Just a sketch... The family:
consists of two types of bond -
1 - the 'natural' bond (parent-child, sibling), and
2 - the promise bond (ie, marriage, adoption)
A third type of bond is that which occurs when two people are linked through a third person: so, for instance, my mother-in-law and me. Never promised anything towards her, nor she me, but, through my wife, there is a bond. There is a mediating relationship of promise that makes it a bond. However, these are often (as with step-children) a tricky relationship, because they have neither blood nor promise. (I am not speaking personally - my mother-in-law was delightful). Witness what happens in the case of divorce: the in-laws are left in an awkward position, with the mediating relationship removed, even though they may feel quite affectionate towards one another. Or, the mediating relationship becomes the shared children/grandchildren, which, I suppose is a 'natural' bond.
The family is also: a group which, at least ordinarily contains more than one generation and is at least in principle inclusive of both genders. Thus it says something about our vulnerability and diversity as human persons, and our need for mutual assistance and multiple points of view. Also, families are built because human beings are vulnerable to the ravages of time...families allow for the preservation and development of traditions, cultures, habits, ways of life, and the securing and stewarding of resources.
Its purposes/functions? = protection, security, growth and education, companionship, sharing of pleasures and pains.
SO, can there be a 'defective' family? where there is a relationship lacking one of the types of bond, there is a 'defective' family, though there still may be the functions of a family being carried out. An orphanage, for example. You and your flatmates. A de facto relationship may imitate this bond - and there may private undertakings and promises which seal the relationship - but there is the risk of invalidation in the lack of a formal commitment from the partners.
15 comments:
This seems somewhat legalistic to not much good purpose... what is the efficacy in labelling different types of bond (sibling vs. adopted) and tracing defects to the perceived quality of the bonds... when we all know impeccably bonded families (by this analysis) that are practically defective, and excellent families that fail that "risk of invalidation" test. Jesus had a disturbing habit of calling just about any riffraff his sibling, and telling his natural relations they were nothing special. Jesus didn't disguise the ugliness of sin, but he did make grace grow from it. People don't have a lot of control over their families, is the point here that the majority of them should feel second rate?
Thanks for this Paul: I am happy to acknowledge that this is pre-Christian at best. I was asked if I thought there were 'invalid' or 'defective' forms of family (see below). I sketched a reply.
It is true that a certain utilitarianism may count any number of living arrangements as functionally successful regardless of the bonds in place.
HOWEVER: I think it is observably true that these bonds matter in a deep way to human beings and actually, on the whole, and generally speaking of course, aid in the good functioning of family units. The bonds have their utility. Why do adopted children long to find their 'real' parents? Why do people endure incredible hardship to have children who are their own flesh and blood?
To add a theological spin: the bible of course uses the language of adoption and promise to speak of the Christian family. The Christian family is more deeply bonded than a bunch of flatmates...
Thanks for taking the time to respond, I hadn't had time to read the context, but I went back and saw the dialogue it was coming from. In fact I feel a bit guilty, because most of the time I silently appreciate these amazing christian explorations you share with us, but like a typical bloody belligerent bloke I only seem moved to speak when I'm speaking out... You are so right about the urge to find those bonds... There are now about four TV shows on various channels here (copies of UK originals, I think) based on finding out about family history or lost family as a form of emotional entertainment.
Hey, no worries. I'm a bit of a belligerent bloke meself. I didn't take your comment in the wrong spirit: I think you make points that I would be careful to make.
Is it worth noting that there may well be multiple bonds in parallel? For example, in an agrarian society, the filial bond will run in parallel with the co-worker bond (though, in that context, I suspect that a filial bond would be assumed to include working together). Perhaps more significantly, the same relationship may include not only procreative bond (mother-daugher) but also regenerative bond (co-heirs and therefore sisters).
Beautiful photo by the way Michael - love the composition and frame!
For the Christian, does it matter if relational bonds are implicit (eg natural familial) or explicit (eg marriage)? Perhaps they do in the sense they formalise levels of 'closeness' and help us determine their priority in terms of how we express 'loving' others in community.
... where there is a relationship lacking one of the types of bond, there is a 'defective' family...
I think there's a danger of pushing this too far. For example, if the natural bond is absent (i.e. there are no children), do you then have a "defective" family?
I don't think that accords with the biblical definition. Genesis 2 uses explicit family language in describing the relationship between the man and woman without any children appearing on the scene. In fact, Gen 2:18-25 would seem to explicitly identify the husband and wife as a new family unit which separates from the old family unit which consisted of parents and children.
So I'd probably be inclined to move the second type of bond you identify into first place and make the second contingent upon the presence of children and not a requirement without which the family was in some way "defective."
What do you think?
Well, I didn't see the bonds as a both necessary for a family: either type of bond will do.
Interestingly though, we do use the language of a couple 'starting a family'... weren't they already a family.
Yes, it's probably another reflection of cultural difference. The language in Genesis 2 is probably as close as you get in the Bible to "starting a family."
I'm surprised you didn't explicitly mention godparenting and other forms of fictive kinship. Here there's a bond of promise but no bond of nature, and it can reflect as well as strengthen existing relationships that are then also mediated through the godchild. So, I was already friends with my godson's parents, and likewise with my co-godparents; both relationships have been strengthened, although in different ways and degrees. And I have a relationship with my godson's other kin which I previously lacked.
This is a case where wider social support or expectation clearly play a role. I had godparents growing up: I couldn't now tell you who they were, whereas I am closer to my godson than I am to my nephews. Differences in proximity and like-mindedness have something to do with this, as do availability of other kin. (And it's no deficiency in other relationships, as my sister and I are close.) But surely the expectations and understanding of the relationship held by my parents and their circle, and the different expectations of my godson's parents, are decisive here.
Likewise those of the wider society. I have often found it amusing that in mediaeval life, as I understand, one could not marry a co-godparent: they were considered kin, and it would have been like incest. This is understandable from a certain point of view, but quite unintelligible in our culture.
Expectations are also important for some of the cases you unhappily call "defective" family. (I know this was in response to a question, but I think this is a case where it would be better to re-cast the question before you answer it.) Some de facto relationships are so little to be distinguished from marriage that it can be pedantic to draw a distinction; some are little to be distinguished from casual relationships. (We used to have a term "common law marriage", and it existed for a reason, to accomodate as it were the upper end of that scale.) Think of the insupportably wide semantic range of the term "boyfriend" or (even worse) "girlfriend" ...
I think expectations are likewise very important (although not the only factor) when it comes to flatmates. That's a whole other discussion, of course.
With regards to your theological spin, ' the bible of course uses the language of adoption and promise to speak of the Christian family. The Christian family is more deeply bonded than a bunch of flatmates...'
The Christian family is more deeply bonded than a bunch of flatmates (or as deeply bonded, if those flatmates are christian) I agree. Is the Christian family in fact more deeply bonded than a natural bond or promise bond?
More deeply bonded than a natural bond because of words of Jesus like those found in Matt 12/Mark 3/Luke 8, 14.
More deeply than a promise bond because this family relationship is based not on human words of promise but on the fulfilment of God's promises in Christ resulting in our unity in him (Eph), and the assurance of our adoption (Rom 8).
Is this reflected in the way we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ cf our natural or promise relations?
In him,
Soph.
Yes. A theological account has to, as you point out, talk not only about bonds but about union. 'All ONE in Christ Jesus' - that is quite a profound description of a relationship, true?
I also didn't reflect on the 'two shall become one flesh' of marriage (which is a creation order thing, not just for the redeemed). Paul seems to understand this as having to do with the sex act in 1 Cor 7. This seems to go beyond mere promises.
Post a Comment