn’t answer the question since it is you who addressed it that way.
There are a lot of Jewish organizations that are concerned about losing membership for whatever reasons, and occupy themselves with how to retain the next generation, but I would hardly expect a non Jewish organization to get involved with that issue.
Why is your organization, supposedly unaffiliated, calling to church leaders to retain their membership? After all is said and done does your organization have a closet religious bias?
please note. the question is Not why christian and not jewish. that s not my queation. i am questioning the secularness of this group altogether if promoting religious retention is one of its goals
And there’s nothing wrong with that—I just think the title of the report should admit to it. To do so would make some of the other aspects of the report less controversial (like naming teens whose beliefs don’t follow a Christian model as “avoiders”, when they aren’t—they just don’t have orthodox Christian beliefs!).
The report didn’t address the large numbers of people—one in three, according to this article—who are “unchurched”. Nor did it address religious “nones”—people who may or may not have any spiritual beliefs but who do not identify with any organized religion (one in five. That’s ok too, but I think there would be more clarity to the report if it was plainly stated that the “unchurched” and “nones” were left out of the equation. The title of the report leads one to believe the content will be more inclusive than it actually is.
drat. HTML fail. (sorry. don’t have enough coffee in me yet!)
La Lubu:
A resounding ‘yes’ to your comment; especially, the bolded part.
OK, so I’m onboard with all you’re saying here, La Lubu. I’d hasten to add to your point about the 60′s being a time of ‘affirmative response, towards something better’ … was the personal sense of freedom to do that, which in many ways has proved a blessing to those of us living with traumatic backgrounds. We were able to find a way, when there was no way in the church; and, it didn’t have to fit someone else’s paradigm.
Amy Ziettlow:
A very powerful quote here, Amy, that you used in this Report. It couldn’t be more invitational, more understanding, more necessary. However, I’d like to ask a question that seems others are asking on this thread.
What if those of us with fractured beginnings opt for non-Christian choices? What if we choose to become Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, or remain un-churched but strive to live the Golden Rule? What if our source of healing comes in ways unfamiliar and unknown to you … but works for us? What if our own future families experience less divorce, fewer out-of-wedlock births … is this in some way threatening to you and your organization?
The report has a lot of great advice for churches on working with children of divorce and families. Children will benefit if churches add programs for them.
The big weakness of the report, however, is leaving out non-Christian faiths. This may be a result of not having enough data to include them, but as others have said, the title of the symposium needs to reflect that.
And although it makes sense for churches to be concerned if divorce is one of the reasons they are losing people, scholars should also look at what happens to the people who become “spiritual but not religious.” What are the advantages and disadvantages of that? Is it a problem? Can some people grow more that way spiritually?
So I just want to put in a word about why it might make sense to be concerned when people are religious without being part of a religious community.
Some studies have found that it makes no difference in terms of the divorce rate if someone identifies themself as religious, at least for Protestants. It does, however, make a difference if someone is actively attending religious services.
This could be because people who actively attend services are more committed to the religion. It might also be because they have more social support as part of a religious community. (Or given the study, it could be because children of divorce don’t attend services and children of divorce are more likely to divorce.)
From a spiritual or religious point of view, I think there are benefits from being part of a religious community. I don’t really read and meditate on my own; regularly going somewhere keeps me focused on spiritual questions. (This would not work if I were going somewhere that preached things I didn’t believe.) I also meet people who have more insights than I do and get exposed to new ideas.
From a secular point of view, being part of a community is helpful. There are other adults that provide examples of how to live. There are other adults who care about you and sometimes give you practical help. It’s a kind of cultural capital.
For parents and couples, a community can mean that you have someone to babysit while you go out. It can mean you have someone to talk to about life. It can mean having activities to do with your family. It often is the only place you will run into marriage enrichment programs.
So I am generally very supportive of people being part of a religious community. I have universalist tendencies, so I think that different religious communities work for different people.
I do think that society generally benefits from its members being part of religious communities. The communities can support and strengthen families.
@Elizabeth,
I mentioned gay marriage in my comment only because you guys have been very clear about getting beyond the divisiveness of that lengthy debate. You say you want to make the Institute’s marriage and family project a project for all families. This report, in not considering or *even mentioning* either a) non-Christian families or communities, or b) what the study of faith in different family structures in those communities might look like, wears blinders. Its only step outside that box (and the only mention of same-sex families for that matter) is an unrelated side swipe at reproductive technologies.
Getting beyond the gay marriage debate is more than saying, “ok, we’re for it. Whew, now that we have that behind us, can we just get back to regular issues again?” I think the message of that debate, beyond sexual orientation, was that analyzing and understanding a family issue doesn’t just benefit from considering all families, it requires it. Understanding what brings youth from particular family structures into, or back into, faith communities requires both understanding those different structures as well as the myriad of faith communities they might be drawn back into. The value of the report is greatly diminished by this.
Finally, I didn’t object to the report because it focuses on Christian churches. I object because I support IAV, and here its voice speaks as if everyone knows and believes that the word faith means Christian faith. The only place that is true is inside a church.
Diane M., that was a great answer on why participating in a spiritual community can be beneficial for people.
Thanks for sharing comments and reactions everyone-
From my perspective as someone who came to this multi-year project in the last year, I will say that the title is quite broad–the title for website is a bit more particular “divorce+faith=the Next Generation” in that it at least makes clear that the scholars who convened several times, conducted new research, and then published papers that are highlighted in this report were looking at children of divorce and divorce ministries. Using the broad word “faith” is hard, since the theologians involved in the project are Christian. The scholarly papers were looking for the most part at markers for religious expression that are not Christian specific (I’m thinking of Denton, Kiesling, Ellison, Stokes, Glenn…I may be forgotting some) such as worship attendance, prayer frequency, saying you feel “close to God,” etc. Some of the research was looking directly at Christian communities–thinking of Konieczny who focuses on Catholic churches in northern Indiana (specific).
A reference to reproductive technologies was made as an editorial choice since Elizabeth has actually spent several years studying the lives of adults conceived in this way.
A passing remark to the different family structures that were not studied in this project/report could have been made (Mark Diebel raises that issue concerning adoption in his symposium piece) but none of us have conducted research in those areas so it felt like it wouldn’t be authentic.
HOWEVER! A plan for future study is most definitely needed and we need wise people around the table clarifying how to frame the questions. Formal same-sex marriage is still quite new, so how to frame the question of being raised in a same-sex household will be especially important and having same-sex couples or voices from the same-sex community at the table helping to define those families and frame the questions is absolutely necessary.
To be clear, for this project, the researchers were pulled together to conduct new research using the Between Two Worlds data set on children of divorce–so the report is really about children of divorce. And though the research leans heavily to Christianity, I regret that it feels exclusive.
Thanks LaLubu.
Elizabeth Marquardt and everyone, I think it can work to study Christian churches only, although you should say that that is what you are doing. However, I think the effort to actually strengthen marriages and family needs to be an interfaith one. I am firmly convinced that rabbis, Islamic leaders, Buddhist monks or nuns, etc. would have valuable insights into the problems of divorce and reaching out to families that churches don’t have. Including them would enrich the dialogue.
For example – an immigrant temple might be dealing with questions about how to hold families together in American culture. Or rabbis might have religious guidelines on when divorce is okay.
Ralph Lewis, I think it makes sense to sidestep the question of gay marriage and focus on divorce for this symposium. However, although I know your life is probably crazy-busy with your kids, I would like to put in a request for a blog post/s some time on how churches, temples, etc. respond to families headed by same sex couples.
@Diane M,
I agree with you. I was speaking metaphorically in my comment — what I saw as the lessons of that debate.
Amy, I understand. I just wanted to highlight that Denton’s classification of teens who don’t relate to or believe in a personal God as religious “avoiders” is offensive in its rejection of religions and spiritualities that have a concept of the sacred that is different from Christianity. I also wanted to highlight that since many people in the US are “unchurched” or religious “nones”, it stands to reason that many children of divorce are coming from such families. People unchurched as children have different means of forming their (our) spiritualities, as well as more psychological and cultural room to name agnosticism or atheism as a choice.
So, religious leaders who want to reach out to such people need to minimize the jargon and technical difficulties, and expect a great deal of rejection, which they need to not take personally.
great points–I shared yesterday at 4th Pres that I used Denton’s typology with high school youth and one thing I found that I think resonates somewhat with what La Lubu shares, is that even within these categories we may express different spiritual practices and beliefs at different levels of intensity. For example, someone can read a sacred text daily, commit to a high level of discipline in prayer or meditation, but not attend worship regularly. Or as Ki wisely shares, in her community keeping kosher is a way of expressing high religiosity that attending sabbath worship is not. I know that one place that pastors need to be challenged, as you point out La Lubu, is in assuming only one expression of religiosity or one intensity of expression as normative. We need to be sensitive to assessing for and supporting different ways to expressing faith–I will say though that suggested ways for expressing religiosity are often defined by a faith’s sacred texts–for Christians, I’m thinking of in Acts where we are encouraged to care for widows and orphans, to give to the needs of others, welcome all to fellowship, etc.
From my hospice care planning background I tend to use the typology as an assessment and planning tool: Where are you? Why are you where you are? Have you discerned where God wants you to be? Is that where you want to be? If not, do you have an idea of what you would like your lived faith to look like? How can we help you get there?
Theresa,
I know we have dealt further with this in a comment thread elsewhere, but I wanted to say one thing about your response. You wrote:
To that, I say amen! As someone who believes in the mission of The Church (and by that I mean the Church commissioned by my Lord) needs to open its eyes and realize that their are all types of families out their who need the love and help of those who claim the Name of Christ. Words are important, but they ring hollow when they are not backed by loving and graceful action.
To All,
There has been much discussion here about whether or not it was appropriate for this report to focus on Christianity or not, the title of the report, the mission of the Institute, etc. My question to you is, after reading the report, do you believe it is wrong to call the church to action in ministering to these children of divorce and their families? Unless you do, the rest all seems very superfluous to me and serves only to divert the conversation and focus away from these kids and onto tangential matters – something both our society and the church have been egregiously guilty of in the past.
Wayne, the question isn’t whether it is “wrong” for religious communities to minister to their members, friends, and/or those who seek them out. What I and others have been saying is that it is very exclusionary to say “faith” when you mean “Christianity”, or to refer to “religious” when you mean “belief centering on a personal God as typified by Christianity”. It also muddies the waters when the assumption is that children from divorcing homes grew up attending services, when anywhere from a third to half or more never had a history of attendance at services because their parents didn’t.
I’m a religious person. I’m a spiritual person. I attend services and group meditations on a regular basis. I organize, lead, and participate in Pagan rituals. I meditate, study, and read religious texts at home. I’ve sat in drum circles and find spirituality through music. And….I’m not a Christian. I still believe my religious community can reach out to and support both children and adults during and after divorce, and possibly be an agent in preventing divorce to begin with. I also believe that all dysfunctional families need such support, not just divorcing ones. I’m not an adult child of divorce; I’m an adult child of a bad marriage—but most Christian churches ignore dysfunctional marriages even more than they ignore the divorced. It doesn’t neatly fit the (patriarchal) narrative.
With that said, I can’t help but notice your strong emphasis on exclusionary language. It reads to me as if you want to emphasize your separation from other Christian denominations.
LaLubu – “just wanted to highlight that Denton’s classification of teens who don’t relate to or believe in a personal God as religious “avoiders” is offensive in its rejection of religions and spiritualities that have a concept of the sacred that is different from Christianity.”
I agree. I have to add that even within Christianity there is spectrum of how much people see God as a personal God. I can’t remember the title right now, but I read a book that classified believers in four groups in terms of their conception of God. The groups included variation in how much people – including Christians – thought God was involved in their daily lives. It’s not fair to call one group an avoider, though.
@Wayne Stocks – “My question to you is, after reading the report, do you believe it is wrong to call the church to action in ministering to these children of divorce and their families?”
Yes, but. I believe we should be calling churches and other religious organizations to minister to children. I don’t believe in “the church” as you do. That’s an important difference.
“Unless you do, the rest all seems very superfluous to me and serves only to divert the conversation and focus away from these kids and onto tangential matters – something both our society and the church have been egregiously guilty of in the past.”
It is not tangential to leave out huge groups of American children who aren’t from the Christian faith.
I also strongly believe that the discussion would be richer with the perspectives or religious leaders from other faiths. You can’t afford to leave out possible sources of truth.
If some faiths have a lower divorce rate than the norm, doesn’t it make sense to talk to them about how they do it? (Protestantism is not one of these groups.)
The programs and ways to help children would look different if more faiths were included. What do a group of Hindu immigrants need? How can they find or build support for families in a context that makes sense for their culture.
And in our pluralistic society, if you want to strengthen the family, you’re going to need as many allies as you can find.
@Amy Z – If all your scholars are Christian, I think it will effect what questions you ask and what you discover. I would suggest finding some non-Christian scholars to work with.
Diane M.,
I don’t want to do that. I do believe that the Christian faith offers these kids something that others can not, but what I want for these kids is anything but exclusion. There are great secular programs out there for helping children of divorce (not enough of them, but there are good ones). These kids need our help. I think the questions you raise are good ones and worthy of both discussion and investigation. There is much to be learned in diversity (which is one of the reasons I enjoy hanging out here). My only point was that this report plays a vital role in helping Christian churches open their eyes to the plight of children of divorce. I understand the suggestions that it would be nice to go further with the study – to explore other faith groups, etc. I also never meant to insinuate that no one outside of the Christian faith is capable of helping these kids. My point was only that, for those of us who claim the Christian Faith, this is an important eye-opening report, and I don’t believe that the fact that this particular report is limited is scope to Christianity doesn’t render it worthless or somehow insufficient. That’s all.
La Lubu,
I had to go back to my post to see what you were referring to. I assume it is this:
Yes, that is exclusionary, but I don’t believe it to be, or mean it to be, exclusionary of denominations. I mean it to be exclusionary of the fringe elements that any large group has that claim the name of that group but do not represent its core tenets. In the same way that if you called yourself a “Democrat” you might say “Such and such group doesn’t really represent the Democratic party and I don’t consider them democrats.” In such as sense, I am unashamedly exclusionary.
Wayne: I see. I live in downstate Illinois, where expressions such as those that you used are evangelical code for “all those other Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, non-fundamentalist Protestants) aren’t really Christian”. I’ll take your word for it that you didn’t mean it that way, but sectarianism is A Thing where I live, and is one of the more common turnoffs amongst people who don’t attend church or have stopped attending.
Wayne, I,also, get what you mean. If only one child can be helped, that’s far better than none; and, it makes little difference at the end of the day, whose outstretched hand met that child.
However, I misunderstood about Family Scholars, and maybe AVI. I thought it was inclusionary of any child from any dysfunctional family (La Lubu’s point) with any faith belief, or no faith belief … churched or not.
So, now that I know that Family Scholars (FS) is a Christian based organization, I’ll be able to respond somewhat more coherently. But, that brings me to another question about FS: are some Christian groups considered more Christian than others? Are some Christian groups actually doing a better job already meeting children of divorce needs?
The focus on Christianity at Family Scholars and IAV, makes me uncomfortable.
Elizabeth Marquardt, ” I would love to study the faith lives of persons raised by gay or lesbian parents”
See why I am uncomfortable? Is IAV a Christian organization, is one of your purposes to promote Christianity? Why would IAV be interested in studying a person’s Faith? Especially why compare the “Faithy-ness” of people raised by straight couples compared to the “Faithy-ness” of people raised by same gender couples? What problem are you looking to solve that you think this is a field of study worth your time and effort? Is IAV a secular organization or a Christian organization?
Hi SMS and Teresa–
At the Institute, our mission is to strengthen families and civil society in the US and around the world.
Faith communities are a vital part of civil society. In this particular report, we reach out to faith communities to engage the question of how to strengthen marriage. Like all efforts at seeking wisdom, it is partial and incomplete. There is much more to know.
Recently, we have reached out to the policy world to engage the question of how to strengthen marriage. Like all efforts at seeking wisdom, that too is partial and incomplete. There is much more to know.
We have reached out to family law professionals, to social service providers, to grown children of divorce, to state legislators, to authors of high school textbooks and college textbooks, and much more, seeking to engage the question of how to strengthen marriage. Over the next several months, much more is to come.
There were to aspects here to the symposium- one how to support divorcing families, definitely. The other was how to support the church.
Note also that the featured Personal Story is a story of a person returning to faith. While I found it a beautiful story, I do not think that a “success” story of a person who does not return to a traditional faith would have likely been featured.
In response to Ki sarita:
Thank you for your kind words on my story:) I do believe my story would still be featured though had it not been a success story as I was invited to respond to the report prior to sharing any of my story. I planned to focus my response around my experience researching the use of art therapy in children of divorce and relating it to my experience working with children in disaster relief; along with speaking on the Divorce Panel. However, in the course of writing my response I couldn’t step back from the feeling that there was purpose in sharing my story. I couldn’t stop my mind from wandering back to the shock of how the report mimicked every phase of my experience. With that being said; it reflects such light on the report truly being a great resource for children of divorce. And it also gives insight to the crucial importance of the congregations role to reach out to others. If it takes a success story to motivates outreach; I believe success was achieved within the editor to realize what would best reach out to the congregation to influence positive change.