There are many proponents around these days of “Family Values.” And at first blush these proponents would seem to have a benign enough agenda. Proponents of “Family Values” would seem at least to be proponents of the sanctity of the family. The sanctity of the family. Could there be a more benign agenda than that? But in fact, “Family Values” is a loaded expression, as the Bible would call a shibboleth. Proponents of “Family Values” are proponents of the sanctity of the family, true enough, but the sanctity of only a certain kind of family -- the “traditional” family, as they refer to it.
The “traditional” family, as they understand it, is about what you’d expect – a mom, a dad, and two or three children with straight teeth. Proponents of “Family Values” believe in the sanctity of the “traditional” family because they believe the traditional family is the basis for moral society. Conversely, proponents of family values believe that the “non-traditional” family is a threat to moral society. And the strange thing about all this is that they use the Bible as support for their position.
And so let us examine the biblical family for what evidence it may yield that the traditional family is the basis for moral society. We may as well begin at the beginning, with Adam and Eve and their sons Cain and Abel. A mom, a dad, and two kids – O.K. so far, a nice traditional family, assuming Cain and Abel have straight teeth.
But the family of Adam and Eve, in fact, gives testimony to the fact that the traditional family is not necessarily the basis for moral society. Adam and Eve, after all, through their disobedience occasioned nothing less than the fall of humankind, some time after which Cain murdered his brother Abel in cold blood. The first biblical family in fact, though traditional, would appear to be the basis for immoral society.
Well then, what about the second biblical family, the family of Noah? Again, a nice traditional family -- a mom, a dad, and three sons this time -- Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Noah was, as the Bible states it, “a righteous man, blameless in his generation.” This in fact is why he was preserved
from the flood. He wasn’t disobedient, like his forebear Adam. The Lord told him to build an ark, and he built an ark. The Lord told him to bring animals on board two by two, and he brought the animals on board two by two.
But after the flood, Noah’s run of righteousness and blamelessness ended. Maybe it was all that family time on the ark, but after he disembarked, he planted a vineyard and got drunk off the fruit of the vine. Poor Ham stumbled upon his father naked and unconscious, and when Noah learned of it he took it out on Ham’s son. He cursed his own grandson, declared that his descendants would all be slaves. Another biblical family that, though traditional, would appear to be the basis for immoral society.
Then comes the family of Abraham. Unfortunately, the family of Abraham starts off at a disadvantage, because it is not a traditional family. To be sure, there’s a mom and a dad, Abraham and Sarah, but then there’s an extra mom Hagar. And not in succession either; Abraham was a polygamist. He had the two sons, but that does little to override the polygamy piece. No doubt about it, the family of Abraham was a non-traditional family.
And the family of Abraham give testimony to the fact that the non- traditional family is not necessarily the basis for moral society either. Abraham’s wife Sarah got jealous of her rival Hagar and banished her and her son into the dessert where she hoped they would die of thirst. Add to this that Abraham nearly slit his son’s throat. The non-traditional family too would appear to be the basis for immoral society.
And if, in the interest of time, we skip a generation and jump ahead to the family Abraham’s grandson Jacob, we discover that the apple did not fall far from the tree— The family of Jacob was another non-traditional family that would appear to be the basis for immoral society. Jacob too was a polygamist. He married a sister set, Rachel and Leah, and then took their maids Bilhah and Zilpah as his concubines. And lest we lay all the blame on Jacob for this arrangement, the women were in full collusion. They didn’t care a fig about being one of four wives. All they cared about is getting a shot at Jacob so they could compete with one another as to who could produce the most sons. Recall this morning’s Old Testament lesson. Leah’s son Reuben found some mandrakes in the fields. Mandrakes were thought to induce fertility. So Rachel traded Leah her
mandrakes for a night with Jacob who was temporarily in her custody. “…then he may lie with you tonight for your son’s mandrakes,” she bargained.
Maybe if we jump ahead a little further we could find the evidence we seek that the traditional family is the basis for moral society. What about David? Unfortunately, David is the worst of them all all. Definitely a non-traditional family -- at least 10 wives -- and innumerable concubines. King’s harems were huge. David’s son Solomon’s had 1,000 women in it. And again we discover a non-traditional family that would appear to be the basis for immoral society.
David impregnated a woman not of his harem, a married woman to boot, then murdered her husband to legitimate his child. And the Bible reports over and over again that David was a downright bad father – weak, indulgent, and inattentive. One of his sons raped his own sister, and another of his sons, because David refused to discipline him for it, avenged the rape by his murder. He was so embittered that he was driven to do what his father refused to that he rebelled against his father and brought the nation to war.
And then there is that biblical feature that never fails to raise eyebrows, even the eyebrows of progressives – the so-called Leverite marriage. If a
woman’s husband died, her husband’s brother, without benefit of formal marriage, was obligated to inseminate her so that she could produce children. This is so non-traditional as to border on repugnant. What did the children call their father, Uncle Dad?
But enough of the Old Testament. Maybe the evidence we seek that the traditional family is the basis for moral society is to be found in the New. We can’t exactly appeal to Jesus’ family though, because his family was unique. His father was, quite literally, out of this world. And when Jesus grew up, he had no family of his own. As he declared in this morning’s gospel lesson, “….there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” That was his way of saying that because of his messianic destiny to die, he chose to remain celibate.
So what then about the apostle Paul? In this morning’s epistle lesson, he counsels Christians against marriage. Only if they do not have their desire
under control should they relent and marry, because marriage is preferable to fornication. This is not exactly evidence that the traditional family is the basis for moral society. Paul would seem to be suggesting that the basis for moral society is unmarried celibates.
And when Paul does in another of his epistles describe the traditional family as he understands it, he states that women must be subject to their husbands and slaves to their masters. This model of traditional family advances the subordination and domestication of women and the legitimacy of slavery. Few to none in this day and age would offer this type of traditional family as the basis for moral society.
I think it’s safe to conclude that proponents of family values must look elsewhere than the Bible for support that the traditional family is basis for moral society. For one thing, the traditional family as they conceive it is not privileged as such in the Bible. For another, where it exists it is not equated with moral society. The Bible depicts all different kinds of families that were peculiar to its day, just as there are all different kinds of families peculiar to our day. And the Bible would appear to be saying that none has cornered the market on righteousness.
So maybe we too should refrain from equating the traditional family with moral society. There’s certainly no biblical evidence on which to do so. And too, it only serves to stigmatize nontraditional families -- to make them feel inadequate or inferior or ostracized. And why add to their burden? Why add to the burden of anyone for that matter? That’s not what Christians are called to do. It’s much better, I think, to recognize and affirm that just about anyone can make up a family.
So long as there’s one key thing: Love, love and all that cascades from it: respect, commitment, acceptance, encouragement, forbearance, affection, sacrifice. My sense, anyway, is that if we want to equate the family with moral society, it’s not about traditional families over against non-tradition
families. It’s about loving families. It’s nothing more than Christ taught us: In all respects, love is the basis for morality. Amen.