Society as Family: Two Religious Models
Part 1 in a 2-Part Sermon Series
By Pastor Marcia Moret Sietstra
March 12, 2006 Crestwood United Church of Christ
Text: Matt. 10:34-39 “I have come to set son against father.” (An alternate version of our Mark 8-9 lectionary text)
Jn. 8:1-11 “Neither do I condemn you; go…and do not sin again.”
A few weeks ago, I presented to you the longest sermon I’ve ever preached. So today, it seems only fair that I be very brief. I am beginning a two-part sermon today, which comes out of some fascinating, recent studies of two distinctively different ways in which Americans think about families and society, particularly the work of cultural linguist George Lakoff. These two “frames” through which Americans see the family and society have important consequences not only for families, but for domestic and international relations. Today I’ll describe the two frames, and say just a little about how they impact ideas about family and society; next week I’ll illustrate how these two models impact the world economically, politically, socially, and religiously. Before I begin, let me note that both models are found in the Bible, and I believe are grounded in Christianity. And many of us have both frames operating in our minds.
The first frame, or model, is the Strict Father Model. It is the model I grew up with in a Calvinist church and home. The strict father model begins with a set of assumptions:1
The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born [sinful], in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good.
According to this model, what is needed in this kind of world is a strong, strict father who can:
· Protect the family in the dangerous world
· Support the family in the difficult world, and
· Teach his children right from wrong.
What is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right form wrong. It is further assumed that the only way to teach kids obedience—that is, right from wrong—is through punishment, painful punishment, when they do wrong…if they are physically disciplined, they learn not to do it again. That means that they will develop internal discipline to keep themselves from doing wrong, so that in the future they will be obedient and act morally. Without such punishment, the world will go to hell. There will be no morality. (Lakoff, p.7)
This frame for seeing family also serves as a frame through which people see society. Americans have historically referenced society with family metaphors: we call George Washington the “father of our country.” We send our “sons” to war. We pay taxes to “Uncle Sam,” and you’d better do it every year because “Big Brother” is watching you.
Well, if you see society through the frame of the Strict Father Model, your priority is going to be enforcing the kind of morality that comes through authority figures, ultimately from a particular version of a commanding, judgmental God. These are generalities, of course, but people with a strict father model tend to believe that people who are disciplined and pursue their self-interest in this land of opportunity will become prosperous and self-reliant. Wealthy people are, in this view, the ones who master the discipline required to be moral and to compete against the less disciplined. And the poor are poor because they lack discipline. Social programs, therefore, are generally not a good idea because they remove the incentive to be disciplined. I’ll say more about this next week, particularly as to how the Strict Father Model impacts foreign relations if America sees itself as the “Strict Father” to the rest of the world.
The other primary frame through which Christians, and non-Christians, see the family and society might be called the Nurturant Parent Model.2 Again, I am speaking in broad generalities.
The Nurturant Parent Model is gender neutral. Both parents are equally responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good and can be made better. The world can be a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents’ job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others.
What does nurturance mean? It means two things: empathy and responsibility. If you have a child, you have to know what every cry means. You have to know when the child is hungry…and you have a responsibility—you have to take care of this child…all this is not easy…you have to work hard at it…you have to be very competent. you have to know a lot.
In addition, all sorts of other values immediately follow from empathy and responsibility. First, if you empathize with your child, you will provide protection…from crime and drugs, certainly…[but also] from cars without seat belts, from smoking, from poisonous additives in food. People who see society through the Nurturant Parent Model are apt to be interested in environmental protection, consumer protection, and community building. They are more apt to see social programs as a matter of fairness to the poor, who may have missed out on the advantages that others received. They are “do-gooders” in the community.
Have you noticed the striking difference in how these two models frame the way we look at how society should function? One is oriented around discipline, the other around care-taking. Have you noticed that each model is based on a frame of God that we find in the Bible—the strict, authoritarian God who sits in judgment on our discipline or lack thereof—and the loving, nurturing God who forgives us again and again, and encourages us to care for one another?
Both models are found in the Bible, though I believe Jesus showed a preference for the nurturing parent model. He rarely spoke of judgment; indeed on the few occasions when he does so in the gospels, certain clues lead many scholars to believe that it is the gospel writers “putting words into Jesus’ mouth.”
Jesus’ consistent and overwhelming theme is that of grace. He refused to sit in judgment—look at the adulterous woman in our text today. He rejected the authorities’ call for punishment, choosing instead the way of empathy, offering her the benefit of the doubt, offering her forgiveness. He matched it with a call to responsible behavior, “go and do not sin again,” but he treated her with a level of compassion that his society would have judged extravagant.
Looking at our other text, “I have come to set son against father”: Jesus had the audacity to declare that family hierarchy and family loyalty are not the only or the highest values. And, in story after story, he broke society’s rules by treating women the same way he treated men, as free moral agents, not different as a group, not subordinate in any way.
When young couples come to me for pre-marital counseling I have them fill out a lengthy inventory that reveals which model they are apt to use in the family they are forming—the Strict Father Model or the Nurturing Parent Model. I don’t argue with their choice, but I do show them the statistics: there is more abuse, and a higher rate of divorce in Strict Father models of family, so they need to be aware of the need to temper authority and domination with fairness and gentleness. Because power is a dangerous thing, and so easy to misuse in the Strict Father Model.
Which framework is the model of your family and which model informs your view of society? Our scriptures were written and interpreted by people who heard both voices in their heads. Just as God’s voice was sometimes heard as more harsh, judgmental and power oriented and other times heard as more loving, compassionate and generous, so both voices are part of our tradition. You might be using both models, unconsciously, the Strict Father Model in some parts of your life and the Nurturing Parent Model in others—maybe even one at work and the other at home.
Think about it, and next week I will suggest ways in which these two models profoundly affect us socially, economically, politically and religiously. Amen.