Religion

“Jack Balswick, Judith Balswick, and Thomas Frederick present a Christian perspective on the
significance and purpose of the contemporary family. Through a unique blend of biblical theology,
systems theory, and the social sciences, they address the many facets of the modern-day family relative
to marriage, parenting, sexuality, communication, and the social dynamics of family life. As a teaching
professor in the Christian academic setting, I have used the earlier editions of this extraordinary text for
both graduate and undergraduate classes in marriage and family studies. In addition, as a licensed
marriage and family therapist, I have found the biblical and theoretical concepts helpful and applicable. I
greatly recommend this book to instructors, students, counselors, or pastors who are seeking to develop
an overarching theological and sociological framework for the family.”

—Brad Overholser, chair of human development, Hope International University

“This updated edition of The Family presents recent research to continue the important contribution of
this book to our thinking about families from a distinctly Christian viewpoint. It’s based on a systemic
developmental perspective that captures the reality of our relationships in our families across the life
span, with a special focus on the attributes of grace, empowerment, and intimacy within Christian
covenantal love that can permeate those relationships and impact the larger social environment.”

—Mark Stanton, professor of psychology, Azusa Pacific University

“The reason for the longevity and influence of Balswick and Balswick’s The Familyis based in two
things: the clarity of their writing on topics of interest to the Christian community and their engagement
with recent scholarship. This fifth edition of what is now a standard text on family life continues this
pattern of thoughtful Christian scholarship. The result is a stimulating text whose relevance extends
beyond the classroom to the front lines of Christian engagement with families, whether it be in a clinical,
parachurch, or congregational setting.”

—Kelvin Mutter, associate professor of counselling and spiritual care, McMaster
Divinity College

“The Family is a unique resource in the study of marriage and family: it adeptly integrates theology with
sociological perspectives and proven family therapy models. I highly recommend this text for marriage
and family studies in Christian colleges and universities and can personally attest to how helpful it’s been
to both educators and students alike.”

—Yvonne Thai, chair of the Department of Behavioral Sciences and professor of
sociology, California Baptist University Online and Professional Studies

© 2021 by Jack O. Balswick, Judith K. Balswick, and Thomas V. Frederick
Previous editions © 1989, 1999, 2007, 2014 by Jack O. Balswick and Judith K. Balswick

Published by Baker Academic
a division of Baker Publishing Group
PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287
www.bakeracademic.com

Ebook edition created 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the
prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington,
DC.

ISBN 978-1-4934-3203-5

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible,
copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by
permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations labeled ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®),
copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All
rights reserved. ESV Text Edition: 2016

Scripture quotations labeled NIV are from THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All
rights reserved worldwide.

Baker Publishing Group publications use paper produced from sustainable forestry practices and post-
consumer waste whenever possible.

Contents

Cover
Endorsements i
Half Title Page iii
Title Page v
Copyright Page vi
Detailed Contents ix
Illustrations xvii
Preface xix

Part 1: Theological and Social Perspectives on Family Life 1
1. A Theological Foundation for Family Relationships: Developing a

Theology of the Family 3
2. The Family as a Developing Biosocial System 24

Part 2: Marriage: The Foundation of Family Life 47
3. Mate Selection and Cohabitation: Romance and Reality 49
4. Establishing Marriage: Moving toward Differentiated Unity 78
5. A Model for Biblical Marriage 94

Part 3: The Expansion of Family Life: Parenting and Beyond 109
6. Parenting: The Process of Relationship Empowerment 111
7. Developing a Mature, Reciprocating Self 130
8. Family Spirituality: Nurturing Christian Beliefs, Morals, and

Values 154

9. Adolescence and Midlife: Challenging Changes 167
10. The Joys and Challenges of Family in Later Life 179

Part 4: Gender and Sexuality: Identity in Family Life 199
11. Changing Gender Roles and Relations: The Impact on Family

Life 201
12. Becoming an Authentic Sexual Self 217

Part 5: Communication: The Heart of Family Life 237
13. Intimate Communication: Expressing Love and Anger 239

Part 6: The Social Dynamics of Family Life 257
14. Work and the Family: Conflict or Collaboration? 259
15. Through the Stress and Pain of Family Life 270
16. Divorce and Single-Parent Families 282
17. Complex Families in Contemporary Society 298

Part 7: Family Life in Postmodern Society 315
18. Biblical Family Values in a Modern and Postmodern World 317
19. Creating a Family-Friendly Society 331

Bibliography 343
Index 379
Back Cover 390

Detailed Contents

Cover
Endorsements i
Half Title Page iii
Title Page v
Copyright Page vi
Illustrations xvii
Preface xix

Part 1: Theological and Social Perspectives on Family Life 1
1. A Theological Foundation for Family Relationships: Developing a

Theology of the Family 3
Trinitarian Relationality 4

God in Relationship 6

Elements in a Theology of Family Relationships 8

Covenant: To Love and Be Loved 10

Grace: To Forgive and Be Forgiven 13

Empowerment: To Serve and Be Served 15

Intimacy: To Know and Be Known 19

Applying the Theological Model: From Hurting to Healing Behaviors 20

2. The Family as a Developing Biosocial System 24
Family-Systems Theory 24

Simple Feedback
Cybernetic Control
Morphogenesis
Reorientation

Biological Influences on the Family 32

Genetic Factors
Neurological Factors

Family-Development Theory 35

An Integration of Systems and Development Theories 39

Cohesion
Adaptability
Communication
Role Structure

Part 2: Marriage: The Foundation of Family Life 47
3. Mate Selection and Cohabitation: Romance and Reality 49

Mate Selection in Traditional Cultures 50

Mate Selection and the Role of Romantic Love 52

Theories of Mate Selection 54

“Like Marries Like” Theory
Bowen Family Systems Theory
Personality Theory
Filter Theory
Marriage Markets Theory
Other Theories

A Christian Perspective on Mate Selection 57

Cohabitation: A Path toward or Alternative to Marriage? 60

Is Cohabitation a Step toward Marriage?
What Does Culture Have to Do with It?
Making the Decision to Cohabit

WHAT DOES LOVE HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
WHAT DOES COMMITMENT HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
EVENTUAL OUTCOMES

Does Premarital Cohabitation Lead to Marital Adjustment?
Is There a Selective Factor?
How Does Cohabitation Impact Children?
A Christian Perspective on Cohabitation

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF COMMITMENT IN COHABITING
RELATIONSHIPS?

WHEN ARE TWO PEOPLE MARRIED IN THE SIGHT OF GOD?

IS COHABITATION A THREAT TO THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE?
HOW SHOULD THE CHURCH RESPOND TO COHABITING COUPLES?

Discerning God’s Will 75

4. Establishing Marriage: Moving toward Differentiated Unity 78
Factors That Predict Marital Quality 78

Resolving Issues Related to the Family of Origin 80

Parents as Role Models
Parental Support
Adaptability

The Dilemma of Modern Marriage 86

Differentiated Unity: Becoming One and Retaining Uniqueness 87

Learning New Roles in the Marital Dance 89

Adjustment in the Marital Dance 93

5. A Model for Biblical Marriage 94
Commitment 95

Adaptability 99

Leadership and Decision-Making 102

Communication 104

Dual-Earner Marriage 104

The Mindset at the Center of Christian Marriage 107

Part 3: The Expansion of Family Life: Parenting and Beyond 109
6. Parenting: The Process of Relationship Empowerment 111

The Basic Components of Parenting Styles 114

Approaches to Discipline
Types of Leadership

Alternative Parenting Styles 117

Instrumental Parenting
NEGLECTFUL
TEACHING
MODELING
DISCIPLING

Socio-emotional Parenting
NEGLECTFUL
AUTHORITARIAN
PERMISSIVE
AUTHORITATIVE

Other Impacts of Parenting Styles 123

Biological Factors in Parenting 124

A Biblical Model of Parenting 125

The Case for Coparenting 128

7. Developing a Mature, Reciprocating Self 130
Theories of Child Development 132

Psychoanalytic Theory: Internal Focus
Erikson’s Neopsychoanalytic or Psychosocial Theory: Infancy through Adulthood
Cognitive Structural Theories
Cognitive Development Theory: The Child as a Developing Scientist
Object Relations Theory: The Child as an Object Needing Love
Social Learning Theory: The Child as Learner
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory: Parenting as Scaffolding
Social Ecology: Child Development in the Village

A Critique of Child Development Theories in Light of Biblical Assumptions 143

Internal Tension
Capacity to Make Choices
Created for Community

Parenting Young Children 146

Unconditional Love and Self-Validation
Acceptance of Differences Inherent in the Family Constellation
Communication
Forgiveness
Serving
Discipline

8. Family Spirituality: Nurturing Christian Beliefs, Morals, and
Values 154

Moral Development 155

Faith Development 157

A Trinitarian Model of Family Spirituality 159

Differentiation in Christ
Spiritual Differentiation in the Family
Family Spirituality and Sanctification

Dealing with Differences in Faith 162

Family Spirituality Embedded in Supportive Community 164

Family Spirituality as a Process 165

9. Adolescence and Midlife: Challenging Changes 167
Adolescence 168

The Origin of the Adolescent Stage
Adolescence as an Identity Crisis

Midlife 171

Parent-Adolescent Relationships 173

Parental Stimuli of Adolescent Rebellion
UNWISE CHILD-REARING PRACTICES
UNSATISFACTORY DIVISION OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY

Empowering Adolescent Children

10. The Joys and Challenges of Family in Later Life 179
The Launching Stage 180

Transition Tasks
Contemporary Obstacles to Successful Launching

The Postlaunching Stage 183

Grandparenting
Multigenerational Households

The Retirement Stage 190

Couple Satisfaction and Challenge
Caring for Aging Family Members

Part 4: Gender and Sexuality: Identity in Family Life 199
11. Changing Gender Roles and Relations: The Impact on Family

Life 201
Why Gender Roles and Relations Are Changing 202

Explanations of Gender Differences 203

Critical Theory

Biblical Feminism
A Radical Proposal for Reconciliation
Toward an Integrated View of Gender Differences

Changing Gender Relations and Family Life 211

Women in Family Life
Men in Family Life

Coparenting: The Need for Mothering and Fathering 213

A Concluding Comment 215

12. Becoming an Authentic Sexual Self 217
Societal Attitudes toward Sexuality 218

The Origin of Sexuality 220

The Meaning of Sexuality 222

A Biblical Perspective on Human Sexuality 223

Sexual Wholeness in a Broken World 225

Sex and Singleness
Masturbation
Sexual Identity
Marital Sexuality

Part 5: Communication: The Heart of Family Life 237
13. Intimate Communication: Expressing Love and Anger 239

The Effects of Expressing Love 240

Nonverbal Expressions of Love
Obstacles to Expressing Love
The Expression of Love in Family Relationships

Expressing Anger: Negotiating the Inevitable Conflicts 245

A Destructive Approach to Conflict: Denial
Constructive Approaches

IDENTIFY THE ISSUE
STICK TO THE ISSUE
CHOOSE THE RIGHT TIME AND PLACE
AFFIRM THE POSITIVES
LEAVE PAST ISSUES IN THE PAST
AVOID ATTACKING BEHAVIORS

AVOID PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS
AVOID TRIANGLES

A Biblical Perspective on Anger
Conflict Resolution
Conflict Management

WITHDRAWERS
YIELDERS
WINNERS
RESOLVERS
COMPROMISERS

Part 6: The Social Dynamics of Family Life 257
14. Work and the Family: Conflict or Collaboration? 259

The Separate Spheres of Work and Family 259

Work and Family Conflict Related to Burnout 262

Calling and Differentiation in Christ 264

Calling and Image Bearing 266

Conclusion 269

15. Through the Stress and Pain of Family Life 270
A Model for Understanding Family Stress 271

Stressful Events
Resources

Family Responses to Stress 273

Coping
Problem-Solving

Coping with Catastrophes and Ambiguous Loss 275

Families in Pain 277

Christian Belief and Response to Stress and Pain 278

16. Divorce and Single-Parent Families 282
Divorce 283

Demographics
Causes
The Process

The Effects on Children
Long- and Short-Term Divorce Adjustment
Best-Case Scenarios

A Christian Approach to Divorce 291

Single-Parent Families 292

Not Enough Time
Noncustodial Parents
Not Enough Money: The Link between Single Parenthood and Poverty

Family Values and Valuing Families: A Christian Response 296

17. Complex Families in Contemporary Society 298
A View from Trinitarian Theology 299

Newly Formed Couple 300

Second-Marriage Dynamics 302

Newly Formed Family 303

Unrealistic Expectations 304

Parents Taking Leadership 306

Stepparents/Stepchildren 308

Stepfathers/Stepchildren 309

Marital Tension over Stepchildren 310

Summary 311

Part 7: Family Life in Postmodern Society 315
18. Biblical Family Values in a Modern and Postmodern World 317

Modernity Defined 318

The Crisis and Challenge of Modernity
Consciousness
Communication
Community
Commodities

The Impact of Modernity on the Family 323

Fragmentation of Consciousness
THE PROBLEM
FALSE HOPES

Complexity of Communication
THE PROBLEM
FALSE HOPES

Disintegration of Community
THE PROBLEM
FALSE HOPES

Dominance of Commodities
THE PROBLEM
FALSE HOPES

19. Creating a Family-Friendly Society 331
Inadequate Responses to Modernity 331

Toward a Radical Response to Modernity and Postmodernity 333

Release from Bondage to Commodities
Reconstruction of Community
Revitalization of Communication
Reintegration of Consciousness

Support Structures 338

Extended Families 338

Koinonia in Communities 339

The Church 339

Shalom in Society 340

Hope for the Family and Society 342

Bibliography 343
Index 379
Back Cover 390

Illustrations

Figures

1. Theological Characteristics of Family Relationships 8
2. Types of Commitment in Family Relationships 12
3. Family-Systems Theory 26
4. Disengagement, Differentiation, and Fusion 41
5. Adaptability and Cohesion within Families 43
6. Styles of Instrumental Parenting 118
7. Styles of Socio-emotional Parenting 120
8. An Interactive Developmental Model of Human Sexuality 221

Tables

1. From Hurting to Healing Behavior 22
2. Family Development 37
3. Characteristics of Effective and Ineffective Families 40
4. Traditional, Biblical, and Modern Views of Marriage 95
5. Major Stage-Specific Theories of Child Development 134
6. The Impact of Modernity on the Family: Dilemmas and False

Hopes 323
7. Creating a Positive Family Environment 334

Preface

We (Jack and Judy) initially wrote The Family: A Christian Perspective on
the Contemporary Home to present an integrated view of contemporary
family life based on current social-science research, clinical insights, and
biblical truth. The biblical integration reflects broad theological truths
woven throughout the Scriptures rather than specific proof texts. We chose to
present the social-scientific knowledge in an easy-to-read style rather than
one that was academic but more cumbersome. The positive response to the
previous four editions of our book has warranted this updated fifth edition.
And we brought on a coauthor, Tom, to partner with us in the task. Building
on the previous material, this new edition incorporates the most current
research to date—with over one hundred additional references incorporated
into the fifth edition—and our response to the continued changes that are
taking place in modern society and family life, the increasing role of
grandparents in parenting their grandchildren, and work and family life. And
in recognition of the importance of biosocial influence, we highlight the
interactive effect of bio-psycho-socio-cultural factors that help us understand
family dynamics.

Our book is divided into seven parts. In part 1, “Theological and Social
Perspectives on Family Life,” we put forward a basic theology of
relationships and theoretical perspectives on the family as a developing
biosocial system. Part 2, “Marriage: The Foundation of Family Life,” is
devoted to the topics of mate selection, cohabitation, and the establishment of
a strong Christian marriage. In part 3, “The Expansion of Family Life:
Parenting and Beyond,” we focus on the development and rearing of young
children, the particular challenges of midlife parents and their adolescent
children, and the joys and challenges of the later-life family. In part 4,
“Gender and Sexuality: Identity in Family Life,” we consider the changing
definitions of masculinity and femininity and the implications they have for
family relationships, and we discuss the complex dimensions of becoming an
authentic sexual self as part of God’s design and intention. Part 5,
“Communication: The Heart of Family Life,” describes the expression of

love and intimacy as well as the expression of anger and normal conflicts
that inevitably occur between family members. In part 6, “The Social
Dynamics of Family Life,” we attend to the critical aspects of family life
such as work-family dynamics, life stressors, divorce, single parenthood,
remarriage, and building new family forms. Part 7, “Family Life in
Postmodern Society,” deals with the effects that modern industrialized
society and postmodern thinking have had on family life. Suggestions are
made for changing social structures to create a more family-friendly
environment.

Rather than taking a piecemeal approach, devoting each chapter to a
specific topic, we have attempted to make every chapter an integral part of
the overarching theme of the book. The foundation for this theme is the
theology of family relationships expounded in parts 1 and 2. Therefore, we
have aspired to weave into the content of each chapter our theological basis
for family relationships from the perspective of the family as a developing
system.

Coauthorship and teamwork make this book a collaborative project. A
marriage and family therapist for over forty years, Judy is senior professor at
Fuller Theological Seminary in the Marriage and Family Therapy
Department. Jack, a professional sociologist with forty-five years of
teaching, research, and writing experience at the university and seminary
level, is also a senior professor at Fuller. They have each had postdoctoral
seminary training in theology and biblical studies and they speak throughout
the United States and abroad on marriage and family life. Tom Frederick has
known Jack and Judy since 1997, when he came to Fuller Theological
Seminary as a marriage and family therapy student. It was there that he was
introduced to the Balswick’s theology of family relationships and witnessed
their authentic Christian commitment to personal and spiritual growth as
mentors and scholars. Tom is currently a professor of psychology and the
program director for the online Master of Science in Counseling Psychology
program at California Baptist University.

Although we have attempted to blend academic, clinical, and theological
understandings of the family, our interest in family life is not merely as
scholars. The core of our lives has been experienced in the context of family,
and our joint calling is to minister to families. We feel most fortunate to have
been reared and nurtured in loving Christian homes. Our parents modeled

unconditional love and grace that provided secure foundations and brought
profound spiritual meaning to our lives.

Being married for sixty years has taught us (Jack and Judy) much about
what it takes to live out the principles we propose in this book. Our adult
children, Jacque and Joel, have challenged and continue to challenge us to
grow throughout every life stage. We have tried to maintain balance through
the joys and pains, ups and downs, ebb and flow, stress and elation of family
living. Forty years ago our beloved ten-year-old son, Jeff, died of bone
cancer. Working through that loss as well as remembering the delight of his
life has changed us all. We spent three years living in an extended-family
arrangement with our daughter Jacque, her first husband, and our two- and
three-year-old grandsons, Curtis and Jacob, who have now graduated from
college and are working full time. We have two additional grandsons, Taylor
and Liam, from our daughter’s marriage to Dana Kirk. Our adopted Korean
son Joel is married to Uyen Mai, a Chinese Vietnamese woman, who has
enriched our multicultural perspective. In addition they have gifted us with
our first granddaughter, Elizabeth, and their adopted Korean son, Benjamin.
We’ve been through the agonizing illnesses and deaths of all four parents and
had the privilege and challenge of living with Judy’s aging mother for nine
months prior to her death at age ninety-two.

I (Tom) have been married to Gail Frederick for twenty-three years, which
has taught me much about the transformative nature of marriage. Gail’s
Taiwanese background has added a crucial multicultural dimension to family
life. We have had to practice careful listening and other communication
strategies. Further, it has been enriching to see both sets of in-laws accept us
as part of the family. We have enjoyed the hospitality of our Taiwanese
family while making our lives in California. Raising two children, Nathaniel
and Zoe, has provided many opportunities to practice empowerment, grace,
and intimacy. Being a teenager is challenging under normal circumstances;
however, there are no manuals for parenting or being a teen during a global
pandemic.

All in all, the three of us have learned a lot and continue to learn as we
encounter the blessings and struggles of each unique stage of family life.
Having preached on the fragility of the isolated nuclear family, we are
constantly reminded of our need for God as our strength as well as for those
who have walked alongside us on the journey. Our friends, family, and
communities of faith add a wealth of wisdom and perspective. We want to

offer a warm and heartfelt thanks to Nathaniel Frederick, who assisted in
compiling and updating the bibliography. Robert Hosack at Baker Academic
provided needed encouragement for us tackling this revision. We would be
remiss without thanking editor James Korsmo and copyeditor Stephanie
Juliot. Their thorough review, attention to detail, and helpful suggestions
have greatly improved this fifth edition. Finally, we would like to thank
Paula Gibson from the visual communication department whose work on the
front cover captured beautifully the content of the book. We trust that what we
have learned will benefit our readers.

Visit www.bakeracademic.com/professors to access study
aids

and instructor materials for this textbook.

PART 1

Theological and Social
Perspectives on Family

Life

Some observe a crisis in the Christian family in the United States today.
There are challenges to how Christians define the nature and function of the
family, and many are confused with how to incorporate the best sociology
research into understanding this bedrock of society. Our approach is to
consider the biblical, theological, cultural, and sociological perspectives on
family life in an attempt to integrate secular knowledge with the truth of
Scripture. In chapter 1 we present a theology of family relationships based
on what the Bible says about relationality through the Holy Trinity: God as
parent in relationship to the children of Israel, Christ as groom in
relationship to the church as bride, and the Holy Spirit in relationship to all
believers who are empowered to live in rightful relationships as brothers
and sisters in Christ. The emergent theology of family relationships highlights
the elements of covenant, grace, empowerment, and intimacy as family
members strive to maintain their unique individuality within family unity.

In chapter 2 we introduce two sociological perspectives. The systemic
perspective, which views the family as a unit of interrelated parts,
concentrates on the relationships between family members. The
developmental perspective focuses on the bio-psycho-socio-cultural impact
and various stages of individual and family life. By integrating these
sociological perspectives, we will discover some of the basic marks of a
resilient family.

1

A Theological Foundation for
Family Relationships

Developing a Theology of the Family

How can we best use Scripture to learn God’s intention for family life during
the new millennium? A common approach is to pick out the key verses from
the various scriptural passages dealing with the family. These verses are then
arranged as one would arrange a variety of flowers to form a pleasing
bouquet. However, such use of Scripture presents problems when Christians
come up with different bouquets of verses and then disagree as to what the
Bible says about family life. This method of selecting certain verses about
the family can be compared to strip mining. Ignoring the historical and
cultural context, the strip miner tears into the veins of Scripture, throws the
unwanted elements aside, and emerges with selected golden nuggets of truth.
Too often, this type of search for God’s truth about the family produces a
truth that conforms to the preconceived ideas of the miner doing the stripping.

Prominent among the golden nuggets that are typically mined are New
Testament regulations regarding family and household relationships (e.g.,
Eph. 5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Tim. 2:8–15; 6:1–2; Titus 2:1–10; and 1 Pet.
2:18–3:7). These passages indicate early Christianity’s concern for order in
three basic household relationships: between husband and wife, between
parent and child, and between master and slave. New Testament scholar
James Dunn (1996), however, emphasizes the importance of considering the
total context of scriptural passages about family life. Dunn notes the problem
when scriptural texts are read without considering the social, historical, and
cultural context of the time of writing. Although the motive of discovering
hard-and-fast rules for household life is understandable, a “problem arises

here when we try to make the household codes into timeless rules which can
be simply transposed across time to the present day without addition or
subtraction” (62). Doing so would mean that we accept slaves as part of
God’s intention for family households. Dunn concludes that such an approach
is an abuse of Scripture.

In contrast to a strip-mining mentality, we take a broad view by
considering relevant biblical references as well as a theology that offers
deeper meaning and concrete principles of living in our complex,
postmodern world. By way of analogy, we base our theology of family
relationships on relationality within the Holy Trinity and throughout the Old
and New Testament descriptions of God in relationship. The use of analogy
is crucial to understanding the correspondence between God and humanity.
Relying on analogy to build our theological model is based on a more
theological interpretation of Scripture (TIP). One of the main ways to engage
in TIP is using typological approaches that identify types or prototypes in one
passage of Scripture that are developed in later passages. Further, these
typological approaches allow us to develop a biblical theology associated
with the type or prototype by connecting passages across the Scriptures. This
is very different from citing one or two passages as proof texts for one’s
position. There are two main dimensions of typology in interpreting Scripture
(Parker 2018). The primary type in this kind of reading is horizontal
typology, which occurs when an Old Testament figure or institution
corresponds to or is an adumbration for a New Testament figure or
institution. The initial analogy is between God and Adam. That is, God
makes Adam as an image bearer and covenant partner, which foreshadows
Christ as the Covenant Keeper on humanity’s behalf.

Trinitarian Relationality
The first humans were created to be covenant partners with God, entailing
stewardship of God’s creation. What we read in Genesis 1 and 2 reflects the
formation of covenants between lords and vassals (Horton 2006). God as the
Lord declares his works; he speaks, and his empowering Word accomplishes
his will. Then, God creates and appoints humans—Adam and Eve—to
represent him in his covenant relationship to the creation. “With God’s act of
creation, the relations between the persons of the Trinity finds its analogy
between God’s relations with his people and the relations between the

people themselves and the covenant community” (Horton 2012, 124). As
with all covenants, there are blessings, responsibilities, and consequences
for violation.

We believe humans are created by a relational, triune God to be in
meaningful and edifying relationships. The good news is that Scripture
presents a model of relational life in the Trinity—God is one yet composed
of three distinct persons. Stanley Grenz puts it this way: “The same principle
of mutuality that forms the genius for the human social dynamic is present in a
prior way in the divine being” (2001, 48). Building on this truth, our starting
point in developing a theology of family relationships is to recognize that, by
way of analogy, relationships between family members reflect the
relationality within the Holy Trinity.

Relationality is the primary vehicle for humans to carry out their covenant
responsibilities. Image bearing does not connote ontology; in other words,
the imago Dei describes our status in covenant relationship with God (Grenz
2001; Horton 2012; Strachan 2019), not necessarily humanity’s
psychological makeup. Genesis 1:26–27 states, “Then God said, ‘Let us
make humankind in our image, according to our likeness. . . . So God created
humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and
female he created them.” The us connotes the triune Godhead (Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit), who in unity created humankind in the image of God (imago
Dei). Throughout the Bible, unity and uniqueness are simultaneously
described as the relational aspects of the Godhead.

The task of image bearing entails a threefold commission from the Creator
(Fowler 1987). First, Adam and Eve—and then all people—are to govern or
be responsible stewards of the creation. Second, image bearers engage in
developing or liberating creation. In other words, humans function as image
bearers in developing the potential of the created order. Finally, image
bearing entails redemption of the aspects of creation that have been marred
due to human fallenness and sin (Gen. 3). Humans do this redemptive work
when they remove or ameliorate the effects of sin (e.g., when teachers
support at-risk students to achieve academically). Middleton summarizes the
threefold commission this way: “The imago Dei designates the royal office
or calling of human beings as God’s representatives and agents in the world,
granting authorized power to share God’s rule or administration of earth’s
resources and creatures” (2005, 27). Unity with God as image bearers means
exercising one’s unique ability to govern, liberate, and redeem creation.

Applying image bearing to family relationships, Gary Deddo (1999)
draws on Karl Barth, when he states that “the nature of the covenantal
relationship between God and humanity revealed and actualized in Jesus
Christ . . . [is] grounded in the Trinitarian relations of Father, Son, and
Spirit” (2). As distinction and unity coexist in the Godhead, so are they to
exist among family members. Deddo states, “In the revelation by the Son of
the Father through the Spirit we come to recognize the activity of the one God
apportioned to each person of the Trinity. The Father is the Creator, the Lord
of life; the Son is the Reconciler, the re-newer of life; the Spirit is the
Redeemer, the giver, the conveyor of this life which is given, sustained and
renewed” (36). Family relationships are analogous in human form to this
divine model. As the three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—
mutually indwell a trinitarian fellowship, so are family members to mutually
indwell a family fellowship in similar ways.

Miroslav Volf expands on this concept by examining the Greek word
perichoresis, which “connotes mutual interpenetration without any
coalescence or commixture” (1998, 208–13, 19). Perichoresis (from peri,
meaning “around,” and chorea, meaning “dance”) pictures the “divine
dance” or union of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which has gone on from the
beginning and continues forever. This fellowship of three coequal persons
perfectly embraced in love and harmony is the ultimate intimate union. This
is affirmed in passages such as John 10:38, “so that you may know and
understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father,” along with John
16:13–15, when Jesus refers to God’s glory as the Spirit reveals the truth that
the Son is of the Father. Divine unity is expressed as the distinct persons
mutually indwell the Godhead.

The trinitarian model reflects the nature of covenantal relationality
(distinction and unity) and becomes a core ideal and a central theme of
understanding family relationships. However, we acknowledge that, unlike
God, we are not perfect, and therefore in applying these principles, we will
have to struggle with our human imperfections. We must look to God for
grace and strength to attain personal distinction in relationships. The
relational process—be it the initial forming of the marital relationship,
nurturing and guiding in the child-rearing years, building new family
structures, or dealing with the end of life—involves the fundamental issues of
forming unity while embracing each person’s distinctiveness. We use the
biblical analogy in terms of how the members of the Godhead act in unity

through distinctiveness with the themes of covenant, grace, empowerment,
and intimacy.

God in Relationship
The Old and New Testaments use familial language by way of analogy to
describe the relationship between the creator God and the created ones,
including God as parent relating to the children of Israel, Christ as groom in
relation to the church as bride, and the Holy Spirit indwelling and
empowering believers to be brothers and sisters in the Lord. God’s actions
toward Israel are characterized by compassionate love, discipline, guidance,
pursuit, generosity, nurture, respect, knowledge, and forgiveness. Jesus
welcomes little children, women, the disenfranchised, and his disciples into
close, intimate connection. The Spirit prays in and through us when we
cannot find the words to speak. In other words, familial relationships are
analogies for describing the covenant relationship between God and his
people.

A covenant is a type of relationship, usually between a king or queen and
vassals. The covenant intends to bind the lord to a particular group of
people, where protection would be offered for loyalty. Covenants entail
stipulations and consequences for violation of the terms by either side.
Michael Horton (2006) describes covenants as containing six components:
(1) a preamble describing the one great king making the treaty; (2) a
historical prologue describing the events and reasons (and justification) for
the covenant; (3) stipulations between the king and the vassal; (4) sanctions
or consequences for failing to uphold the treaty; and the final two aspects of
covenant making, are (5) depositing the covenant on tablets and (6)
periodically celebrating or reviewing them publicly. Genesis 1 and 2 should
be read with this formulation in mind. God announces his covenant with
Adam and Eve. This covenant is based on the Creator’s word of power in
establishing the universe, and it culminates with a blessing. In this way,
Genesis 1:26–28, partially quoted above, describes the covenant
representative being a differentiated humanity with covenant expectations—
stewardship, fruitfulness, and multiplication (Gen. 1:28).

Ray Anderson (1982) uses the concept of cohumanity to build a
theological anthropology. Beginning with the theological truth that “humanity
is determined as existence in covenant relation with God” (37), Anderson

applies the concept of covenant to all human relationships. He considers
covenantal relationships in the family as a “secondary order, made possible
by the primary order of differentiation as male or female” (52).
Differentiation achieves the godly purpose of interdependence and
cooperative interaction between people. In other words, unity and uniqueness
become the primary vehicles for embodying the image of God.

In applying covenant as a paradigm for the family, Anderson and Guernsey
(1985) highlight the unconditional quality of covenant: “It is covenant love
that provides the basis for family. For this reason, family means much more
than consanguinity, where blood ties provide the only basis for belonging.
Family is where you are loved unconditionally, and where you can count on
that love even when you least deserve it” (40).

Similarly, Stuart McLean (1984, 4–32) suggests the following ways that
covenant can be used as a metaphor for marriage and family relationships:
(1) people are social and live in community; (2) the basic unit of family and
of covenant is the dyad; (3) people living in community experience struggle
and conflict as well as harmony; (4) people living in covenant must be
willing to forgive and be forgiven by one another; (5) people living in
covenant must accept their strong bond to one another; (6) people living in
covenant accept law in the form of patterns and order in relationships; and
(7) people living in covenant have a temporal awareness as they carry a
memory of the past, live in the present, and anticipate the future.

Covenant forms the foundation of our theology of family relationships.
Covenant results in image bearing, and image bearing entails fulfilling the
covenant stipulations of dominion or stewardship—that is, ruling over the
birds of the air and fish of the sea—and fecundity regarding offspring and
culture development (Wolters 2005). Finally, image bearing results in
blessings for fulfilling the covenant—provision and blessing from God.

Elements in a Theology of Family Relationships
We propose a theology of family relationships that involves four dimensions
or characteristics of Christian relating: covenant, grace, empowerment, and
intimacy. Covenant is the core or meta-virtue of relating which grounds and
supports the others. We further suggest that family relationships will be either
dynamic and maturing or stagnant and dying. Family relationships, and all
relationships for that matter, are oriented toward God’s intended telos (or

goal) or away from that goal, and any trajectory away from God’s intended
ideal is an outcome of sin (Wolters 2005). A model of this process of family
relationships is presented in figure 1.

The logical beginning point of any family relationship is a covenant
commitment, which has unconditional love at its core. Unconditional love as
the bedrock love of one’s relationship to the other creates responsiveness
and accessibility to the other. Grace emerges from this covenantal
foundation. Mercy and forgiveness, aspects of grace, are extended in relating
with others—a result of the loving forgiveness received from God. In this
atmosphere of grace, family members have the freedom to empower one
another. Empowerment leads to the possibility of intimacy among family
members. Grace, empowerment, and intimacy deepen as the foundation of
covenant is solidified.

Covenants form the basis for grace, empowerment, and intimacy. As the
three secondary relationship virtues are experienced, the covenant is
increasingly solidified. For example, the relationship between a parent and
an infant child begins as a unilateral (one-way) love commitment, but as the
parent lives out that commitment, the relationship grows into a bilateral
(mutual) love commitment. Grace, empowerment, and intimacy are expressed
in this relationship. The covenant motivates the parents to offer grace to their
offspring (food, housing, daily needs, interaction). Empowerment is
expressed in the covenant as children learn the stipulations (household rules)
that are embedded in the family. Finally, intimacy develops as partners learn
more and more about one another. These three virtues feed back into the
covenant, making it grow and bear fruit.

For such growth to take place in any relationship, there must be mutual
involvement. Growth in family relationships can be blocked or hampered
when one person in the relationship is unable or unwilling to reciprocate
covenant love, grace, empowerment, or intimacy. Thus, growth in a
relationship can come to a standstill at any point in this cycle. Because
relationships are dynamic and ever changing, if a relationship does not move
to deeper levels of commitment, grace, empowerment, and intimacy, it will
stagnate and fixate on contract rather than covenant, law rather than grace,
possessive power rather than empowerment, and distance rather than
intimacy.

These theological relationship characteristics are derived from an
examination of biblical writings that show how God enters into and sustains
relationships (covenants) with humanity. The Bible teaches that God desires
to be in relationship with humankind and also longs for humans to engage in a
reciprocal relationship. We recognize, however, that although we are created
in the image of God, we are fallen creatures who will fail in all aspects of
relationship with God and others. In a sense, no person can ever make a
covenant commitment in the way that God covenants with us, nor can anyone
foster an atmosphere of grace in the same way God gives grace. Our
empowerment attempts often resemble possessive power, and our attempts at
intimacy pale in comparison to God’s knowing and caring. Yet we are
hopeful because God has been revealed perfectly in Jesus Christ. He is our
model and enabler as we live out our lives and relationships according to
God’s purpose.

Covenant: To Love and Be Loved
Covenant—God’s steadfast commitment to creation—forms the basis for the
other relationship virtues. As the trunk of the proverbial tree, covenant is the
core feature of relationship virtues from which grace, empowerment, and
intimacy branch out. The central point of covenant is that it is an
unconditional commitment, demonstrated supremely by God to the creation.

Although the concept of covenant has a rich heritage in Christian theology,
the biblical meaning has been eroded by the modern notion that commitment
is no more than a contract. Covenant is basic to the structure of the first two
chapters of Genesis (Horton 2006), even though the first biblical mention of
a covenant is found in Genesis 6:18, where God says to Noah, “But I will

establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark.” God tells
Noah to take his wife and sons and daughters-in-law, along with all living
creatures, and Noah does everything that God commands. In Genesis 9:9–10,
God repeats this promise of covenant: “As for me, I am establishing my
covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living
creature that is with you.” The covenant is even extended to nonhuman
creatures. Next, God makes a covenant with Abram: “I am God Almighty;
walk before me, and be blameless. And I will make my covenant between me
and you, and will make you exceedingly numerous” (Gen. 17:1–2). Upon
hearing this, Abram falls down on his face. God continues in verse 7, “I will
establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you
throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you
and to your offspring after you.” Then in verse 9, the role of Abram (whose
name is now changed to “Abraham”) in the covenant is specified: “God said
to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring
after you throughout their generations.’”

What can we learn from these two accounts of God’s establishing a
covenant with Noah and with Abraham? First, we see that God is not offering
either of them any choice in the matter. That is, God is by no means saying,
“Now I am going to commit myself to you if this is your desire.” Instead, the
establishment of the covenant is based entirely on God’s action. Second,
God’s offer is in no way contractual; that is, it is not based on Noah or
Abraham keeping their end of the bargain. God’s commitment stands firm and
solid (immutable would be the theological descriptor) no matter what their
response. However, God desires and even commands a response—covenants
come with expectations. Does this make God’s covenantal offer conditional?
Is God free to retract the offer if it is not reciprocated? The answer is a
resounding no! The covenant God offers is steadfast and true, “an everlasting
covenant,” regardless of the response to it. Third, although the covenant itself
is not conditional, the benefits or blessings are determined by the response.
Both Noah and Abraham are given a choice to respond. If they are to benefit
from the covenant, they need to make a freely determined response of
obedience. Although the continuation of God’s love is not conditioned on
their response, the blessings of the covenant are conditional. Now that they
receive and respond to God’s covenant, they also receive the fulfillment of
the promise. Fourth, we notice that God extends the covenant to their families
from generation to generation. Neither Noah nor Abraham can anticipate

obedience on the part of their descendants, further evidence of the
unconditional nature of the covenant. In the same way, the blessings of the
covenant are conditional, depending on whether the descendants decide to
respond to and follow God.

Indeed, the Old Testament account in the book of Hosea conveys the
central theme of the covenant relationship between God and the children of
Israel. The cycle is as follows: The children of Israel turn away from God
and get into all kinds of difficulty. God pursues them with a love that will not
let them go, offering reconciliation and restitution when they respond. And
then comes the incredible blessing of being in relationship with the Almighty
God, who mothers like a hen and leads with cords of human kindness. The
children of Israel reap the satisfaction of basking in the intimate presence and
profound connection with their loving God.

The life of Jesus is the supreme expression of unconditional love. It is
noteworthy that Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15) in response
to the Pharisees’ and the scribes’ criticism of his sitting with sinners. Just as
the father in the story welcomes his wayward son home with open arms,
Jesus demonstrates unconditional love to a people who have rejected his
Father. The unconditional nature of God’s love is perhaps most clearly
expressed in 1 John 4:19, “We love because he first loved us,” and 1 John
4:10–13, “In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent
his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us
so much, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we
love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us. By this we
know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his
Spirit.” Here is the promise of the mutual indwelling of God’s unconditional
love in us as we dwell in God’s love through the sacrifice of Christ and the
presence of the Spirit. And as we have received that unconditional love
represented in the unity of the Godhead, we offer that unconditional love to
others as God’s image bearers.

Having discussed the unconditional quality of God’s covenant
commitments, we now turn to a related consideration—the issue of
reciprocity. Whereas the unconditional nature of covenant love is
unquestionable, in a familial context the concept of covenant can be used to
refer to both unilateral and bilateral relationships. Figure 2 depicts the
different types of commitment found in family relationships.

Any covenantal relationship is based on an unconditional commitment.
However, covenantal relationships can be either unilateral (one-way) or
bilateral (two-way). We have labeled a unilateral unconditional relationship
an initial covenant and a bilateral unconditional relationship a mature
covenant. All biblical references to the covenant God initiates are examples
of initial covenants. It would be erroneous to think of an unconditional
unilateral relationship as partial, dependent, or even immature because, from
the individual’s perspective, a personal covenant without restrictions is
given. From a relational perspective, unilateral unconditional commitment
entails the attractive possibility of someday becoming a two-way street. The
desire of God in each initiated covenant is that the unconditional commitment
will eventually be reciprocal and mutual—that one day, humanity will be
able to ultimately consummate and fulfill the covenant stipulations.

When a child is born, the parents make an unconditional commitment of
love to that child. The infant or young child is unable to make such a
commitment in return. However, as the child matures, the relationship that
began as an initial (unilateral) covenant can develop into a mature (bilateral)
relationship. True reciprocity occurs as parents themselves age and become
socially, emotionally, and physically more dependent on their adult child.
Here, in a mature bilateral commitment, reciprocal and unconditional love is
especially rewarding.

Our ideal for marital and mature parent-child relationships is an
unconditional bilateral commitment. As shown in figure 2, there are two

types of conditional family relationships. One type we call the modern open
arrangement, which is symptomatic of a society in which people are hesitant
to make commitments that do not inherently offer benefits. A typical example
is a person who begins a marriage with the unspoken understanding that as
long as his or her needs are being met, all is well, but as soon as those needs
are no longer met, the relationship will end. When both spouses adopt this
conditional stance, the marriage amounts to a contract, a quid pro quo
arrangement. In modern open arrangements, the couple believes they have
fulfilled the marital contract when they get from the relationship a little more
than they give to the relationship. That is, modern open arrangements are
viewed as successful if one gives slightly less than one receives.

In reality, much of the daily routine in family life is carried out according
to informal contractual agreements. When we advocate relationships based
on covenant, we must recognize the importance of mutuality, fairness, and
reciprocal processes that lead to interdependence. Yet there are
extraordinary dimensions of loving unconditionally, such as sacrificing
oneself for the other and going the second mile even when things aren’t
equal. It is a matter of being willing to be unselfish rather than thinking only
of self (selfish) or only of others (selfless), as Stephen Post (1994) defines
the terms. Any mature relationship based on contract alone will forgo the
incredible acts of love that far exceed any contract made by two individuals
and ultimately reflect the fulfillment of God’s covenant in the saving work of
Christ on the cross.

Grace: To Forgive and Be Forgiven
By its very nature, covenant is grace—unmerited favor. From a human
perspective, the unconditional love of God makes no sense except as it is
offered in grace. Grace is truly a relational word. One is called to share in a
gracious relationship with God. Due to God’s unshakable covenant, grace is
extended. God condescends to the creature and the creature is elevated (see
Ps. 8).

John Rogerson (1996) takes the understanding of grace as a natural
extension of covenant love and applies it to family life. He cites Old
Testament texts suggesting that God desires the establishment of structures of
grace to strengthen family life. These structures of grace are defined as
“social arrangement[s] designed to mitigate hardship and misfortune, and

grounded in God’s mercy.” The following example is from Exodus 22:25–
27: “If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not
deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. If you
take your neighbor’s cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes
down; for it may be your neighbor’s only clothing to use as cover; in what
else shall that person sleep? And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will
listen, for I am compassionate.” From his analysis of Old Testament
teachings about the family, Rogerson concludes, “What is really important is
that theologically-driven efforts were made to counteract the forces that
undermined the family” (41).

Family relationships, as designed by God, are meant to be lived out in an
atmosphere of grace, not law. Family life based on contract leads to an
atmosphere of law and is a discredit to Christianity. Law keeps a tally of
credits and debits. Family members take an account of how much they give
and how much they receive from the family. Fairness in this sense is based on
balancing this ledger (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner 1986; Boszormenyi-
Nagy and Spark 1984). On the contrary, family life based on covenant leads
to an atmosphere of grace and forgiveness. There must be a willingness to
forgive if right relationships are going to develop in family life (Borrowdale
1996). Just as the meaning and joy of being a Christian would be deadened if
we conceived of our relationship with God in terms of law and not grace, so
would meaning and joy be constrained in family relationships. On both the
individual and the family level, law leads to legalism, whereas grace offers
freedom. In an atmosphere of grace, family members learn to act responsibly
out of love and consideration for one another.

The incarnation is the supreme act of God’s grace to humankind. Christ
came in human form to reconcile the world to God. This act of divine love
and forgiveness is the basis for human love and forgiveness. Forgiveness
bridges grace offered horizontally and vertically (Shults and Sandage 2003),
meaning that Christians are able to extend grace, mercy, and forgiveness as
they have received them. We can forgive others as we have been forgiven,
and the love of God within makes it possible for us to love others in the same
unconditional way.

One may ask if there is any place for law in family relationships. Are we
to believe that when grace is present in the family there is no need for law at
all? Our answer must be the same as that given by the apostle Paul: “For
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone

who believes” (Rom. 10:4). It is not that the law itself is bad, for it points the
way to God. But because humans are limited and fallen, we can never fulfill
the law. Christ is the end of the law because he is the perfect fulfillment of
the law. We are righteous by faith alone! No one can keep the law perfectly.
We are free from the law because of Christ’s perfection and righteousness,
which leads to our salvation.

The same can be said concerning family relationships. Through Scripture
we can know something of God’s ideal for family relationships, but none of
us can expect to measure up perfectly to that ideal. In a family based on law,
the members demand perfection of one another. Rules and regulations are
rigidly set to govern relationships. This kind of pressure for flawlessness
adds guilt to the failure that is inevitable in such a situation.

The application of the concept of grace in family relationships is a
challenge when we are working out family structures, roles, and rules.
Although the covenant of grace rules out law as a basis for family
relationships, family members living in grace accept structure, forms,
patterns, order, and responsibility in relationships. In reality, much of the
daily routine of family life must be performed according to agreed-upon
rules, regularity, and order. Grace means having consistently applied,
developmentally appropriate rules and expectations for each family member.
Grace is also the ability to be reflective about those rules and make changes
as necessary. Grace does not repress needs or limit lives, but offers order
and regularity so that family members’ needs are met and their lives
enhanced.

Empowerment: To Serve and Be Served
The most common and conventional definition of power is the ability to
influence another person. In such a definition, the emphasis is placed on
one’s ability to influence and not the actual exercise of the authority. Most
research on the use of power in the family has focused on a person’s attempt
to influence or control the behavior of another. An underlying assumption in
such analyses is that people using power try to decrease rather than increase
the power of those they are trying to influence. They tend to use power in a
way that assures the maintenance of their own more powerful position. In this
sense of power, a suitable synonym may be control.

Empowerment, however, is a biblical model for the use of power that is
completely contrary to its common use in the family or in society at large.
Empowerment can be defined as the attempt to establish power in another
person. Empowerment does not necessarily involve yielding to the wishes of
another person or ceding one’s own power to someone else. Rather,
empowerment is the active, intentional process of helping another person to
become empowered. The person who is empowered has been equipped,
strengthened, built up, matured, and has gained skill because of the
encouraging support of the other. Empowerment flows out of the covenant
between partners because covenant relationships seek the best of the other.
Empowerment as an offshoot of the covenant encourages the other to develop
into the person God intends. Empowerment facilitates the development of
authentic, Christlike individuals.

In a nutshell, empowerment is the process of helping another person
recognize his or her potential and then reach that potential through one’s
encouragement and guidance. It involves coming alongside a person to affirm
their gifts and build their confidence to become all that they can be.
Sometimes the empowerer must be willing to step back and allow the one
being empowered to learn through experience and not through
overdependence. An empowerer respects the uniqueness of each person and
equips that person according to his or her individual ways of learning.
Empowerment never involves control, coercion, or force. Rather, it is a
respectful, reciprocal process that takes place between people in mutually
enhancing ways.

A great example of this in the Scriptures is the story of the prodigal son in
Luke 15. In this familiar story, a wealthy father has two sons. The younger
son asks for his share of the family estate before the father passes away. The
father assents to this request, and the younger son takes his money and moves
to a faraway country. In the meantime, the older son remains steadfast at his
father’s side, engaged in the family business. After his inheritance runs out
and he is forced to perform tasks unthinkable for an Israelite, the younger son
returns home. The father welcomes him with open arms, throwing a lavish
party. The older son, who was working out in the fields, did not know his
younger brother had returned. The older son confronts his father when he
finds out the party was for the younger son—the one that wished his father
was dead! Empowerment, as the lens for this story, indicates that the father
empowers the younger son by giving him the inheritance. He allows him to

make a decision as an adult and experience the consequences of that
decision. Luke even records the younger son’s development while feeding the
pigs: “He came to his senses” (Luke 15:17 NIV).

If covenant is the basis of grace, and grace is the underlying atmosphere of
acceptance and forgiveness, then empowerment is the action of God in
people’s lives. We see it supremely in the work of Jesus Christ. The
celebrated message of Jesus is that he has come to empower: “I came that
they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). The apostle John
puts it this way: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he
gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of
the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12–13). Ray
Anderson (1985) insightfully exegetes this text by noting that power “of
blood” is power in the natural order, and “the will of the flesh” refers to
tradition, duty, honor, obedience, and everything that is part of conventional
power. In this passage, then, it is clear that the power is given by God and
not by either physical or conventional means.

The power given by Jesus is of a personal order—power that is mediated
to the powerless. To us in our sinful and powerless condition, God gives the
ability to become children of God. This is the supreme example of human
empowerment. Jesus redefined power by his teaching and by relating to
others as a servant. Jesus rejected the use of power to control others and
instead affirmed the use of power to serve others, to lift up the fallen, to
forgive the guilty, to encourage responsibility and maturity in the weak, and
to enable the unable. His empowerment was directed to those who occupied
the margins.

In a very real sense, empowerment is love in action. It is the mark of Jesus
Christ that family members need to emulate most. The practice of
empowerment in families will revolutionize the view of authority in
Christian homes. Sadly, authority in marriage continues to be a controversial
issue today because of a widely accepted secular view that power is a
commodity in limited supply; therefore, a person must grab as much power as
possible in relationships. Whether through coercion or manipulation, striving
for power leads to antagonizing competition rather than to the cooperative
building up of people. Power becomes a distortion that distances, in contrast
to mutual empowerment, which leads to unity.

But the good news for Christians is that the power of God is available to
all persons in unlimited supply! Ephesians 4 reminds us that unique spiritual

gifts are given to everyone for the building up of the body of Christ, “until all
of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to
maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ” (v. 13). In a similar vein,
Galatians 5:22–23 contrasts the works of the flesh against the fruit of the
Spirit, which is freely given and defined as love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. In verses 25
and 26, we are encouraged and admonished: “If we live by the Spirit, let us
also be guided by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, competing against
one another, envying one another.” This is the character of God, and it is
available to all family members who draw on the inexhaustible resources in
Christ Jesus!

Empowerment is born out of God’s covenant love, and it thrives in the
gracious relational context experienced in Christ Jesus. The Spirit of God
empowers us to empower others. And when mutual empowerment occurs
among family members, each will be stretched in the extraordinary ways of
servant love and humility. Family members will grow in the stature of Christ
as they mature into the character of Christ in their daily interactions. When
they use their areas of strength to build up one another, they are placing unity
and interdependency at the heart of their relationships. It has nothing to do
with having power over others but rather involves taking great delight in
building up one another to become all God wants us to be. This is the
essence of what we read in 1 Corinthians 8:1: “Knowledge puffs up, but
loves builds up.”

Traditional thinking about parent-child relationships is also based on the
false assumption that power is in limited supply. Thus, parents often fear that
as children grow older and gain more power, their parental power will
automatically be reduced. In contrast, a relationship-empowering approach
to parenting begins by reconsidering the nature of power and authority. In the
biblical sense, parental authority is an ascribed power. The Greek word for
authority, exousia, literally means “out of being.” It refers to a type of
influence that is not dependent on any personal strength, achievement, or skill
but that comes forth “out of the being” of a person. The Greek word for
power, dynamis, is the word from which dynamo is derived. The authority of
Jesus flowed from his personhood. It was dynamic.

Dynamic parents have authority that flows from their personhood as they
earnestly and responsibly care for their children’s physical, social,
psychological, and spiritual development. The process of empowering

children certainly does not mean giving up a position of authority, nor does it
mean that parents will be depleted or drained of power as they parent.
Rather, parents and children will both achieve a sense of personal power,
self-esteem, and wholeness. Successful parenting involves building a
relationship in which children gain personal power and parents retain
personal power throughout the process.

Once again, human fears and personal or cultural needs may stand in the
way of parental empowerment of children and adolescents. In the frailty of
human insecurity, parents may be tempted to keep their offspring dependent
on them. In the attempt to use their power over their children, they may
inadvertently have a false sense of security in their parental position. When
children obey out of fear and under coercion, it is likely to backfire. An
emotional barrier develops when children are loyal out of obligation rather
than by choice. The parental demand for unreasonable obedience and loyalty
may be culturally motivated, but it is often related to selfish needs as well. In
contrast, covenant love and empowerment lead to a mature interdependency
in which there is both freedom and a continued sense of belonging for adult
children. This kind of love remains faithful, honorable, and predictable even
when differences threaten to endanger the relationship.

All parents have experienced the temptation to keep a child dependent,
which is often rationalized as something we do for the child’s own good.
Many times, however, the child is kept in a dependent position for the
parents’ own convenience. Empowerment is the ultimate goal, where parents
release the child to self-control. Of course, mistakes will be made, and
failure will be the occasional consequence of trying out new wings. Parents
have a hard time letting their children make mistakes (especially the same
mistakes they themselves made when young), so this transition to self-
reliance is difficult for parents and children alike. It is important for parents
to remember that the key to their authority lies not in external control but in
internal control that their children can integrate into their own personhood.
When this integration occurs, it is a rewarding and mutually satisfying
achievement.

On the community level as well, Christians are called to live according to
extraordinary social patterns. Even though we are sinners, God provides us
with the ability to follow the empowerment principle in our relationships.
God empowers us, by the Holy Spirit, to empower others. The biblical ideal
for all our relationships, then, is that we be Christian realists in regard to our

own sinfulness and tendency to fail, but Christian optimists in light of the
grace and power available to live according to God’s intended purposes.

Intimacy: To Know and Be Known
Humans are unique among living creatures in our ability to communicate
through language, a capacity that makes it possible for us to know one
another intimately. Our Christian faith is distinct from Eastern religions in its
teaching that God has broken into human history to be personally related to
us. A major theme that runs through the Bible is that God wants to know us
and to be known by us. We are encouraged to share our deepest thoughts and
feelings through prayer. We are told that the Holy Spirit dwells within us and
that God understands the very groaning within that cannot be uttered (Rom.
8:26–27).

Adam and Eve stood completely open and transparent before God, “naked,
and . . . not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25). The intimacy that Adam and Eve felt
enabled them to be themselves without any pretense. They had no need to
play deceptive games. Only after their disobedience did they try to hide from
God out of a feeling of nakedness and shame—to which God responded with
care and gracious provision of animal skins. Shame is often born out of a fear
of unworthiness or rejection. Shame entails the experience of personal
wrongness—I am wrong or broken. When shame is present, family members
put on masks and begin to play deceptive roles before one another. By
contrast, as we examine the nature of the pre-fall human family (which is the
only social institution that belongs to the order of creation), we find an
emphasis on intimacy—on knowing and being known. This is what it means
to be a servant, to empty oneself as Jesus did when he took the form of a
servant. This is how one is to be submissive and loving in relationships. It is
also true that to have any union or partnership or interdependence with
another person, one must always be willing to give up some of one’s own
needs and desires. When family members come to one another with this kind
of attitude and perspective, they will find a common ground of joy,
satisfaction, and mutual benefit.

When family members experience grace and empowerment flowing out of
covenant love, they will be able to communicate confidently and express
themselves freely without fear. Family members will want what is best for
one another. They will make a concerted effort to listen, understand, accept

differences, and value and confirm uniqueness. Family members will
develop and express themselves (uniqueness) in their family relationships
without the pressure to change or modify themselves (unity).

The capacity for family members to communicate feelings freely and
openly with one another is contingent on trust and commitment. They are not
afraid to share and be intimate with one another. John gives us insight into
this: “God is love” (1 John 4:16); “There is no fear in love, but perfect love
casts out fear” (v. 18). God expresses perfect love, and we can respond in
love because God loved us first (v. 19).

This brings us back to the unconditional covenant love that is the
cornerstone for family communication and honest sharing without the threat
of rejection. As family members offer their love unconditionally to one
another, the security that is established will lead to deeper levels of intimacy.

The unconditional love modeled by Jesus gives a picture of the type of
communicative intimacy desirable in family relationships. Recall how Jesus,
at the end of his earthly ministry, asked Peter not once but three times, “Do
you love me?” (John 21). Peter had earlier denied Jesus three times; Jesus
was giving Peter the opportunity to assert what he had previously denied and
to reaffirm his love three times. Perhaps the relationship between Jesus and
Peter had not been the same since Peter’s triple denial. Likewise, family
relationships become strained as we disappoint, fail, and even betray those
whom we love the most.

Forgiving and being forgiven are important aspects of renewal. There is a
need to confess as well as to receive confession. This is a two-way street
that can resolve the unfinished business between family members. Being
willing to admit failures and to acknowledge being offended by another
person opens intimacy between two people as they seek reconciliation.
Intimacy will bring relationships to full maturity.

Applying the Theological Model: From Hurting to Healing
Behaviors
In examining biblical themes that have a bearing on the nature of family
relationships, we have suggested that (1) commitment should be based on a
mature (i.e., unconditional and bilateral) covenant love; (2) family life
should be established and maintained within an atmosphere of grace, which
embraces acceptance and forgiveness; (3) the resources of family members

should be used to empower rather than to control one another; and
(4) intimacy is based on a knowing that leads to caring, understanding,
communication, and communion with others. These four elements of
Christian family relationships are part of a continual process: intimacy can
lead to deeper covenant love, commitment fortifies the atmosphere of freely
offered grace, the climate of acceptance and forgiveness encourages serving
and empowering others, and the resultant sense of self-esteem leads to the
ability to be intimate without fear.

Table 1, which represents a summary of our theological model, illustrates
how a family that places its allegiance in Jesus Christ can move toward
God’s paradigm for relationships. Although believers experience different
levels of maturity in Christ, each of them has a capacity to follow God’s way
because of the spiritual power within. Inasmuch as all family members are
imperfect, with their own individual temperaments and experiences, they
progress at different rates in the process of realizing God’s ideals of
unconditional love, grace, empowerment, and intimacy. That is to say, all
family members fall on a continuum between hurting and healing behaviors.
As long as they move in the direction of healing, they will grow and the
family will benefit. When they choose hurting behaviors and move away
from God’s way, however, the entire family will be negatively affected.

Among the hurting behaviors in a family environment are conditional love,
self-centeredness, perfectionism, faultfinding, efforts to control others,
unreliability, denial of feelings, and lack of communication. With such
behaviors, the focus is on self rather than on the best interests of the other
family members. In hurting families, each individual is affected on the
personal level. For example, one may not feel loved or worthy of being
loved by the other family members. Such individuals are limited in their
ability to love others unconditionally. A vicious circular pattern emerges.
Such problems at the personal level cause the individual to view
interpersonal relationships as potential threats. The result is behavior that
perpetuates the root problem. For example, an individual who does not know
what it is to be loved unconditionally is prone to approach others
defensively.

Hurting families tend to withhold grace, often demanding unreasonable
perfection and blaming those members who don’t measure up. Individuals in
these families fear they will make a mistake and be rejected because of their

failure to meet the standards. So they try harder to be perfect. What they need
is acceptance for who they are and forgiveness when they fail.

Hurting families also tend to control rather than empower their members.
Individuals in these families lack the confidence that they can influence
others; they fear they will be discredited because of their inadequacies. The
result is a desperate attempt to get power by coercing and controlling less
powerful family members. What is needed instead is affirmation and
validation by the family. Empowerment will build confidence so that all
family members can reach their greatest potential.

TABLE 1 From Hurting to Healing Behavior

Hurting
Behavior

Problem at the
Personal Level

Obstacle to
Interpersonal
Relationships

Behavior
Perpetuating the
Problem

Healing
Behavior:
The Cure

From Conditional Love to Unconditional Love

Conditional
love

Feeling unloved Fear of not being
loved

Loving others in
order to be loved in
return

Unconditional
love

Self-
centeredness

Feeling unworthy of
love

Fear of being
thought worthless

Focus on self Christ-
centeredness

From Shame to Grace

Perfectionism Fear of making a
mistake

Fear of not being
accepted

Trying harder Acceptance

Faultfinding Expectation of
perfection in self and
others

Fear of being
criticized

Blaming others Forgiveness

From Control to Empowerment

Efforts to
control others

Lack of confidence
in one’s ability to
influence

Fear of losing
others

Overcontrol Building others
up

Unreliability Lack of control of
oneself

Fear of
disappointing others

Being out of
control

Reliability

From Lack of Feeling to Intimacy

Denial of
feelings

Fear of feelings Fear of rejection Avoidance of
feelings

Experience of
feelings

Hurting
Behavior

Problem at the
Personal Level

Obstacle to
Interpersonal
Relationships

Behavior
Perpetuating the
Problem

Healing
Behavior:
The Cure

Lack of
communication

Distrust of others Fear of being hurt
by others

Superficial
conversation

Open and
honest
communication

Hurting families are characterized at the individual level by their members
not being in touch with their feelings. Their fear of rejection keeps them in
denial of their emotions. What they need most is a safe atmosphere in which
they can express their feelings, thoughts, wants, and desires and be heard and
understood by the other family members. Open communication helps each
person share more honestly rather than hide feelings and thoughts from
others. In turn, this experience increases one’s capacity to be known by
others and to know oneself at deeper levels.

A cure is needed to break the perpetual cycle found in hurting families. An
individual who has been loved only conditionally needs to experience
unconditional love in order to feel lovable enough to give love and to
support others. The breakthrough comes when one receives God’s
unconditional love. Being cherished by God gives a sense of self-worth and
a new self-perception (“I am lovable”). Drawing on the Holy Spirit and
maturing in the faith, the individual now has reason to follow God’s
paradigm and to adopt healing behaviors.

We have seen that living in covenant love is a dynamic process. God has
designed family relationships to grow from hurting to healing behavior—that
is, to a maturity analogous to that of individual believers who attain the full
measure of perfection found in Christ (Eph. 4:13). This maturing of
relationships eventually enables family members to reach out to people
beyond the boundaries of the family.

2

The Family as a Developing
Biosocial System

Experience shows that it is possible to observe family life, or even be
actively involved in family life, and yet be limited in our understanding of it.
In fact, active involvement in family life may be the very reason we fail to
understand it from a wider perspective.

In this chapter, we introduce two theoretical perspectives that family
clinicians and sociologists have found helpful in gaining a wide-angle view
of family life. The first one is called family-systems theory because it views
family life not merely as the sum total of the actions of all the individual
members but rather as the interactions of all family members operating as a
unit of interrelated parts. Individuals are considered in the context of their
relationships. We describe this theory at length. Parenthetically, it should be
noted that by including biological factors relevant to family life, our focus is
on the family as a biosocial system. The other theoretical perspective is
family-development theory, which views the family as developing over time
through natural life-cycle stages. Both family-systems theory and family-
development theory emphasize the interrelationships between the
individual’s bio-psycho-social development and the relationship context in
which he or she is embedded. We explain these two perspectives, which will
serve as a basis for focusing attention on family life as a whole.

Family-Systems Theory
A major cultural theme in modern society is individualism. Individualism has
caused us to focus on the individual’s needs and perspective rather than on
relationships and groups. Current psychological approaches largely focus on
individual differences or individual psychology as opposed to groups or

networks of individuals (which more correctly belongs in social psychology
and sociology). The clinical profession is shifting the focus from the
individual to the broader family system and beyond to include multileveled
systems. This relational or systemic perspective allows clinicians to
understand the embedded social dimension of human nature and flourishing.
Both family therapists and sociologists now view family life from a broader
systems perspective.

What is a family-systems perspective? Basically, it is a holistic approach
that understands every component of family life in terms of the family as a
whole. A system is by definition any identifiable whole composed of
interrelated individual parts. To understand any system, one must begin by
identifying the various levels within that system. Think of a series of
concentric circles. At the core is the individual (bio-psycho-social
dimensions); the next level includes the nuclear family (the family one lives
within); then comes the extended family (grandparents, relatives, significant
others); the next level includes school, work, friends, neighbors, and faith
communities; and the final multicultural level includes socioeconomic,
cultural, ethnic, racial, geographical, religious, and historical context. All
these systems are interrelated. They influence and are influenced by one
another simultaneously. The boundary around each of these multileveled
systems involves belonging and membership. Western societies usually
define the boundary of the family system as a husband, a wife, and their
children. In many other societies, the extended family is considered the basic
family system.

Resilience and constraints are embedded within the relationships among
these levels. For example, a toddler is developing competencies related to
walking, talking, and increasing personal autonomy (bio-psycho-social
dimensions). This competence is supported and encouraged by parents
(nuclear family). The nuclear family is also embedded in a context that
supports their care and nurture (resilience factor) or constrains it (due to
limited economic opportunities, high levels of crime, and/or high levels of
divorce or out-of-wedlock childbearing). Finally, all the previous
subsystems are embedded in a macrosystem that provides meaning-making,
values, and spiritual perspectives either supporting the previous subsystems
or constraining them. The impetus for change in order to accommodate
various competencies can derive from any of the subsystems.

The fundamental concepts of systems theory are illustrated in figure 3.
Notice that there are several semipermeable boundaries: (1) around the
entire family, (2) between subsystems like the parents and children, and (3)
around each individual. Anything within the boundary is considered part of
the system, and anything that falls outside the boundary is identified as part of
the environment. These boundaries indicate that inputs may come from
outside the family as well as within each subsystem in the family. Input
includes any message or stimulus that enters the system from the environment.
Output includes any message or response from the system to the environment.
Boundaries around a system can be relatively open or closed. In an open
family system, boundaries are said to be permeable, allowing for significant
input from and output to the environment. In a closed family system,
boundaries serve as barriers to limit such interaction.

Parents form the leadership system that determines how open or closed the
boundaries with the environment are. Once a boundary has been established,
objects within the system are identified as units of the system. In the newly
established family, there are two units (individuals), the husband and the
wife, each with identifiable positions and roles within the family. As
children enter the family, the system becomes more complex, since each new
member (whether biological, adopted, or fostered) occupies a given position
in the system and is assigned a role to play within it, and now subsystems are
created.

A family that includes children has at least two subsystems: the parental
subsystem, composed of the spouses or adult relationship partners, and the
sibling subsystem, composed of the children (or, in the case of an only child,
the child subsystem). Each sibling is also identified as an individual unit
with unique traits, qualities, and biological makeup. An extended-family
system includes grandparents, relatives, and nonrelatives who are considered
part of that system. For example, when a divorced father of two children
unites with a widowed mother of three, a broad definition of this family
system includes relatives and friends from all sides of that family.

In most systems, rules of hierarchy exist between the subsystems. The
major rule is that the adult subsystem (parents/adult members or nonfamily
members) is considered to have authority and responsibility over the
children in the home. It can be problematic when a child takes on a parental
position in the home rather than remaining part of the sibling subsystem. In
fact, the pattern of children becoming parents, or what we call parentified
children or parentification indicates a serious concern with the family. When
a child emerges as an authority and becomes the boss, an incongruent

hierarchy emerges. According to Nuttall, Valentino, and Borkowski (2012), a
parentified child can experience problems after marriage when parenting
their own children. This negative effect of parentification may depend upon
the nature of the sibling relationships (Borchet et al. 2020). Older siblings
can periodically take responsibility when parents aren’t present, but they
relinquish that position after the parents return.

Multilevel systems theory developed in large part because of the
inadequacies of a simplistic cause-and-effect model for complex social
behavior, such as that of a family. The difference between a more complex
system and a simplistic system can best be seen in the various ways in which
behavior can be controlled, balanced, or changed through a feedback
process. The many levels of feedback in a complex system, such as a family,
are embedded within one another and build on one another. There are four
major levels of feedback: simple feedback, cybernetic control,
morphogenesis, and reorientation.

Simple Feedback
Simple feedback is identical with a cause-and-effect model. For example,

to assist parents in toilet training a child, a behavior-modification therapist
focuses on the behavior itself. Giving the child candy intermittently when the
task is accomplished reinforces the desired behavior. By contrast,
withholding the reward (candy) conditions the child to relinquish undesired
behavior. Family members frequently use simple feedback as a stimulus for
change. It is a simple exchange between the system and the environment.

Cybernetic Control
Cybernetic control is somewhat more complex. Here an output from the

system feeds back to a monitoring unit within the system, which sets in
motion a systemic adjustment to the original output. Perhaps the best example
of cybernetic control is the self-monitoring action of a thermostat. On a cold
winter day, we may set the thermostat at 70 degrees. When the room
temperature gets below a certain point (say 68 degrees), then the needle in
the thermostat makes electrical contact and the heater turns on. The heater
will stay on until the needle rises to the point (say 72 degrees) where it loses
electrical contact; then the heater turns off. This is cybernetic control because
the heating system has a built-in mechanism to control itself. Cybernetic

control functions around a homeostatic balance—optimal functioning occurs
within a range. For example, the thermostat may have a five-degree range in
which it will not start the furnace or shut it off.

Family life can be understood in much the same way. Families have rules
or norms that define expected behavior for each family member. Each of
these rules has a tolerance limit beyond which one cannot go without the
family as a system taking some counteraction. In our thermostat analogy, the
tolerance limits were 68 and 72 degrees. The family will need some
flexibility in setting its tolerance limits, for if they are set too rigidly, there
will be a constant need to correct, and normal family living will be
impossible. For example, imagine what would happen to the heater if the
tolerance limits were set at 69.999 and 70.001 degrees. The heater would be
turning on and shutting off constantly, and all the energy would be exerted in
that endeavor.

Consider a family that has a rigid rule that everyone must be home and be
seated at the table at exactly 6:00 p.m. for the evening meal. The family may
be willing to wait for about thirty seconds for Maria to get off the phone so
they can begin, but they most certainly will not tolerate a five-minute delay.
The system will draw on its storehouse of memories and choose an action to
correct the undesirable behavior. It may be that Maria’s siblings will
pressure her to hang up or that her parents will warn her that she won’t get
anything to eat unless she hangs up immediately. In either case, the system
works as a whole to shape her behavior.

All families have rules that each member obeys for the good of the whole.
The system monitors deviance from these rules. Cybernetic control is the
action the system takes to maintain the rules or status quo (referred to as
homeostasis in systems-theory language). In other words, families exert a
certain amount of social pressure (called homeostasis in systems-theory
language) to maintain the current levels of family functioning. For the most
part, individuals in the family are able to develop competencies as long as
these competencies do not require the family’s nature or structure to change.
Adding a child, for example, means that the structure of the family needs to
change. New rules and communication patterns are needed as the new family
member is cared for. As the child develops, more and more competencies are
acquired. These new competencies will eventually require a change in the
nature of the family’s relationships—parenting strategies of teens should be
very different than for younger children; the parents’ relationship needs to

change to accommodate a teen; the family’s relationship with the social
world needs to change as well. The ways in which families respond to these
changes vary dramatically. Sometimes problematic responses to these
changes become homeostatic, meaning that the family becomes resistant to
trying a different coping mechanism to deal with the changes. This is known
as reification in family therapy. These reified functional patterns, sometimes
called overfunctioning/underfunctioning reciprocity, limit the effectiveness
of the individual and family development (Bowen 2004).

On the one hand, cybernetics is ultimately functional—concerned with the
accomplishment of tasks in the family. Function allows family members to be
responsive to one another while addressing inputs from the outside
environment. Sometimes, these functional changes incorporate more acute
challenges from outside the family, allowing children and more vulnerable
members to cope with the challenges. On the other hand, function may
become a more persistent pattern. In family therapy language, these functional
responses are reified and become the homeostatic balance in the family. The
issue here is that these challenges prevent others from developing needed
competencies themselves.

Morphogenesis
Families often go beyond cybernetic control, however, for they are

continually redefining and changing their rules, regulations, and procedures.
The system’s rule changes often result in a change of form or function
(morphogenesis) in the family. Expanding our illustration, let’s suppose that
the family is determined not to begin eating without Maria and that none of
their tried and proven techniques succeed in getting her off the phone. A
system that functions only at a cybernetic level can do absolutely nothing. It
must either resort to a past response or not respond at all. However, a system
that operates on a morphogenetic level is capable of generating or creating
new ways of responding to the situation. New responses are created
whenever tested methods no longer work or the system is facing a situation
for the first time.

One advantage that effective family systems have over ineffective family
systems is the ability to operate at this higher level. The overly rigid family
is usually incapable of morphogenetic responses because the family lacks
flexibility. However, chaotically structured families with few rules or

boundaries have similar difficulty because they do not possess the
cohesiveness to act in a united way.

The family is usually required to generate new response patterns whenever
unpredictable or unexpected changes occur. For example, when a member of
the family loses a job, gets sick, or dies, new response patterns are
demanded. This is also true for positive life-cycle changes, such as the birth
or adoption of a child into the family, a wedding or anniversary celebration,
or an unexpected inheritance of money. The family will be challenged to form
new response patterns to these events as well. For instance, when we (the
Balswicks) adopted our nine-year-old Korean son, each family member
(sister, father, and mother) needed to make space for and welcome him into
our family of three. Joel, in turn, needed to make space for us as he came to
know us through interactions as a brother and son and the newest family
member. We each were challenged in different ways as individual family
members through the process of becoming a newly formed family. In the
Frederick family, we also had to make changes with the adoption of a new
pet. The process is the same in this more lighthearted example. Each member
of our family provided input into the decision to adopt a kitten, we discussed
the impact this would have on our daily schedules, and we devised a chore
list with everyone contributing.

Another important aspect of a more complex model is that people bring
meaning to their behavior. We must do more than understand a person’s
actions; we must pay attention to the beliefs (perspectives) of that person in
relation to his or her behavior. So Maria may have a very good reason to ask
the family to make an exception for her lateness; for example, she is working
hard on an important project for school and needs the family to be flexible. If
family togetherness is the mother’s priority, however, she and Maria will
have to negotiate change according to the meaning each one brings to the
issue. In general, there is no right or wrong way for a family to be organized,
but the family must determine how its system will function by considering the
best interest of each family member in addition to what is in the best interest
of the family system itself. This is how the many levels of a system are
embedded within and build on one another.

The tendency in most families is to respond in old, familiar ways to new
situations (homeostasis). These old ways will likely be inadequate, and the
family will become stuck in them rather than be motivated to operate on the
morphogenetic level. It is also true that most families do not stagnate—

because changes are always occurring in the family, whether at an individual,
a relational, or a family level. In other words, family members constantly
need to be in tune with the complex changes happening at all levels as they
make adjustments in their daily living. The effective family understands that
flexibility in structure, as well as relational connection between family
members, is needed to operate on the morphogenetic level. Members of these
families are alert and responsive to one another in the realm of individual
differentiation and in keeping family togetherness a priority.

A unique perspective on morphogenesis developed from family-systems
theory is known as differentiation of self (DoS). DoS focuses on how
families function over time in response to one another. As described above,
families sometimes develop a cybernetic pattern of under- and
overfunctioning. Challenges to this pattern that disrupt the homeostatic
balance often require internal resources to change the rules of the system or
engage in morphogenesis. DoS is an internal resource, as well as a relational
strength, developed in families. DoS may be conceptualized as the balance
between individuality and togetherness (Bowen 2004; Kerr and Bowen
1988). DoS provides the resources to live out one’s core values and beliefs
(individuality) while maintaining relationships with others (togetherness).
Challenges to homeostasis create intense anxiety, which exerts pressure to
maintain the status quo in the family. DoS helps individuals to remain
authentic to their values and beliefs while engaging in the change process,
thus preventing rigid relational patterns like overfunctioning/underfunctioning
reciprocity to develop while encouraging open and authentic intimacy to
characterize the family’s relationships.

The following is a brief illustration of differentiation of self and work
based in Tom’s clinical practice. Carlos was a typical teen, and he regularly
questioned his parents’ desire and expectation that he would attend college in
preparation for a career. Education was immensely important to his parents,
Letty and Mario—they both graduated from college, Letty was a middle-
school teacher, and Mario was an administrator for the local school district.
To a large extent being in the Mendoza family meant that education was
important. Carlos was questioning the family’s very identity by stating his
desire to not pursue college. This questioning created a significant amount of
stress and tension that challenged the family’s homeostasis. Both parents
began to exert pressure on Carlos to be faithful to his Mendoza identity and
attend college. Our clinical work focused on supporting the family while

making space for Carlos to explore the potential of not going to college.
Differentiation helps each family member to maintain their relationships with
each other while allowing each to solidify their core values and beliefs. For
Carlos, this means that it is important for him to have space to ask the
questions and clarify and choose his core values while remaining part of the
family.

Reorientation
The fourth and highest level of feedback is reorientation; here the family

changes its entire goal. In morphogenesis, new ways of responding are
generated, but in reorientation, the goals themselves are changed.
Reorientation involves a dramatic change in family life in which the entire
system converts to new ways of thinking and behaving. For example,
reorientation may occur when the family of an alcoholic comes to grips with
an understanding of how every member contributes to the problem. Treatment
affects not only the alcoholic but also each and every family member, so
change occurs at all levels. Another example is a radical change in an entire
family’s belief system, such as when an individual religious conversion
spreads to all members, resulting in an entirely new pattern of family living.

Major systemic change is fairly rare, and most families operate out of
morphogenesis (generating new response patterns) or homeostasis
(maintaining the status quo). Reorientation is most needed when a family’s
existing patterns of behavior prove to be totally unworkable and damaging to
its members.

Biological Influences on the Family
In their article “Biosocial Influences on the Family,” D’Onofrio and Lahey
(2010, 762) state, “There has been a growing acceptance of the importance
of biological factors in the study of family and social influences, as many
researchers are now studying how biological and social factors act and
interact.” Before the emergence of the social sciences, it was assumed that
nature rather than nurture was primarily responsible for human behavior.
Evidence for the importance of nurture ushered in a social determinism in the
form of behaviorism—recall John B. Watson’s (1930, 82) famous boast,
“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well formed, and my own specific world
to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him

to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist,
merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents,
penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors.” While
few behavioral scientists accepted such a strong social deterministic
position, they do include the influence of social and relational factors, along
with biological and neurological factors, in order to understand the
embodied nature of human existence.

A newer understanding of the biological and genetic influences on
individual and family life concerns interpersonal neurobiology. Based on
Dan Siegel’s (2020) work on it, aspects of interpersonal neurobiology
include (1) the brain and neuron functioning and (2) neuroplasticity. The
focus here is how both genetics and environments, especially parent-child
relationships, collaborate to enhance individual functioning. This perspective
also emphasizes how the brain and relationships are fluid or malleable
(neuroplasticity), allowing individuals to adapt to trauma and negative
experiences.

Considering biological influences on the family is important for at least
two reasons. First, and most obvious, is to give a more complete and true
understanding of the family. Second, on a more practical level, is to
recognize that behavior by family members must be understood in terms of
biological as well as social factors. This helps members of the family to be
less self-blaming when certain difficulties arise. Parents of a child struggling
with mental illness, addiction, or any one of a number of other developmental
difficulties are empowered by knowing about the biological factors that
contribute to any particular behavioral problem. This liberates parents from
feeling overly responsible for their child’s difficulties. An oversocialized
view of child development leads to an undue burden of guilt and shame for
many parents or caregivers.

Because of the complex ways in which biological factors operate,
assessing the relative importance of biological versus sociocultural factors is
challenging. To begin with, it is necessary to move beyond a mere additive
model in which one simply assesses the amount of separate influences of
nature and nurture. Instead, what is needed is an interactive model that takes
into account how biological and social factors impact and are being
impacted by each other, and how the interactions impact family life. Although
the role of biological factors will be included throughout the book, a few
examples of genetic or neurological factors may be helpful at this point.

Genetic Factors
A simplistic view of the role of heredity in human behavior can be heard

in such comments as, “He’s just like his grandfather,” or “She’s just like her
aunt Betty.” In reality, the role of genes in human behavior is very complex.
We now know that genes influence behavior by controlling very complex
biological and developmental functions. D’Onofrio and Lahey (2010, 768)
conclude, “It has become clear that genes and environments influence our
behavior in a complex interplay that often involves the genetic moderation of
environmental influence.” Further, it is not simply that genes and the
environment interact, for as Adele (2009, 2) points out, “Experience affects
which genes are turned on (or off) and when,” and “the environment
participates in sculpting expression of” genes. Genetic disposition, therefore,
might be thought of as necessary but not sufficient for the display of complex
behaviors.

An example relevant to family life is the finding that the same gene has
been linked with alcohol dependence, decreased probability of marrying, and
an increased risk of divorce (Dick et al. 2006). Rendering these associations
much more complex, however, are follow-up analyses that revealed that
“personality characteristics, such as reward dependence, may partially
explain how the gene is associated with both alcohol dependence and marital
status” (D’Onofrio and Lahey 2010, 765). It should be noted, however, that
the associations between these behaviors were small. That is, neither genetic
nor personality factors completely explain the causes of alcohol dependence
and marital status. Behavioral scientists emphasize the multidimensional
nature of human problems like divorce and alcoholism, and addressing these
human concerns requires incorporating both the medical and psychological
aspects of human existence.

Another aspect in understanding the role of genetics is the idea that genes
may also influence behavior differently according to the social context of
behavior. For example, “Youth who are genetically predisposed to be
aggressive who live in sparse rural environments may be less likely to
engage in violence than youth living in urban environments because of the
greater density of gangs in densely populated environments” (D’Onofrio and
Lahey 2010, 768–69). Again, we must recognize the complexity of these
matters as well as acknowledge that with more study there will be more
clarity.

Neurological Factors
Largely due to technological advances, including the use of brain imaging,

immunology, and endocrinology, much research has been done on how the
neurological system influences human behavior. The areas in which research
has shown neurological factors to be important in family life include the role
of human stress (D’Onofrio and Lahey 2010).

An understanding of the role of stress has been found to be important in the
following family processes: (1) during times of rapid change in the family,
such as pregnancy, early childhood, and puberty; (2) during parent-child
relationships, where stressful relationships can shape a child’s stress
neurobiology; (3) during conflict encounters where stress reactivity or the
lack of it can either escalate or dampen conflict and correspondingly the
stress levels of family members; and (4) in documenting how stress impacts
each individual family member in different ways (D’Onofrio and Lahey
2010).

Accumulated research shows that hormone levels influence and are
influenced by social environments. The implications for family life are many,
beginning with a better understanding of adolescent behavior when hormones
are raging, to showing how hormonal changes affect women during
menopause, to explaining changes in sexual relationships among elderly
couples as hormone levels diminish.

The use of MRI and other brain-imaging techniques has brought forth new
information on how the brain and neurological system impact human
behavior. For instance, we now know that the brain “is still undergoing
normative developmental changes during late adolescence and early
adulthood” (Casey et al. 2005, 45). The brain simply is not engaging in
higher-order brain processing until the mid-twenties. This knowledge may
not stop the parent-teen battles about teen behaviors, but it does give reason
to have dialogue about the concern.

Interpersonal neurobiology focuses on how the brain and relationships
mutually influence one another. For example, early positive interactions
fostering secure attachment between a caregiver and child support
neurological development. Further, this neurological development—
increasing neurons and connections in various parts of the brain—feeds back
into the parent-child relationship, enhancing the attachment bond (Cozolino
2014).

So, taking into account recent advances in knowledge about the influence
of biology on family life, we offer several guarded conclusions. First, the
influence of biological factors is very complex and interactive with
sociocultural factors. Second, the relative importance or amount of
biological influence is difficult to detect. Third, the amount of influence,
although important, is often quite small. For all of these reasons, the number
of citations given in this book for biological factors will be limited in
comparison to the evidence cited regarding the impact of sociocultural
factors on family life. We encourage readers to maintain an awareness of the
possible implications of biological factors for a more balanced and
comprehensive understanding of family life in the twenty-first century.

Family-Development Theory
Imagine that we had access to a time machine and could view the Lee family
at different points in its development. Let us suppose that we could view Mr.
and Mrs. Lee during their first month of marriage, the year their first child
was born, the year their youngest child was born, the year their youngest
child became a teenager, the last year that child lived at home, and the year
their youngest grandchild was born. Altogether, we would have six slices
from the life of this family. They would look quite different at each of those
points, but there would also be certain elements of continuity: the basic
organization of the family, the siblings’ birth order (family constellation), the
family’s history and traditions, the presence of extended family, and so on. It
should be noted that each stage of family life has predictable times of
tension, and certain stages require more family structure than do others.

The developmental perspective allows us to view the typical family’s
progression through various stages of life. The family is not only responding
to its current environment and trying to adapt to inputs (family-systems
theory), but the family is also embedded in time (sequences) producing inputs
and responding to global challenges throughout history. Within each stage, the
family must accomplish certain key developmental tasks (notice that changes
in family development primarily focus on membership changes like
engagement or birth). Likewise, each individual family member must master
developmental tasks at a particular stage. A degree of variation and
oscillation is normal in this process, since both the family as a unit and
individual family members must accomplish their respective tasks before the

family can move on to the next stage of development. To the extent that the
developmental tasks are not accomplished, the family will be less prepared
to move on. It is helpful to think about developmental tasks in terms of age
appropriateness for each unique family member and determine when an
individual is over- or underdeveloped in a particular area. While one is
working toward a balance in many areas of development, it is always
important to recognize the natural ebb and flow that occurs as an individual
family member proceeds through the life stages.

Some developmental tasks are stage specific, while other tasks are
accomplished throughout the phases of family life. For example, in the first
year of marriage it is important for a couple to make joint decisions about
finances and household chores, but this becomes less important once a
pattern is established. However, interpersonal communication is a skill that
will be important throughout married life.

Table 2 lists the basic developmental stages of a family, the major task
associated with each stage, and the event that initiates it. It should be noted
that all families are unique and that these stages do not happen as precisely
as the chart indicates.

In general, a family can be said to have moved from one stage to the next
when a major transition takes place. We begin our list with the premarital
stage because of the importance of differentiation from one’s family of origin
(the family into which a person was born). The goal of differentiation is to
develop a clear sense of self that enables one to relate to and interact with
others in interdependent ways. This sense of self is based on one’s identity.
That is, one’s true self is based on values and beliefs that ground human
action. DoS entails authentically living out one’s core beliefs while engaging
in meaningful relationships. Such a capacity for self-sufficiency leads to
deeper levels of connection. Note that differentiation does not negate
intimacy in favor of autonomy. It allows for intimacy and autonomy, for both
are intriguingly dependent on each other. The process of differentiation
begins in childhood, intensifies during late adolescence, and continues
throughout the life stages. Success in differentiation gives one the best
chances for achieving mature marital intimacy and forming an interdependent
union.

TABLE 2 Family Development

Stage Major Task Initiating EventStage Major Task Initiating Event

Premarital Differentiating from family of origin Engagement

Marital dyad Adjusting to marital roles (establishing
a household)

Marriage

Triad Adjusting to new child Birth/adoption of first child

Completed
family

Adjusting to new family members Birth/adoption of youngest child

Family with
adolescents

Increasing flexibility in family system Children’s differentiation from the
family

Launching Accepting departure of family
members

Children initiating a move for college,
career, or marriage

Postlaunching Establishing new patterns and
embracing new members

Departure of last child from home

Retirement Accepting aging process and
regenerating meaning

End of employment

The most obvious and important transition in the family life cycle is
marriage. When two people marry, a new family begins in the form of a dyad.
The major developmental task involves the husband’s and the wife’s
adjustment to each other in their new roles as married rather than single
people. This interaction brings a differentiated marital unity. That is, each
spouse forms a meaningful, values-driven family based on their shared
beliefs. Each partner maintains this relationship while living authentically
according to their values. This unity forms the basis for engaging in other
social contexts, especially with in-laws.

There is an incredible agenda to be accomplished during this stage: setting
up a new household, dividing up household chores, creating a budget,
establishing work and career roles, meshing together sexually, developing
friendships and planning social events, making decisions about church
involvement and spiritual growth, and so on. On top of this, values and
meaning-making are also crucial. Partners need to identify the core beliefs
that will inform how the family engages with the social world. This is an
important time of establishing a sound foundation for future stages. The
couple will face questions about whether or when to have children, and some
will face infertility questions and decisions.

In view of the amount of energy and cooperation needed to accomplish the
items on this agenda, it is vital that the newly formed couple follow the

biblical mandate to “leave and cleave.” If they are to make these many
decisions, the couple must clearly define their united relationship. They need
encouragement and support from their respective families in this process, but
if the families interfere, the foundation will be weakened.

The third family stage, the triad, begins with the birth, adoption, or
fostering of the first child. Many couples benefit from having at least a few
years together to form the spousal union and accomplish the tasks required of
newlyweds before having children. The early arrival of a child can
prematurely shift the focus of attention from the tasks of the marriage
relationship to those of the parent-child relationship. When a child is born,
adopted, or fostered into a family, the existing system must make necessary
changes to welcome the new member. New boundaries will need to be
defined and established between members and subsystems; physical space
must be made to accommodate the new member.

When children reach adolescence, increased pressure is placed on the
family system to accommodate itself to greater demands for flexibility. At
this time, differentiation is especially pronounced because of the emotional
and physical separation taking place. The drive toward adulthood for the
adolescent generates internal pressure for the family to incorporate another
adult into the family. This pressure toward differentiation on behalf of the
adolescent encourages the family to expand its membership to include the
values and beliefs of the developing adolescent. It is also the time when
parents approach midlife, which often involves stress. Many challenges arise
when the stressful stages of adolescence and midlife occur simultaneously.
This may also be the time when a person builds a new family, made up of a
new spouse with the spouse’s children and/or one’s own.

The launching stage begins when children are hankering to make it on their
own. The parents must allow their children to leave the family of origin
while supporting this rather shaky interim period. It is crucial for parents to
be open to their adult child’s decisions, such as finding a place to live,
entering the military, choosing a college or training for a career, entering the
workforce, choosing a mate, taking a trip, and so on. In some cases, the adult
children are not ready to launch, and new rules for household living must be
instituted.

The postlaunch stage brings new challenges, depending on one’s life
circumstances. Due to the expanded life expectancy in our society, the
postlaunch stage accounts for nearly half the lifespan of the typical family

system. This can be a period of renewed closeness and/or struggle between
husband and wife as they refocus their spousal relationship and develop
meaning without children in the home. It may be an exciting time of searching
for a job or pursuing a new career. Perhaps one is grappling with life after a
divorce, the death of a spouse, or life as a single parent. If children were
previously the major focus, it can be a period of disillusionment and
loneliness (the empty-nest syndrome). Another complication involves caring
for elderly parents and working through their deaths. Often there is time for
sibling relationship connection or reconciliation. Then, just when it looks as
if there is plenty of freedom to progress, spousal illness or financial
responsibilities pose a problem. Dealing with boomerang kids who return
home for one reason or another can become an unexpected focus. It is also a
time to plan retirement, make decisions about where to live and travel, and
prepare for a fixed-income lifestyle. A delightful aspect of this stage might
involve developing relationships with grandchildren.

An Integration of Systems and Development Theories
In this book, we use both the systems and the developmental perspective in
discussing family life. The family is a developing system that embraces the
arrival of new members and then releases them when they depart. It must be
able to tolerate and respond to the changing needs of its individual members
while providing a sense of belonging. At the same time, the family must be
responsive to the environment. It must maintain a stability that can provide a
firm foundation while remaining flexible enough to adapt to changing
circumstances. This is not an easy feat, especially with the enormous
demands made on the family in our postmodern urban society. A multitude of
extrafamilial systems (the work world, the educational system, the church,
clubs, and organizations) all contend with the family for the time and
devotion of family members. Only effective families can survive the
intrusiveness of our contemporary society.

To understand how to build effective families, we must begin with a
definition of what it takes to be an effective family. Table 3, which is based
on clinical and sociological literature, presents a summary of various
characteristics of strong and weak families. There are four major areas of
analysis: cohesion, adaptability, communication, and role structure. In each
area, two characteristics mark the resilient family.

TABLE 3 Characteristics of Effective and Ineffective
Families

Effective Families Ineffective Families

Cohesion Individuation

Mutuality

Fusion

Disengagement

Adaptability Flexibility

Stability

Rigidity

Chaos

Communication Clear perception

Clear expression

Unclear perception

Unclear expression

Role Structure Agreement on roles

Clear generational boundaries

Conflict over roles

Diffused boundaries

Cohesion
Cohesion refers to the degree of emotional closeness existing in a family.

In fact, family cohesion has been found to be related to a number of positive
family outcomes, including child social competence (Leidy, Guerra, and Toro
2010). Additionally, young adult children transitioning to college tend to
have less depressive symptoms provided they have adequate cohesion with
their parents (Moreira and Telzer 2015). In effective families, the members
are differentiated (have a healthy degree of separateness) and have a strong
sense of belonging (a healthy degree of connection and interdependence).
There is mutual respect for the unique qualities and personalities of the other
family members. At the same time, there is family togetherness; members
belong to one another and realize they are interdependent in their family
unity. When family members are overly cohesive (fusion), family members
lack a sense of separate identity or individuality; each member is overly
dependent on the family or other members for identity, and individuals are
discouraged from developing values and beliefs in disagreement with the
family’s values. An example of fusion is when one member’s problem
devastates an entire family. The family members are so overly involved and

concerned that they lose perspective. In the process, the problem worsens,
and the chance of finding a solution lessens as they are pulled down together
as a group.

The opposite extreme is a very low level of cohesion, which can be
described as disengagement or emotional cutoff. In the disengaged family, the
life of each member rarely touches the other members in a meaningful way.
The members lack involvement, and they do not contribute to or cooperate
with one another. In times of personal crisis, the members of a disengaged
family are likely to be indifferent and uninvolved. In fact, they may not even
be aware of the problem because it hasn’t been shared. Here the system
cannot provide help or support for the hurting member. Each individual is too
busy or is uninterested in what is happening with the others, sometimes
refusing to acknowledge or even relate to one another.

Effective families, by contrast, have a degree of mutuality and involvement
that is supportive but not intrusive. This cohesion is based on the identity of
the family—its core meaning and values. Cohesion around this identity

allows each member to incorporate and expand the family identity while
maintaining membership in the family. This quality is lacking in both fused
and disengaged families, which are at the opposite ends of a continuum:
fused families do not allow individuals to expand or even question the
family’s identity, and disengaged families have no center around which
members orbit. In the middle of this continuum are resilient families, which
display an appropriate degree of cohesion and engagement.

For analytical purposes, individuation and mutuality can be discussed
separately, but in actuality they overlap in what we refer to as differentiation.
Figure 4 illustrates disengagement, differentiation, and fusion. The bold lines
in the figure represent the boundaries around the family, and the light lines
indicate the boundaries around each individual family member. In the
disengaged family (A), the lives of the individual members very rarely touch
one another. Cohesion is so low that each person lives in psychological
isolation from the others.

In the differentiated family (B), daily lives overlap, but each individual is
also involved in activities outside the family. Each member has a separate
life and identity and, therefore, is actively and meaningfully engaged with
others. Although a vital part of each member’s identity and support is found
within the family, much is also found beyond the family boundary.

In the fused family (C), the lives of all members are hopelessly entwined.
Each family member has little identity beyond the boundary of the family.
Even within the family, there is little space for a given member to be
independent of the others. A member of an enmeshed family who tries to
separate is likely to be labeled disloyal and to experience pressure from the
others to remain enmeshed.

Needless to say, the amount of cohesion varies from family to family and
from one life stage to another. For example, the degree of cohesion is higher
with young children when the emotional bonding between parent and child is
a primary focus. When children become teenagers and are working toward
self-identity, it is fitting that they separate emotionally in preparation for the
independence necessary to eventually leave home. But even when they
achieve suitable autonomy, they view themselves as part of—and keep close
ties with—the family throughout life.

Adaptability

A second important criterion for judging family life is adaptability.
Families that have too high a level of adaptability tend to be chaotic. They
lack the needed structure and predictability that provide stability and
security. At the opposite extreme, inflexible families have a very low degree
of adaptability and can be equally unbalanced. These families have created
such a tight, unbending system that they neither have nor give grace, a strength
especially needed during periods of change and transition in the family life
cycle.

A balanced level of adaptability characterizes strong family life. The two
dimensions of flexibility and stability mark the orderly family. In resilient
families, there is a sense of orderliness that entails both flexibility and
structure. The difference between families in this particular area can be
observed in the dinner patterns. In the chaotic family, dinner is at no set time,
and family members come and go from the dining table whenever it is
convenient. In the inflexible family, it is understood that dinner is at

6:00 p.m. sharp and that time will never be altered. In the stable yet flexible
family, dinner is scheduled for a certain time because the members value
family togetherness, but exceptions are made when needed and determined by
the family as a whole.

David Olson (1988, 1998, 2011) has combined cohesion and adaptability
in the Circumplex Model, in which he describes balanced and unbalanced
family systems. The families at the center of figure 5 are balanced. They
experience satisfying degrees of cohesion and adaptability. The four corners
represent four types of unbalanced or extreme family systems, combinations
of disconnectedness or inordinate connectedness with either inflexibility or
excessive flexibility. Families that experience life in these extremes need
better balance and more appropriate levels of cohesion and adaptability in
their relationships. It is important to note that the balanced category includes
a broad range of family styles. There is room for a variety of styles. The
family needs to determine what is good for itself according to cultural
values, input from all family members, age appropriateness, and what is best
for the unique family members as well as the unique family system. Families
at the extremes have the most difficulty satisfying both individual and family
needs. Validation and suggested usefulness of the Circumplex Model can be
found in an article by Olson (2011). When couples and family members are
made aware of the disadvantages of the extreme categories of relating, they
can make necessary changes that bring a more satisfying balance to their
home.

Communication
There are probably more self-help books on family communication than on

any other topic. Because communication contributes in such an important way
to effective family life, this is probably as it should be. The dynamics of
good communication boil down to clarity of perception and clarity of
expression. Clarity of perception pertains especially to the receiver of
communication. It involves good listening skills, the ability to pick up on the
sender’s intonations and body language, and the willingness to ask for
clarification when needed. In effective families, members have empathic
skills, which include the ability to put oneself in the other’s shoes and to
understand what it feels like to be in that person’s situation. This enables the
communication to be on target so the receiver can make a response that helps
the communicator feel understood and keeps him or her connected.

The more obvious dimension of good communication—clarity of
expression—pertains to the sender. In resilient families, members are able to
communicate feelings, opinions, wishes, and desires in a forthright and
unambiguous manner. Clarity in sending messages is often a result of
congruency between the person’s words and body language. Care in this area
goes far to ensure effective communication.

Role Structure
Each family member has a role to play in the family. The family as a whole

usually defines this role. In a family with two parents and two children,
every member has at least two roles: the adults take the roles of spouse and
parent, while the children take the roles of child and sibling. And, of course,
each person has roles outside the family (student, employee, etc.). One
challenge is that roles sometimes become one’s identity: who the person is in
the family consists only of what they do in the family. That is why cybernetics
is important but is not the most important aspect of family life.

Higher levels of role conflict are a common characteristic in less effective
families. Contention arises when the role expectations of one member
conflict with the role expectations of another member. For example, conflict
is evident if both spouses want to work outside the home and have the other
be totally responsible for the housekeeping and childcare. The expectations
cause great distress and provide little room for compromise or negotiation.
Highly effective families, in contrast, are characterized by expressing and
negotiating role expectations. In the case cited above, for example, spouses
strive toward a decision that works for both of them. They decide to share
responsibility in the home in a way that allows both to be fulfilled by work
outside the home. Note that the issue is not who plays a particular role but
whether there is mutual agreement about the roles.

A second dimension in regard to role structure concerns the generational
boundaries in the family. Strong families are characterized by clear
boundaries around the parental subsystem and clear boundaries around the
sibling subsystem. However, these boundaries are too diffuse when one
sibling begins to play the role of parent to a brother or sister. Of course, in
the single-parent home or when Mom and Dad are away, the oldest child may
be put in charge. However, this role is relinquished readily when a parent
returns home. When the oldest child is saddled with this role and continues to

parent the younger siblings when the adults are present, it becomes a
problem. This is a blurring of generational boundaries.

Boundaries in effective families are clear but permeable. This means that
family members have the freedom to take on different roles. For example, a
parent can become playful and childish at times, while children may
sometimes act as nurturers to their parents. For a parent or a child to
occasionally break out of a fixed role is a sign of flexibility. A mother may
playfully stand on the coffee table and perform for her children, or a child
may comfort the parent who comes home discouraged and needs
consideration and support. Though these are not their dominant roles, family
members have the freedom to take them on occasionally.

Flexibility in roles and permeable boundaries are important, but a problem
arises when generational boundaries are crossed. For example, it is
confusing when one of the marriage partners assumes the role of parent to the
other or when a child becomes a parent to the parent. In a single-parent
home, it is quite natural for the oldest child to take on extra responsibility to
provide the support needed. However, the single parent must be careful not
to overburden the child with adult responsibilities, because taking on
inappropriate responsibility infringes on the child’s sibling relationships.
Another example is siblings who jump out of their age-appropriate roles and
either regress to a younger role or assume an unsuitably older role in their
sibling relationships. In another scenario, grandparents may attempt to parent
grandchildren, thereby taking over the role that rightfully belongs to the
parents. This may occur because the grandparents desire control or because
their own adult child has abdicated responsibility. But whatever the case, it
can disrupt the relationships among family members.

The biblical basis for family relationships presented in chapter 1 combined
with the social-scientific developmental systems approach laid out in this
chapter provide the overarching framework for an integrated view of
marriage and family relationships. The initial task of integration is delicate.
Our Christian presuppositions include values and biases that influence our
response to the social-science literature. Likewise, our social-science
presuppositions will be present as we attempt to understand how Scripture
applies to the contemporary family. We encourage the reader to join with us

in the demanding task of integrating biblical and social-science knowledge
about the family.

PART 2

Marriage
The Foundation of Family

Life

Marriage continues to be the foundation on which the family is established.
Family therapist Virginia Satir (1983) refers to the marital partners as the
architects of the family. There is certainly deep concern about the state of
marriage today and what needs to be done to ensure permanency. The
negative impact of marital fragility on our children and our society is
increasingly evident. In addition, research indicates that individuals who
marry benefit from this relationship in terms of physical and mental health
when compared to persons who remain single (Carr and Springer 2010). The
crucial question is what must be done to strengthen marriage across the life
cycle.

Chapter 3 focuses on the coming together of two individuals and their
respective families. The couple who forms a family has already experienced
family life prior to their relationship. Each person brings with him or her
recollections and experiences from their family of origin that have greatly
impacted him or her. The saying that there are “six in the marriage bed” is a
way of alerting spouses that each brings a set of parents into their union.

The marriage ceremony proclaims to family, friends, and members of the
community that a new union has been formed. The reception provides an
opportunity for these groups of people to be introduced to one another in
anticipation of their support for the couple. Undoubtedly, the wedding day

can be a stressful time for families. Disparate emotions related to separation,
endings, and beginnings acknowledge a change in family dynamics. When
both families approve and support the union, the “leaving and cleaving”
aspects give the couple the best chance to flourish and establish a firm
foundation. Unfortunately, lacking family support means the couple is more
likely to start out on shaky ground as they try to achieve a stable marriage.

Chapter 4 is devoted to the process of establishing a firm marriage. The
essential supports in a solid foundation include the strengths of the two
families of origin, the character strengths that each spouse brings into the
marriage, the strength of the relationship itself, and the strength that comes
from friends and community. These sources of support are all crucial in
establishing a solid foundation. And in Christian homes, of course, the
cornerstone is Christ.

Although the foundation is established early in marriage, it is important to
recognize that the marital dyad is a dynamic and growing relationship. There
is no such thing as a static marriage, because, like any living organism,
marriage is in either a state of growth or a state of decline. Chapter 5
presents the constituent elements of a marriage relationship that is based on
and grows in accordance with biblical principles.

3

Mate Selection and
Cohabitation

Romance and Reality

Western society has been based on the nuclear family, and the foundation of
that family is marriage. This means that the beginning of the family life cycle
occurs when a new family is formed, especially by marriage. All societies
have a process whereby unmarried people come to be married. This process
is called mate selection. While the beginning phase of marriage is technically
the first stage of family life, mate selection is a necessary preliminary.
Understanding mate selection is an important starting point for understanding
all other stages in the life cycle of the family. The traditional understanding
of mate selection as a transition to marriage has become much more complex
as a result of premarital practices like “‘hooking up,’ internet dating, visiting
relationships, cohabitation, marriage following childbirth, and serial
partnering” (Sassler 2010, 557). Given the changes and prevalence of
cohabitation, some scholars are choosing to eliminate “mate selection” in
favor of descriptions such as “relationship formation and development” (see
Hadden, Agnew, and Tan 2018).

Few developments related to family life have been as dramatic and
controversial as the rise in premarital cohabitation. The majority of
marriages in North America and European countries today are preceded by
the couples living together as sexual partners sharing a household.
Unfortunately, cohabitation as a precursor of marriage is a significant
predictor of divorce. Some evidence suggests that for the first year of
marriage, cohabitation is associated with increased satisfaction. However,
over the long term, cohabitation is associated with increased likelihood of

divorce (Rosenfeld and Roesler 2019). Our presentation of the mate-
selection process will include the consideration of whether cohabitation is a
step toward marriage or an alternative to marriage.

Mate Selection in Traditional Cultures
In the United States, selecting a mate is usually an individual matter.
Unmarried people date and then choose the person they will marry. Contrary
to popular opinion, this approach is actually a fairly recent development. In
most societies throughout history, selecting a mate was a decision made
solely by the parents, whose age, experience, and cultural heritage brought
the wisdom to make this important decision. Often, these arranged marriages
included neighbors and communities in the mate-selection process as well.

In societies that practice parental arrangement, mate selection is more a
link between two extended families than a uniting of two individuals. There
is great variability across cultures in the mate-selection process, extending
along a continuum from parent-arranged marriage at one end to total
individual free choice at the other. In societies where marriages are arranged
by parents, the two dominant approaches are the bride-price system and the
dowry system. The bride-price system is the norm in subsistence economies
where the labor performed by women is greatly valued and the daughter is
seen as the property of her father. In exchange for the bride, the groom’s
family gives her family various material goods. The dowry system is the
norm in agricultural societies, where organized family units live and work on
their own property. A dowry consists of goods that parents give to their
unmarried daughter to make her an attractive commodity on the marriage
market. In such a system, the wife brings the dowry with her into the
marriage.

These approaches to mate selection are associated with important
economic aspects of the family. We will discuss some of these trends later in
this book. For now, we note that the family in traditional societies played an
important economic role (Frederick and Dunbar 2019; Sweet 2014). The
family in these societies was an economic producer, and children would be
taught the family’s business, making them productive members of the
community. Additionally, arranged marriages would benefit both families as
they would be joined via the new marriage. In the maintenance of the family
and community, arranged marriages played an economic, not emotional, role.

In this postmodern world, the modernization process has challenged the
tradition of parent-arranged marriages. Rapid advancements in technology
have driven profound changes in the workplace, which resulted in a
transformation in the family (Frederick and Dunbar 2019; Lee 1998). This
transformation of economics and the family is referred to as industrialization.
As a result of industrialization, families have been transformed from centers
of economic production to centers of consumption. More time away from the
family and going to work has allowed for individuals to maximize personal
choice and benefit. As societies increasingly value individual freedom, mate
selection becomes a personal choice instead of a parental one. A by-product
of accepting these modern trends has been the gradual erosion of parent-
arranged marriages and the emergence of romantic love as the basis for
marriage.

Young people in traditional societies are increasingly exposed to a
Western view of romantic love through the mass media. Many of these youth
are quite familiar with American and Western European movies, popular
music, and magazines that glorify romantic love. When youth in traditional
societies begin to embrace the concept of romantic love, they do not
immediately challenge the time-honored mate-selection procedure, but on an
unconscious level these new ideas begin to undermine the old ways.
Acceptance of these new ideas occurs in a sequential order: (1) two people
should be romantically in love before they marry; (2) only the two people
directly involved can determine if romantic love is present in their
relationship; and (3) romantic love is most effectively cultivated within a
social environment where unmarried youth can become acquainted with
members of the opposite sex through dating.

In response to these modern notions of mate selection, parents may be
willing to consider the opinion of their children and even seek their approval
of a selected mate. They may even allow a courtship time for the young
people to become acquainted and fall in love. However, most often these
young people gradually assert themselves regarding their future mate and
demand a say in the matter. This changes the entire process. The Western
value that compatibility of personality should be a factor in mate selection is
adopted. Thus, unmarried youth want the freedom to become acquainted with
potential partners for the purpose of determining whether they are in love and
compatible. It is at this stage that dating enters the picture. Dating is often a
major point of contention between parents and children because it signals

that control of the mate-selection process is passing from the hands of the
parents to the hands of the unmarried youth. When two unmarried young
people believe that they are in love and want to marry, the parental
arrangement will be only a formality. In time, perhaps over several
generations in traditional cultures, the formality of parent-arranged marriages
will most likely cease to exist.

Mate Selection and the Role of Romantic Love
As we transition to discussing mate selection in postmodern cultures, we
will focus on mate selection as a prerogative of the two people directly
involved. In our postmodern era, many people believe finding a mate is
primarily about personal attraction and romantic love. The popular internet
matchmaking business also emphasizes personality compatibility as a major
factor, so taking personality tests, indicating preferences, writing
autobiographies, and viewing photographs are all part of the mate-finding
process.

Although some would argue that romantic love is not unique to Western
cultures, the concept of romantic love is generally thought to have had its
beginnings in European societies during the eleventh century, when “courtly
love” became fashionable among the privileged class. Courtly love usually
involved a romantic relationship between a married aristocratic lady and an
unmarried knight or troubadour. The concept of courtly love introduced the
element of affection into male/female relationships. Affection was uncommon
in most marriages of the day because they were primarily economic
arrangements. By the sixteenth century, courtly love had changed to include
sexual involvement between the lady of nobility and her paramour. The
emerging middle class of European society during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries came to value romantic love yet held to faithfulness as
a value in marriage. This dilemma was solved when the love object changed
from a married person to a single person. Thus, during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, parent-arranged marriage and romantic love existed
side by side. By the twentieth century, it became proper and somewhat of a
formality for a man to ask for parental permission to marry the daughter.

Romantic love and erotic love are very similar. We can understand their
relationship in three ways. First are feelings of longing for the other person
and the desire to be sexually and psychologically intimate; second, the

beloved is idealized and regarded as necessary for one’s happiness; and
finally, preoccupation with the relationship results in an overestimation of the
other person.

In fact, romantic love leads to rather dramatic changes in one’s character.
Studies suggest that an area of the brain known as the caudate is associated
with romantic passion. Neuroscientists have produced brain images of this
fevered activity prior to long-term commitment. Brain imaging reveals that
pictures or thoughts of the object of one’s desire are the only things that can
“light up” certain areas of the brain. Based on these findings, Helen Fisher
and her colleagues (2002) suggest that what we call romantic love develops
over three sequential stages, beginning with lust (sexual drive), then
attraction, and finally emotional attachment. Such “falling in love” is a
romantic attachment that differs from one’s relationship with family or
friends and changes one physiologically as the body increases the production
of hormones and chemical substances known as peptides, vasopressin, and
oxytocin (Fisher et al. 2002). Romantic love is similar to drives such as
hunger, thirst, or drug craving rather than to emotional states such as
excitement or affection. During this intense time, emotions may shift from
euphoria to anger to anxiety and become even more intense when love is
withdrawn or one is rejected. As a relationship deepens, the neural activity
associated with romantic love alters to long-term attachment.

Some have argued that romantic—or what is better considered erotic or
lustful—love should not be the sole basis for mate selection. Rational
decision-making and identification of other loving behaviors is important to
this process. Aaron Beck (1989), the father of cognitive therapy, wrote a
book called Love Is Never Enough, emphasizing the cognitive aspects of
being in love and how these cognitions either increase or decrease marital
satisfaction. Christians have traditionally understood three dimensions of
love from ancient Greek culture: agape, philia, and eros. C. S. Lewis has
written eloquently about these dimensions in The Four Loves (1960a). The
self-giving agape corresponds to commitment; philia, brotherly friendship,
corresponds to soul-mate connection; and eros, deep desire to know and be
known by a specific person, corresponds to passion and desire for that
person.

Using these three dimensions, four types of love relationships can be
conceptualized. The first, complete love, embraces an equal portion of all
three loves: commitment/agape, intimacy/philia, and passion/eros. In most

cases, passion is likely to dominate at the beginning of a relationship,
followed by a surge in emotional and friendship intimacy, and finally,
commitment. While all three dimensions of love are important for a Christian
marriage, it is a commitment to the other person that provides an environment
in which intimacy and passion can grow to full maturity. The ideal
relationship exhibits equal amounts of commitment, intimacy, and passion
prior to marriage.

In self-giving love—a second type of love relationship—
commitment/agape is dominant. In many societies (including those with
parent-arranged marriages), the resolution of a couple to be faithful and self-
giving in their love is the most desired prerequisite for marriage. It is
noteworthy that marriages based on faithful commitment end in divorce far
less frequently than those based solely on romantic love. However, this fact
should not imply that parent-arranged marriages are more likely to achieve
the Christian ideal than love-based marriages. For while intimacy and
passion may develop in arranged marriages, the familial structure and
cultural values promoted in traditional societies may also hinder such
development. The commitment that keeps these marriages together may be
less a self-giving commitment to one’s spouse than a commitment to the
extended family and community. When marriages lack a personal covenant, it
is unlikely that the spouses will achieve true intimacy.

A third type of love relationship, friendship love, is when emotional
intimacy/philia is dominant. Although few relationships move into marriage
on the basis of friendship alone, it is an essential factor in a good marital
relationship. Many people describe their spouse as their best friend, an
indication of being an emotional companion to one’s mate. Others complain
that the friendship is so strong they find it difficult to feel passionate with
their partner, and it compromises the sexual passion.

In infatuation love, a fourth and final type of love relationship,
passion/eros is dominant. Some relationships get off to a passionate start:
two people connect on the basis of immediate attraction and sexual response,
which may lead to an impulsive marriage. Such relationships do not
ordinarily have the emotional core and stability of commitment to sustain the
marriage. But since passion by itself cannot carry a relationship over time,
infatuation often burns itself out before a couple decides to marry.

Theories of Mate Selection
In view of the flexibility and complexity of the modern courtship system,
family researchers have been challenged to explain the mate-selection
process. One of the most studied aspects of present-day mate selection is the
degree to which people choose mates who are similar or different from them.
If we believe both clichés, “like marries like” and “opposites attract,” there
will be similarities and differences in the couple. In this section, we will
describe several theories of mate selection.

“Like Marries Like” Theory
Studies have shown that endogamous factors, or similar social

backgrounds, are key components in mate selection. These factors include
race, ethnicity, religion, education, occupation, and geographical proximity. It
should be noted that some of these factors directly relate to the opportunity to
get to know another person. Close contact in the workplace, for example,
affords the opportunity to view someone as a potential marriage partner. For
this reason, it is fairly common for people in the same occupation to marry. It
has also been shown that homogamous factors, or similar personal
characteristics and interests, are of importance. Included here are religious
and political beliefs, moral values, hobbies, intelligence, height, weight, and
physical appearance. Another important finding is that most people seem to
marry partners with a similar amount of ego strength; that is, a person with
low self-esteem tends to marry a person with low self-esteem, and a person
with high self-esteem will marry another person with high self-esteem.
Internet matchmaking sites that take these important factors into account are
more likely to yield good matches than those that rely on more superficial
indicators, such as photographs or autobiographies.

Bowen Family Systems Theory
In chapter 1 and 2, we introduced the concept of differentiation of self

(DoS), which is part of Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST). Bowen
(2004) developed a clear understanding of the role of DoS in mate selection.
For mate-selection purposes, Bowen theorized that individuals would marry
those who have similar levels of DoS. This is based in part on the idea that
individuals would have similar propensities to manage anxiety and maintain
certain relationship roles. As marital relationships have a high survival

level, meaning that marriages perform important psychological functions,
DoS allows individuals to cope with anxiety while maintaining these crucial
relationships. The research on this aspect of Bowen’s theory is mixed at best
(Rodríguez-González et al. 2016). There have been four studies that have
demonstrated a connection between levels of DoS and mate selection (Bartle
1993; Kear 1978; Rovers et al. 2007; Tuason and Friedlander 2000) and four
studies that do not support this connection (Day, St. Clair, and Marshall
1997; Lal and Bartle-Haring 2011; Peleg and Yitzhak 2011; Skowron 2000).

Theoretically, BFST understands that as individuals develop in their
families of origin, DoS mediates the relationship between maintaining one’s
relationships to others, especially one’s parents, and anxiety. One’s level of
differentiation is highly influential on one’s ability to manage anxiety while
engaging in relationships with others. In families with higher levels of DoS,
individuals are able to maintain developmentally appropriate responsibility
—that is, children learn to feed themselves while parents provide the meal
and maintain their relationships with their families. When anxiety arises,
rigid relational patterns emerge in an attempt to manage anxiety. These rigid
relational patterns demand that individuals maintain relationships with
parents at the expense of personal autonomy and development. As an
example, a child may develop and maintain more chronic behavioral issues
that function to distract family members from developing peer relationships
based on mutuality and interdependence. That is, chronic behavioral issues
function in relationships so that parents and children maintain rigid
relationship patterns characterized by over- and underfunctioning. These
rigid patterns prevent both the parents and children from developing
relationships based on mutuality and interdependence. When disagreements
arise between parents, anxiety increases, which is disseminated throughout
the family. The child responds symptomatically, creating a distraction from
the differentiation work the parental partners need to engage in. When this
child leaves his or her family of origin, BFST posits that a spouse with
similar relational patterns and lower levels of DoS will be sought.

Personality Theory
Personality characteristics have been an increasing focus for

understanding mate-selection preferences. This research has highlighted three
sets of characteristics (Fletcher et al. 2004): (1) warmth/trustworthiness,
(2) attractiveness/vitality, and (3) status/resources. Research suggests that

trustworthiness is an important factor in mate selection for both males and
females (Fletcher et al. 2004; Valentine et al. 2020). Women tend to
emphasize warmth/trustworthiness and resources as compared to men.
Attractiveness/vitality are important characteristics for short-term
relationships (hook-ups) more for men than women. For long-term
relationships, attractiveness/vitality are not important characteristics.

Filter Theory
In their classic work, Alan Kerckhoff and Keith Davis (1962) have

suggested that endogamy, homogamy, and complementary needs are three
different filters through which a potential mate must pass (see fig. 7). The
first and broadest filter in the mate-selection process is endogamy, as most
people date and establish relationships with individuals from similar
backgrounds. The second filter is homogamy, which is narrower and more
selective. Only those people who have similar interests and characteristics
pass through this filter. Casual dating allows individuals to discover which
potential partners have compatible interests and characteristics. The last
filter, complementary needs, is the narrowest. Whereas a number of potential
mates may pass through the endogamous and homogamous filters, only a few
will have the exact personality traits to meet one’s most pressing needs.

Marriage Markets Theory
Marriage markets refers to the idea that there is a discrete number of

potential partners in a given population. This population has traditionally
been defined in terms of neighborhoods or communities. In other words,
marriage markets are geographically and demographically homogeneous
places where individuals find mates. Before the advent of the internet,
individuals would generally seek mates that were geographically close
(Rosenfeld and Thomas 2012). The thinness or thickness of these markets
would be determined by the numbers of potential partners and the selectivity
of mate preferences. The advent of the internet has moved these markets from
local to international in focus, making one’s internet search skills an
important variable in identifying potential mates. Of course, geographical
proximity is still important. After all, individuals will need to physically
meet potential mates at some point in the process.

Other Theories
Furnham (2009) noted a gender difference in what is valued in the mate-

selection process. In a study based on 250 adults in their early twenties, he
reported that “females rated intelligence, stability, conscientiousness, height,
education, social skills, and political/religious compatibility significantly
higher than males, whereas males rated good looks higher than females”
(262).

Wenzel and Emerson (2009, 341) report that socially anxious individuals
believe others are less likely to select them when compared to socially
nonanxious individuals. McGee and Shevin (2009, 67) found that persons
with a good sense of humor are perceived as more attractive as potential
mates. Montoya (2008, 1315) indicates that “attractive perceivers expected
to date more attractive targets while unattractive perceivers expected to date
less attractive targets.”

A Christian Perspective on Mate Selection
Taken together, the various sociological theories of mate selection comport
well with the theological model of family relationships that we presented in
chapter 1. This will become clear as we describe what mate selection would
be like if it developed according to the principles suggested in our
theological model: commitment, grace, empowerment, and intimacy.

At the beginning of a dating relationship, there is a minimal degree of
commitment between the partners. With an increased degree of commitment
comes an increased sense of trust and security. Commitment being the
foundation for the relationship, it is important to consider what is being
committed to. In other words, mate selection should focus on the end result of
marriage as opposed to a more culturally consonant understanding of dating
and relationship formation as a way of meeting personal needs and avoiding
loneliness.

This means that human initiative and decision-making are foundational for
mate selection. Marriage requires something more than human love and
desire. Bonhoeffer (1997b, 41) describes weddings as a place where people
can be “celebrating their triumph [in getting married]” because “the course
[they] have taken at the outset is one that [they] have chosen for
[themselves].” The wedding is a place where God blesses the marriage so
that it can persevere throughout all of life’s challenges. God blesses a

marriage so that “it is not [their] love that sustains the marriage, but from
now on, the marriage that sustains [their] love” (Bonhoeffer 1997b, 43). With
the goal of marriage in mind, individuals should assess their ability to
commit to a specific partner in covenantal terms. The point here is that the
marriage becomes the covenantal context for living out one’s identity with
another. Making the covenant of marriage entails embarking on a lifelong
relationship that sustains and transforms each partner into a one-flesh reality
(see Gen. 2:22–25).

As each partner increasingly commits toward establishing a covenantal
relationship, grace can be expected to grow proportionately. Grace is
experienced through acceptance and appreciation by the partner. The
presence of grace promotes a feeling of security because differences are
respected and because there is an atmosphere of forgiveness whenever
failure occurs. Partners share more of their characteristics, desires, and
dreams as they enter deeper into commitment with one another. The partners
are increasingly valued and accepted for who they are and not for what they
might be or do for the other.

Out of grace emerges a mutual empowerment process. In the early stages
of dating, the couple may operate on a quid pro quo basis (something for
something), with each attempting to have personal needs met through the
relationship. Where there is a minimal degree of commitment and
acceptance, partners are likely to think more in terms of what they can get
from a relationship rather than what they can contribute to it. The
empowerment model is hopeful in that it shows that love can be elevated
above self-centered exchange. A depth of commitment and grace can imbue
each partner with a genuine desire to empower by both giving to and
receiving from the other. This involves being interested in the growth of the
other person and finding ways to encourage the partner to reach his or her
greatest potential and thus to be all that God created him or her to be.

Some relationships are not empowering but rather are based on mutual
dependency. When couples are overly dependent on each other, they tend to
demand that the partner meet their every need. Codependency is the exact
opposite of differentiation as noted in trinitarian theology, where
distinctiveness and unity are intermingled. Differentiated partners are
responsible to God for their lives and therefore bring unique gifts to the
couple relationship. In other words, each partner has based his or her identity
on Christ, who accepts and values them. Christian identity facilitates a

marriage covenant between partners and God, and grace, empowerment, and
intimacy deepen. Partners act in their relationship out of strength rather than
deficit. They are able to ask for what they would like without demanding the
partner provide it. Being centered in Christ gives them confidence that God
is the best resource to guide, empower, nurture, inspire, and soothe. They
look to God for personal growth but also openly share and offer themselves
to each other in that process. When spouses cling to each other for dear life
in a raging river, they perpetuate an enabling system in which they both are
likely to drown together. But when sufficiently differentiated, they are a
strong resource for each other so that when one is struggling, the partner is
standing on solid ground to extend a helping hand.

Ecclesiastes 4:9–12 refers to this idea that two sufficient persons are
better than one alone. Because they bring their unique strengths to the union,
they can be there for each other rather than be dragged down in an overly
dependent relationship. “Two are better than one, because they have a good
reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one
who is alone and falls and does not have another to help. Again, if two lie
together, they keep warm; but how can one keep warm alone? And though one
might prevail against another, two will withstand one. A threefold cord is not
quickly broken.” Being united in unique strengths and making God the center
of their relationship (a threefold cord) presents a wonderful image of marital
partnership and union.

We live in a society that encourages people to think that they can have
instant gratification. This mentality carries over into the dating relationship,
where people look for instant sexual intimacy. The prevalence of an instant
sexual gratification ethic has resulted in the emergence of the concept of
“hooking up,” defined as intimate physical behavior outside of a committed
relationship. Hooking up seems to be less about dating in order to get to
know the other and more about sexual fulfillment. Research on hooking up
among college students reports that it can result in both positive and negative
experiences, “with women being more likely to report it as a negative
experience than men” (Owen and Fincham 2011). Negative emotional
reactions were related to “reports of depressive symptoms and feelings of
loneliness,” while positive emotional relations had to do with hope for the
possibility of a committed relationship (321). This finding seems to point out
the importance of the biblical wisdom that sexual involvement is best when
part of a committed relationship.

In our theological model, intimacy entails a deep level of knowing and
being known through understanding, listening, caring, and sharing. It is not
only a physical or sexual encounter but a deeply felt process of becoming
known. Sexual intimacy is one of many facets of intimacy, and it is certainly
not the most important one. Accordingly, intimacy builds on commitment,
grace, and empowerment. Using these foundational biblical concepts, people
who trust the commitment, who experience acceptance and forgiveness
throughout dating, and who find their partner interested in and actively
affirming empowerment during the dating process will feel safe enough to be
more honest and revealing. They are willing to take off their masks and resist
the temptation to put on pretenses. They share a desire truly to know each
other. The couple is more interested in a relationship with the other person
than in the mere pleasure that person can give in a superficial sexual
encounter. Intimacy of this nature leads to deeper levels of commitment,
grace, and empowerment.

Certain beliefs about mate selection, such as “love is enough” or “there is
a one and only for me,” are a serious hindrance in discerning God’s will. A
research study has identified seven such constraining beliefs that limit,
inhibit, hinder, or perpetuate exaggerated or false expectations about mate
selection (Cobb, Larson, and Watson 2003). The beliefsthat “there is a one
and only, that love is enough, that cohabiting before marriage will improve
chances of being happily married, that I will have complete assurance, that
the match will make a perfect relationship, that choosing should be easy and
effortless, and that one should choose someone to marry whose personal
characteristics are the opposite of their own” seem to adversely affect mate
selection. These myths blur the clarity of vision needed when choosing a
mate. The study discovered that “men and women were found to be equally
susceptible to constraining beliefs about mate selection, with the exception of
the One and Only belief, the Idealization belief, and the Complete Assurance
belief, all of which women appear to endorse to a slightly greater degree”
(229).

Cohabitation: A Path toward or Alternative to Marriage?
Virtually all industrialized societies in the last fifty years have experienced a
dramatic increase in cohabitation. This increase is true for premarital
cohabitation and cohabitation following divorce or the death of a spouse. In

the United States, cohabitation has increased seventeenfold between 1960
and 2010—from about 450,000 people in 1960 to more than 7.5 million
today (Wilcox 2011, 75). Most marriages and remarriages taking place today
will be preceded by a cohabiting arrangement.

Our goal in this section is to develop a Christian perspective on the topic.
We draw on existing research—mainly self-reported responses to survey
research questionnaires or interviews—to understand this phenomenon more
fully. We consider the reasons people choose to cohabit and examine the
impact of this trend. We offer a response to cohabitation that is informed by
both biblical and social-scientific literature. We begin by addressing the
question of whether premarital cohabitation is an alternative to marriage or
a step toward marriage.

Is Cohabitation a Step toward Marriage?
Actually, premarital cohabitation is not a new idea, for as early as 1966

anthropologist Margaret Mead proposed a two-step plan for single adults.
The first step, trial marriage, would be a time for the couple to determine
whether they were compatible; and the second step would be to legalize the
union when the couple decided to have children. A few years later, Scriven
(1968) proposed a three-stage plan whereby a relationship progressed from
sexual satisfaction, to social security, to sensible spawning. The idea was
for couples to establish contracts for stated periods of time and periodically
renew them as they saw fit. In 1997, McRae surmised that cohabitation
would serve as a type of marriage preparation, a stage that occurs between
courtship and marriage. He reasoned that cohabiting would give the couple a
chance to test the degree of compatibility, and if their personalities “fit” they
would move to marriage. This idea of cohabitation as being a trial for
marriage persists in the literature today (Rosenfeld and Roesler 2019).

What Does Culture Have to Do with It?
In terms of acceptability of cohabitation in various cultures, Heuveline and

Timberlake (2004) found that cohabitation had different meanings with
respect to family formation, values, and cultural sanctions. They describe a
continuum of attitudes, based on their study of cohabitation in sixteen
industrial societies. At one end of the spectrum, cohabitation is marginal
because it is culturally rejected or even penalized in these societies.

Societies with a more moderate view may accept cohabitation as a prelude
to marriage but expect the legalization of marriage prior to bringing children
into the home. More open cultures distinguish cohabitation as an alternative
to marriage or a stage in the marital process;and at the other end of the
spectrum are cultures that give total acceptance (northern European
countries), where cohabitation is actually indistinguishable from
marriagewith certain legal rights.

North America is moving toward the more open aspects of this continuum,
where cohabitation is considered an alternative lifestyle or even alternative
to marriage. In the United States, age seems to make a difference in that
“older cohabiters are more likely to view their relationship as an alternative
to marriage, whereas younger cohabiters view their relationship as a prelude
to it” (King and Scott 2005, 271). Since 1970, we have seen an increase in
cohabitation and a decrease in the social stigma associated with it
(Rosenfeld and Roesler 2019). In general, the more accepting a society’s
attitude toward cohabitation, the more cohabitation will be defined as an
alternative to marriage (Perelli-Harris and Gassen 2012).

Making the Decision to Cohabit
In an effort to answer the question about why couples choose to cohabit,

Huang et al. (2011, 876) report that the primary motives for cohabiting
include “spending time together, sharing expenses, and evaluating
compatibility.” Many couples admittedly decide to cohabit for the
convenience, companionship, and exclusive sexual relationship with a
chosen partner, regardless of whether there is an intention to marry or not.

WHAT DOES LOVE HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
Since the role of romantic love was addressed previously, we note only

that what distinguishes modern forms of relationship coupling from the past
is the greater freedom young adults have to pursue sexual/romantic
relationships without parental involvement. Marriage is no longer an
economic arrangement, controlled and arranged by parents, but a participant-
run system in which the concept of love drives the relationship. A decoupling
of economics, sex, and commitment from marriage has led to a growing
number who choose to cohabit and delay marriage (the median age for first
marriage now stands at 28.1 for women and 30.5 for men, according to the

US Census Bureau). Copen et al. (2012) note, “If entry into any type of union,
marriage or cohabitation, is taken into account, then the timing of a first union
occurs at roughly the same point in the life course as marriage did in the
past.” In other words, relationship unions occur when individuals complete
education and or job-training expectations and are ready to join the
workforce, while individuals have greater freedom to engage in less-
committed sexual and emotional relationships allowing them to fulfill their
emotional needs while completing education and job training.

WHAT DOES COMMITMENT HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
By its very nature, a cohabiting relationship is one in which commitment is

ambiguous. Popenoe and Whitehead (2002) believe a high commitment ethic
is necessary for marital stability, so they warn against cohabitation for that
very reason. Marriage researcher and Christian therapist Scott Stanley and
colleagues (2006) describe cohabiting as “relationship inertia” in which
cohabiters are “sliding” rather than “deciding” on a marital partner. He
concludes that men who live with women they eventually marry are not as
committed to the union as those who did not live with their mates before
marriage.

Smock (2000) discovered that cohabiting men and women differ in the
way they conceptualize commitment. She found that women tend to perceive
cohabitation as a step prior to marriage, whereas men are inclined to view
cohabitation as a step prior to making a commitment. When it comes to
drawbacks of cohabiting, Huang et al. (2011) found that “men [are] more
concerned about loss of freedom, while women are more concerned with
delays in marriage,” pointing out that gender norms about relationship
intimacy govern cohabiting unions (876).

Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman (2006, 553) report that “men who
cohabited with their spouse before engagement were less dedicated than men
who cohabited only after engagement or not at all before marriage,” and after
marriage, these husbands were “less dedicated to their wives than their
wives were to them.” These researchers wonder if some couples who
otherwise would not have married end up married due to what they refer to
as “the inertia of cohabitation.” In other words, the couple simply remains in
a relationship regardless of quality or fit. The obvious implication is that
persons do not make their expectations about marriage explicit prior to
cohabiting, and that becomes a problem after they marry.

In a representative sample of 1,294 unmarried individuals comparing
cohabiting with noncohabiting (dating) relationships, Rhoades, Stanley, and
Markman (2012, 348) found that initially “cohabiting relationships were
characterized by more commitment, lower satisfaction, more negative
communication, and more physical aggression than dating [noncohabiting]
relationships.” These authors summarize that the transition from dating to
cohabitation is declining “in most indices of relationship quality as well as
in interpersonal commitment after cohabitation began, though the frequency of
sex increased temporarily.”

EVENTUAL OUTCOMES

While these studies are quite bleak when it comes to marital outcomes, a
couple’s or partner’s view and understanding of a unique cohabitation
agreement is certainly an important factor in whether they will end up in a
stable marriage. It is probably wise to recognize that for some couples,
cohabitation is an alternative to marriage and for others it is considered a
stage in the relationship that leads to marriage. Johnson and colleagues
(2011) describe the role that dedication and constraints play in choosing to
marry after cohabiting. On the more positive side, partners may have higher
levels of commitment to the relationship. On the other hand, there may be
constraints that deter the dissolution of the relationship (children or a joint-
owned business). Both factors influence the decision to marry after
cohabiting as well as the decision to dissolve the relationship.

Does Premarital Cohabitation Lead to Marital Adjustment?
Social scientists have been interested in the effects of cohabitation on the

institution of marriage since the early 1970s, when they began tracking the
increasing rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. As a result of
cohabitation redefining the nature of marriage and the family, the social-
scientific study of cohabitation became an important aspect of family
sociology.

The initial prediction by social scientists on premarital cohabitation was
that it would lead to better marriages (Trost 1975). This stemmed from the
idea that cohabiting would serve as a screening device that would later
ensure the compatibility of prospective spouses (Danzinger 1976). It was
further reasoned that cohabiters would gain experience in intimacy and

therefore develop a greater degree of relational competence necessary for an
enduring and fulfilling marriage (Peterman 1975). An accumulation of
research on the outcome of marriage satisfaction preceded by cohabitation
has failed to support those optimistic predictions in the long term (Rosenfeld
and Roesler 2019; van Houdt and Poortman 2018).

However, cohabitation may be more closely related to marital satisfaction
and adjustment in the first year of marriage. In the first year of marriage after
cohabitation, the evidence suggests that cohabitation affords some
relationship skills associated with conflict resolution. These benefits
disappear around the fifth year of the marriage (Rosenfeld and Roesler
2019).

When compared to married persons, cohabiters had poorer relationships
with parents and expressed lower levels of commitment and happiness with
comparable married individuals. These factors also influence the dedication
and decision to marry after cohabiting (Johnson, Anderson, and Aducci
2011). Kulu and Boyle (2010, 881) indicated that cohabitation prior to
marriage was related to lower commitment to the partner, increased
incidence of divorce, lower marital satisfaction, and higher rates of wife
infidelity. Treas (2000) reported that cohabiting couples are more likely to
experience infidelity, while Binstock and Arland (2003) found that
cohabiting couples were more likely to separate and less likely to reconcile
after a separation when compared to married couples. Aarskaug, Keizer, and
Lappegard (2012) gathered a large sample of 41,760 marital and cohabiting
unions across Europe and have confirmed that cohabitation is related to
relationship instability in European societies. They report that “in all
countries cohabiters more often had breakup plans and were less satisfied
with their relationships than individuals who married” (389). These
researchers further report that the differences in relationship satisfaction
were greatest in those countries where cohabitation was least prevalent.

Thomson and Colella (1992) conducted some early research into the
effects of cohabitation on relationship and marital satisfaction. Among the
couples in their study, greater dissatisfaction in previously cohabiting
marriages had more to do with the unconventional attitudes and lifestyles of
these couples than the fact that they had cohabited. Individuals with more
liberal social values toward premarital sex and commitment have a greater
freedom to express dissatisfaction and to separate or divorce when things do
not go well. However, DeMaris and MacDonald (1993) disagreed with this

conclusion, stating that “controlling for unconventionality had only a minimal
impact on the cohabitation effect” (406), and they pointed out that “although
family attitudes and beliefs tend to predict the attractiveness of a cohabiting
lifestyle, they do not account for differences between cohabiters and non-
cohabiters in instability” (399). The role of more liberal social attitudes has
been included in much of the more recent research as well. Early research
demonstrates that cohabitation was more constraining on those couples that
married after cohabiting.

As pastors and Christians wanting to help, understanding the effects of
cohabiting—both positive and negative—on later marriages may identify
certain qualities that contribute to eventual marital success. It is important to
understand the relationship dynamics and the challenges associated with
cohabiting before marriage. However, it is also important to understand the
dynamics that occur for those cohabiters who eventually marry to build a
successful marriage and remain married. At this point, it may be helpful to
attempt to decipher some of the more complex factors linking premarital
cohabitation and eventual marital stability or instability.

In the article “Reassessing the Link between Premarital Cohabitation and
Marital Instability,” Steffen Reinhold (2010) gives “some support to the
thesis that the once-strong association between premarital cohabitation and
marital instability has weakened over time.” Copen et al. (2012, 2) likewise
surmise that although “it has been well documented that women and men who
cohabit with their future spouse before first marriage are more likely to
divorce than those who do not . . . recent research suggests that the
association between premarital cohabitation and marital instability for first
marriages has weakened over time.”

Is There a Selective Factor?
Certainly there are cohabiting couples who have been successful in

forming quality marriages, so we ask the question about selective factors that
might be at work. Brown et al. (2006, 454) conclude that “selection factors
largely account for the deleterious effects of premarital cohabitation on
marital success.” For example, certain individual characteristics (less
traditional, more independent, less culturally constrained, etc.) may put some
cohabiters at higher risk for marital instability. Kulik (2011, 120) found that
“the noncohabiting women reported better levels of adjustment of spousal

cohesion and display of affection, and they used strategies of concession to
resolve marital conflicts to a greater extent than did women who cohabited.”

Pootman and Mills (2012, 357) found that “joint investments increased as
interpersonal commitment increased.” Cohabiters who have no marriage
plans invest the least while couples who directly married without prior
cohabitation invested the most. This research would raise the question about
joint commitment in the relationship and degree of investment a couple makes
in their future relationship and eventual marital success after cohabitation.
Kulu and Boyle (2010, 881) agree that it is important to consider the prior
commitment factor while reporting general increased incidence of divorce,
lower marital satisfaction, lower commitment to the partner, and higher rates
of wife infidelity.

Other researchers make the point that a single-factor explanation between
premarital cohabitation and marital instability is faulty. Gender, age, and
ethnicity have also played a role in the effects of cohabiting on later
marriages. Phillips and Sweeney (2005) found that premarital cohabitation
was positively associated with subsequent marital disruption among non-
Hispanic White populations but not among non-Hispanic Black or Mexican
Americans. King and Scott (2005, 271) discovered that “older cohabiters
report significantly higher levels of relationship quality and stability than
younger cohabiters, although they are less likely to have plans to marry their
partners.”

Based on a sample of 2,737 respondents, Musick and Bumpass (2012, 1)
found that the change in “a range of measures tapping psychological well-
being, health, and social ties” is similar in cohabiting and marriage
relationships. They conclude, “Overall, differences tend to be small and
appear to dissipate over time, when the greater instability of cohabitation is
taken into account.”

The National Center for Health Statistics reported evidence from the
National Survey of Family Growth (from a sampling of nearly 13,000
people) that the differences in marital adjustment and outcome between
married persons who had and who had not cohabited is small (Jayson 2010).

Rosenfeld and Roesler (2019) conducted one of the largest studies on
cohabitation before marriage. This study is based on six waves of data from
the National Surveys of Family Growth. The data from this study are
representative of individuals throughout the United States from 1970 until
2015. For women in this study, the rate of cohabiting with the man they

eventually married was 11 percent in 1970. By 2015, the rate was 70
percent, indicating the growing popularity of cohabiting. In more positive
terms, this study indicates that couples who cohabited before marriage have
higher satisfaction scales compared with couples that do not cohabit.
However, these gains are also maintained among couples who cohabit and do
not marry. This suggests that premarital cohabiting allows couples to learn
how to negotiate conflict and adjust to living together compared with
noncohabiting couples who do not have that opportunity. The long-term
effects of cohabitation prior to marriage are more negative (i.e., associated
with marital dissolution).

As the above discussion demonstrates, some of the research is mixed on
the overall negative effects of cohabiting on marriages. There are important
factors to keep in mind as a couple transitions from cohabitation to marriage.
Care must be taken to resist the assumption of a strong causal relationship
between cohabitation and marital failure. Viewing the connection between
cohabitation and relationship dissolution as the death knell of a relationship
may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Factors to take into account include the
following: the degree of commitment; valuing and making marriage and
family life a priority; communication and conflict-resolution life skills,
recognizing marital expectations, and developing a differentiated unity;
making joint decisions about children, roles, and careers; and being involved
in an extended family and/or faith community that supports and encourages
covenant vows.

How Does Cohabitation Impact Children?
Thinking beyond the pros and cons of premarital cohabitation for a couple,

we now consider how children are impacted. Heuveline and Timberlake
(2004) cite studies estimating that between 25 and 40 percent of all children
spend some time in a cohabiting arrangement. Brown et al. (2006) report that
when compared to children growing up with married couples, children
growing up with cohabiting couples tend to have worse life outcomes. Since
cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents, the
impact of cohabiting on children can be devastating.

Aronson (2004) finds that among mothers with infants, those in cohabiting
relationships tend to fare far worse economically than married mothers.
Popenoe and Whitehead (2005) point to evidence of higher risk of sexual
abuse and physical violence among children in cohabiting unions. DeLeire

and Kalil (2005, 286) report the rather sobering finding that “cohabiting-
parent families, compared to married-parent families, spend a greater amount
on two adult goods (alcohol and tobacco) and a smaller amount on
education.” The implications are that cohabiting parents invest less in the
welfare of their children than married parents do.

In a study of 2,160 families, Schmeer (2011, 181) reports “worse health
for children born to cohabiting parents . . . than for children with stable
married parents.” In addition, it seems that stable cohabitation is no better for
child health than cohabitation dissolution, and a child’s health is better
among the cohabiting parents who marry than for those who do not marry.

Sociologists David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead (2003, 2004, 2005)
at Rutgers University have completed a comprehensive review of research
on cohabitation before marriage in their yearly report on the state of marriage
in the United States. They caution young adults to think twice about
cohabiting prior to marriage, offering the following four principles. First,
consider not living together at all before marriage, since there is no
evidence to support the view that cohabiting will result in a stronger
marriage. The evidence, they suggest, shows that living together before
marriage increases the chance of divorcing after marriage. The exception
may be for those couples who are committed to marriage, have formally
announced their engagement, and have chosen a wedding date.

The second principle is don’t make a habit of cohabiting. They see the
evidence as refuting the popular myth that persons learn to develop better
relationships from a number of failed cohabiting relationships. Rather,
multiple cohabitation is repeatedly found to be a strong predictor of the
failure of future relationships.

The third principle is limit cohabitation to the shortest possible period
of time. The intent and spirit of this advice is based on their conclusion that
the longer one lives together with a partner, the more likely it is that the low-
commitment ethic of cohabitation will take hold. Participation in a cohabiting
relationship can have an eroding effect not only on the participants’ view of
the importance of commitment but also on societal ethics, which value
unconditional commitment as a basis for marriage and family life.

The fourth principle is don’t cohabit when children are involved. The
spirit of this principle is based on the value that children need and should
have parents who are committed to staying together for them.

While Popenoe and Whitehead write as social scientists, not as advocates
for a Christian view of marriage, their advice certainly comports well with
the biblical wisdom that marriage is to be based on lifelong covenant
commitments. Those who make a marital covenant with their partner will
have a better chance for stability and happiness than those who merely slide
into marriage through default.

A Christian Perspective on Cohabitation
A Christian response to cohabitation needs to be pastoral in intent,

understanding three important things: sin or violation of God’s ordinances is
serious; there is a difference between understanding sin and its effects and
living with sinners; and we are all sinners. Our discussion thus far has been
on the theoretical and empirical evidence related to cohabitation. But
Christians must go further, acknowledging that cohabitation is not God’s
sexual standard for relationships. Committed to this standard, we seek to
exude grace when dealing with others. Given that many congregants may be
living in cohabiting relationships, how can pastors come alongside and
support congregants and families in this family arrangement? In this pastoral
posture, we organize our response around four questions: (1) What is the
nature of commitment in cohabiting relationships? (2) When are two people
married in the sight of God? (3) Is cohabitation a threat to the institution of
marriage? (4) How should the church respond to cohabiting couples?

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF COMMITMENT IN COHAB ITING

RELATIONSHIPS?
The prominent reasons people enter cohabiting relationships include love,

companionship, sexual exclusivity, economics, ambivalence toward
marriage, loneliness, and peer pressure. Whereas many of these are
understandable reasons for living with a companion, the critical missing
piece is commitment. Knowing that there is a conditional, reciprocal
relationship adds a level of instability to cohabiting relationships. A
conditional relationship is inherently less stable than a covenant relationship
because the commitment is on a trial basis. Cohabiting partners are
ambivalent toward vowing before God to commit themselves to each other
for a lifetime. This impermanence brings more anxiety to the relationship,

making daily life more uncertain and adding a level of worry to conflict
negotiation.

The biblical concept of a “one-flesh union” blessed by God is the
essential missing piece in a cohabiting arrangement. Whereas an exclusive
sexual union is an important aspect of cohabitation, just as it is in marriage,
covenant provides an enduring, ongoing, faithful commitment through all
aspects of married life. It is hesed (“steadfast love” or “loyalty,” a Hebrew
word often used to describe covenant commitment) that promises faithful
giving of oneself to the other and keeping the best interest of the other in mind
“for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and health, and till death
do us part.” The model of unconditional covenant commitment is a scriptural
ideal for marriage.

The cohabiting couple may have a difficult time grasping the value of
covenant love. Independence instead of mutual interdependence limits the
deepest possibilities of acceptance, empowerment, and intimacy. When
partners are uncertain about permanent commitment, they are prone to keep
some distance and protect themselves rather than open up in vulnerable ways
to one another. A relationship of reluctance, a fear of becoming too attached,
puts emotional barriers up rather than breaking them down. Thus, one of the
biggest problems with cohabitation is that it can inhibit deeper levels of
personal sharing and knowing. Holding oneself back limits growth through
mutual empowerment in the relationship and keeps partners from developing
the deepest capacity for intimacy and loving.

It takes courage to know oneself and then reveal that self to a partner. A
clarified sense of self allows a partner to surrender in self-giving ways. The
“forever” covenant commitment provides a capacity to share without fear.
Differentiation gives partners freedom to express personal longings and fears
as well as respond to the partner’s thoughts, feelings, needs, and desires.
Communicating covenant love through thought and action, regardless of
obvious flaws and failures, means partners are able to be “naked and not
ashamed.” There is no longer a need to protect oneself from a deeper
attachment. Grace-filled love gives partners the courage to risk letting
themselves be known. Covenant, grace, empowerment, and intimacy are the
essential ingredients of a committed relationship.

WHEN ARE TWO PEOPLE MARRIED IN THE SIGHT OF

GOD?

The covenantal basis for Christian marriage is modeled after the covenant
God made with Israel. God is pictured as trustworthy and forever faithful in
expressing unconditional love to the people of God. This translates to the
importance of permanence or covenantal love for human relationships as the
basis upon which sexual and emotional intimacy are developed. This
Christian view of marriage must be differentiated from the legal, civil
definitions. In the United States, there has been a conflation of these two
meanings so that pastors are able to perform legally recognized marriages.
To help cement the Christian understanding of marriage in the sight of God,
there are several important considerations.

First, does the couple need consent from parents or family before they can
be considered married before God? While parental consent was part of
Jewish marriage during biblical times, this was a cultural practice based on
the mate-selection process. Whereas parental consent is certainly desirable,
it would be difficult to find scriptural evidence that it is a requirement for
marriage.

Second, does a couple need to make their commitment before a community
of believers before they are married in God’s sight? The covenant of
marriage is entered by relational partners, officiated by a minister or pastor,
and sealed by God. One could argue that while it is wise to have support
from a faith community, it is not a scriptural directive. There is not a mandate
or decree regarding the presence of the church for the wedding ceremony.

Third, is the consent of civil authorities needed? Those who believe that
persons should have the consent of the civil authorities point to health
concerns—for example, blood tests for negative Rh factor or sexually
transmitted diseases—that have ramifications for each partner and their
future children. Also, it gives spouses certain legal, financial, and property
rights. While there are excellent reasons to seek the consent of civil
authorities, it would be difficult to support this as a scriptural mandate.

Following a “letter of the law” interpretation of Scripture, one could argue
that none of the above conditions are required to be married in God’s sight.
At the same time, we think it is important to understand the spirit of the law,
which recognizes family, community, and civil authorities as structures that
support marriage. Cohabiting couples who say they are married “before
God” but fail to make it public miss out on a vital source of collective
encouragement. The strength of a commitment multiplies when it is made
before Christian witnesses who offer resources as well as a place of

accountability. The wisdom of making commitments within a believing
community is especially noticeable during times of trouble. A couple
depends on others to keep them resilient when life stresses come their way.

Partners who fail to legalize their “marriage” lose out on the government’s
obligation to look out for the welfare of each partner, the couple, and their
children. This especially has ramifications for spouses and their children in
regard to financial and property rights, benefits that occur when a
relationship has the legal support of society. There is a sense in which a
personal commitment is maintained through a supportive community and
society.

Some endorse a mutual covenant commitment made between an unmarried
man and woman before God and sealed through sexual intercourse as the
minimal biblical standard; others believe there is a need for the commitment
to be made in the presence of the Christian community and/or within the
accepted formal structure of civil society. The ceremony and the license are
aspects that serve to integrate a couple into society. Evidence points to the
fact that the individualistic ethic in our society keeps people from fully
realizing the importance of personal commitments that are embedded in a
community context.

IS COHAB ITATION A THREAT TO THE INSTITUTION OF

MARRIAGE?
At the societal level, we do believe that cohabitation poses a threat to

marriage and family stability. In response, the church can offer an informed
voice to support societal practices that undergird marriage and family life. At
present, marriage in the United States is the accepted way of recognizing a
social and legally binding relationship between two consenting adults, and
cohabiters do not have that protection.

The negative impact of cohabitation on children continues to be a grave
concern to the church. Children born to cohabiting couples are less likely to
spend their childhood in a two-parent home than are children born to married
couples. There is ample evidence that the economic and emotional impact of
divorce on children has deleterious effects on them.

HOW SHOULD THE CHURCH RESPOND TO COHAB ITING

COUPLES?

The church must make a distinction between how it responds to
individuals who are in cohabiting relationships and how it responds to
cohabitation as a practice or lifestyle. We advocate that Christians should
offer grace to cohabiting couples over law. Churches may want to encourage
congregants that are cohabiting to live into God’s covenant with the church
and make a covenant commitment to one another.

A detailed discussion of how the Christian community can wisely respond
to each of these cohabiting situations is beyond the limits of this chapter. We
do offer some general guidelines, however, about how the Christian
community can best respond to these different scenarios.

1. The Christian community promotes and encourages the biblical standard
of a permanent covenant commitment between two people before God,
presenting this through the compelling influence of modeling. The church
as a faithful community demonstrates living into commitment, grace,
empowerment, and intimacy. This community encourages each
congregant to live out these experiences in daily life.

2. The Christian community offers hospitality, lovingly reaching out to all
who enter their doors, offering covenant, grace, empowerment, and
connection, which provides a place of belonging and security.

3. The Christian community openly receives children and family members
into the church family, giving them a glimpse of the faithful, trustworthy
presence of love and support among God’s people.

4. The Christian community offers a public ceremony within the community
of faith to celebrate the covenant union when couples decide to marry,
with no stigma or shame placed on them or their children.

5. The Christian community continues to show love and grace, accepting
people as they are in the love of Christ without coercion.

6. The Christian community becomes a trustworthy place and loving
community and never turns away anyone who seeks God.

We believe that the church often deprives cohabiting couples of a genuine
place of caring and belonging and that we have so much to offer them in our
communities of faith. If there is a decision to make covenant vows, it
behooves the church to support them through a meaningful public ceremony.
Elaborate and expensive wedding ceremonies may keep some from moving
toward this. Helping with a simple, culturally appropriate ceremony that

includes congregation and family members as a witness to the covenant vows
is really the important thing.

Here are just a couple personal examples of the faith community providing
support in small but significant ways. Judy’s mother wore a simple gold
dress for her wedding ceremony after the Sunday night church service. Her
aunt and uncle stood with them, and the church provided cake and coffee for
a small reception afterward. Jack’s parents had a similar ceremony after the
Sunday morning church service. They invited the family and a few special
friends over to the house for a light Sunday brunch reception. A wedding was
an occasion to support the couple’s covenant commitment without all the fuss
and flair of an expensive, elaborate wedding. Both sets of parents were
married more than sixty years, a covenant commitment that lasted over their
long lives. Tom and Gail also had a very simple ceremony. They were
blessed to have Tom’s father, an ordained minister in the Church of the
Nazarene, officiate the ceremony. The wedding was followed by a small
celebration with close friends and family.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to the Christian community is to offer grace
in the midst of the tension felt when those who enter the church to learn of
God and God’s ways have a different set of value systems. The discouraging
truth is that living outside of biblically based norms can negatively affect
one’s attitudes toward those norms. Individuals grow accustomed to
lifestyles outside of God’s intention for humanity, yet they experience
glimpses of the blessings God intends for relationships even while living
outside the standard. For example, cohabiting couples meet intimacy and
relationship needs for one another. Joy and love are present. But
ambivalence toward God’s intended design leads to devaluing marriage and
covenant commitment. Discipling individuals and couples in situations like
this means we need to extend the hand of hospitality and friendship first. As
the church exposes individuals and families in this situation to more and
more biblical truth, the relationship of grace and fellowship aids in the
discipleship process. Rather than reacting with judgment or fear, the church
is the place that opens wide its doors, welcoming all to come and learn of the
ways of Jesus.

In its stance toward the practice of cohabitation, we believe that the church
can err in two ways: either by failing to uphold the sacred purpose of
marriage or by condemning and shutting out those who cohabit. In upholding
marriage as God’s way with one hand, we should extend God’s grace with

the other. Our gospel must be full of truth and grace. The church needs to be
the very place that reaches out to seekers, both those living outside biblical
norms and those for whom biblical behavior has not yet become part of their
lives. The church will have a minimal impact on the lives of those who are
cohabiting until it clearly offers the hands of both truth and grace.

A couple may be on a path to Christ without even knowing it. When a
cohabiting couple establishes a covenant commitment, they have understood
something essential about God’s way. The Christian community can nurture a
couple’s natural inclination to continue to move in God’s way through
patience, respect, and love that points them in that direction. Being
compassionate rather than judgmental comes out of the assurance that God,
who is the final judge, is the one who loves most fully. “Christ’s love sees us
with terrible clarity and sees us whole. Christ’s love so wishes our joy that it
is ruthless against everything in us that diminishes our joy” (Buechner 1992,
58). Striving to help cohabiting couples find the joy of covenant love is a
great privilege. The Christian community needs to show forth God’s love in
faithful, engaging ways that will draw those who cohabit closer to the way,
the truth, and the more abundant life.

Discerning God’s Will
Marriage is an important, sacred event in most societies. Marriage is pivotal
because it is necessary to the psychological well-being of the individuals
involved, the social well-being of the married couple and family, the
economic well-being of communities, and the survival of society itself. One
advantage of parent-arranged marriage is that it protects young people from
the pressure, confusion, and agony of having to make such a major decision
on their own. The obvious disadvantage is the impact of excluding the couple
from this critical process, which has enormous implications for the rest of
their lives. This leads us to the question of how Christians are to approach
the mate-selection process.

To answer this question, we must begin by considering how one comes to
discern God’s will in the matter of choosing a mate. First, a couple
contemplating marriage will want to view their relationship through the
theological and biblical relationship lenses we have presented in this
chapter. As they look at their relationship history in light of these values, they
will begin to answer the mate-selection question through their experiences

with each other. Many couples already recognize trouble in their relationship
as they are dating but deny the seriousness of the problems. For this reason,
long engagements are predictive of successful marriage. When the couple
gets beyond the romantic stage during the months and years prior to marriage
in a long engagement, they gain a more realistic idea about managing their
relationship. They will have experienced conflicts and struggles during this
time and have a good understanding of how they deal with each other in the
process. They will have had time to see each other in all sorts of situations
and been willing to discuss their expectations about roles and future plans.

Premarital counseling with a licensed therapist or pastor is a great way to
discern how marriage with a particular individual could grow. We strongly
suggest that a couple intentionally learn all they can about their relationship
through a premarital inventory, identifying strengths and weaknesses in their
relationship. David Olson’s Prepare/Enrich (1998) is a 125-item
questionnaire used by clergy and counselors to assess a couple’s chances for
a successful marriage. The inventory matches each person’s responses to
questions in major areas such as personality, friendships, conflict,
communication, finance, sex, views on children, and family of origin. It has
proven to be quite accurate in predicting whether a couple will be successful
or eventually divorce (Fowers, Montel, and Olson 1996). Another helpful
inventory is the “Preparation for Marriage Questionnaire” (Holman, Larson,
and Harmer 1994). It consists of 178 items that evaluate the following five
areas that are predictive of marital satisfaction and stability: (1) degree of
unity in values, attitudes, and beliefs; (2) personal readiness for marriage
(the indicators include emotional health and maturity, self-esteem, and
independence from one’s family of origin); (3) partner readiness
(communicating ability and skills, self-disclosure, and empathic behavior);
(4) couple readiness (agreement on basic issues, stability of the relationship,
approval of each other’s friends and relatives, and realistic expectations);
and (5) background and home environment (satisfaction with the home
environment, the quality of the home environment, the quality of the parent-
child relationship, and absence of physical and sexual abuse). Sue Johnson’s
helpful resource (2008) outlines important conversations relational partners
need to have to benefit their relationship. Another important tool for
premarital counseling is “Saving Your Marriage before It Starts” (SYMBIS),
developed by Les and Leslie Parrott (2015). (More information is available
on the Parrotts’ website, https://www.symbis.com/couples/.)

These assessments and discussion tools can provide concrete information
that will help a couple determine the potential success of their future
together. Couples should spend time discussing these relationship dynamics;
process the results of the inventories with a trusted counselor or minister;
grapple honestly with family of origin and multicultural challenges; take time
to work out a financial budget; attend workshops on relationship skill
development; be aware of personality differences and consider how they
might affect the relationship; deal openly with sexual relationship issues with
a counselor and read and discuss an informative book on the subject.

No one particular way of finding God’s will is best for everyone, but in
most cases a combination of activities is advisable. Here are four specific
guidelines for couples to consider when seeking God’s direction about
marriage. First, look to God directly through prayer, Bible study, and
meditation. Second, seek wisdom and input from parents, significant family
members, and good friends. Trusted people who know and are willing to be
honest about each partner’s individual strengths and weaknesses will prove
invaluable. Third, as mentioned earlier, go through a premarital counseling
process in which all aspects of the relationship are examined honestly, and
spend time clarifying expectations with an objective professional or pastor.
Fourth, seek wisdom from trustworthy Christians in their community of faith.
Those in the body of Christ provide a communal perspective that will help
affirm or disaffirm the couple’s decision-making process.

Based on these suggestions, we advise that a couple can best discern
God’s will through a biblically balanced approach that is open to input from
three sources—the individuals directly concerned, family and close friends,
and the Christian community, which together can serve as a check against an
incorrect decision. When decisions are made without input from all three
sources, there is a greater probability of error. Given the power of passion
and the contemporary emphasis on intimacy in romantic relationships, the
individualistic bias is the most likely to have fatal consequences. Family bias
is typical of parental arrangements. When parents are discerning Christians,
they can be an invaluable source of wisdom, though they may have a limited
perspective because of personal or cultural biases. Christian-community bias
is probably the most difficult to detect since it is generally felt that a
corporate body is less prone to bias. However, an obvious danger is the
power a particular leader (or leaders) may wield. Leaders also have human
limitations and are therefore capable of using their influence in misguided

ways. Particularly troubling are communities in which congregants are
required to submit to an authoritarian leader out of loyalty.

Even if one concedes the wisdom of this model, there is always the
possibility of disagreement. Consequently, the individuals, family, and
Christian community should work together to bring about a congruous
decision that will enhance the probability of a lasting covenant.

4

Establishing Marriage
Moving toward Differentiated Unity

Each spouse’s experiences growing up in his or her particular family of
origin are major preparations for marriage, for good and for ill. Accordingly,
marriage involves more than a uniting of two individuals; it is also a uniting
of two extended families. Bringing aspects of two culturally diverse families
into a new unit is a process of affirming the best of both cultures (sense of
belonging) and discovering the spouses’ own sense of identity as a couple. In
the process, they may choose to discard some of their heritage, expand
aspects of it, and create a unique union that exceeds what either of them
would be on their own. Forming a new relationship as a couple distinguishes
each of them from their family of origin (the family each grew up in) and at
the same time keeps each of them connected with it. We begin this chapter by
recognizing the impact of family of origin as well as other important factors
that contribute to marital quality.

Factors That Predict Marital Quality
Researchers have identified several factors from the family of origin (FOO)
that affect marital satisfaction and quality. These factors include conflict-
resolution style, relationship self-regulation based on family-of-origin
climate (Hardy et al. 2015), and background and contextual factors (Larson
and Hickman 2004).

First, FOO experiences highly influence a marital partner’s conflict-
resolution style, which partially affects marital satisfaction (Dennison et al.
2014). This indicates that individuals learn relationship strategies from their
family of origin, such as how to resolve conflict, and these habits are

incorporated into conflict resolution in one’s family of choice. These
resolution strategies influence the overall satisfaction and quality of
marriage.

Second, FOO climate can be thought of as one’s perceptions of the safety,
warmth, and fairness in the family of origin. This climate entails one’s
emotional experience of the support, empathy, and availability of parents.
One important aspect of this climate relates to how individuals learn to self-
regulate in their relationships. That is, more positive experiences in one’s
FOO lead to greater capacities to self-regulate in one’s marital relationship.
This relational self-regulation (RSR) provides important strategies for
engaging in relationships that facilitate marital satisfaction. Individuals learn
how to manage emotional experiences while maintaining their relationships
with their FOO. These are important skills needed for each spouse to learn
as they adjust to one another while creating a new sense of family identity.
One important RSR is the ability to manage one’s anxiety or anger in
responding to one’s spouse. Additionally, RSR allows individuals to
interpret their spouse’s behavior more positively, enabling conflict to be
avoided or resolved without relying on more negative conflict-resolution
strategies.

Finally, sociocultural and contextual factors that affect the quality of
marriage include age at time of marriage, level of education and income, and
occupational stability. Being similar (homogamy)in race, socioeconomic
status, religion, intelligence, and age are factors that affect a new marriage in
a positive way. Individual characteristics such as physical and emotional
health, lack of neurotic traits, conventionality, and level of self-esteem
contribute to the quality a couple can achieve in their new union. Also,
having similar values, attitudes, and beliefs seems to bring out the best in
both spouses.

When it comes to interpersonal dynamics, good communication and
conflict-resolution skills bring strength and quality to the marriage (Gottman
2011). Not having cohabited and low participation in premarital sexual
intercourse also contribute to a couple’s quality of marriage and sexual
satisfaction (Larson and Hickman 2004; Strait et al. 2015).

Research regarding the effects of the family of origin demonstrate that
one’s family of choice is significantly influenced by one’s family of origin.
When parents have had a high-quality marital relationship, the couple has a
better chance of developing quality in their own marriage. When both sets of

parents have achieved a long-lasting marriage (no divorce), are relatively
free of mental illness, demonstrate positive conflict-resolution strategies, and
provide a warm, caring, and nurturing home environment, chances for high
quality in the newly formed marriage increase. Also, when families are
supportive and refrain from pressuring the couple, marital quality is more
likely. The new couple needs time and space to develop their relationship. In
the next section, we will consider in more detail the family-of-origin
dynamics.

Resolving Issues Related to the Family of Origin
The influence of families of origin on the family of choice is generally
referred to as intergenerational transmission (Bowen 2004; Kerr and Bowen
1988). This is one of the most important contributions from Bowen Family
Systems Theory (BFST). Intergenerational transmission refers to the
communication patterns and strategies children learn from their parents as
well as the emotional tone of the family. The main ways that communication
and relationships merge with emotional experience occurs via differentiation
of self (DoS).

DoS is a key component in the adaptability of families. It allows each
individual family member, with the sure identity of belonging to their family,
to understand his or her values and beliefs and engage in family relationships
based on these beliefs. Further, as stressors arise within the family and
children develop increasing competencies, parents need to support these
competencies by increasing parental expectations for the children. Stressors
outside the family demand the family to adapt to pressures as well. Taken
together, DoS provides the psychological and relational strengths needed to
respond to these challenges in a values-based manner.

DoS provides the individual with the tools to manage emotional
experience while maintaining one’s relationships with others. DoS should be
conceptualized along two dimensions (Frederick and Dunbar 2019). First,
intrapersonal DoS focuses on one’s ability to be attentive and responsive to
one’s emotional experience while not being overwhelmed by that experience.
Individuals with high levels of DoS are able to acknowledge their emotions
while responding to them in a values-based manner. Second, DoS has an
interpersonal dimension focusing on the balance of individuality and
togetherness (Bowen, 2004; Kerr and Bowen, 1988). Interpersonal DoS

enables individuals to maintain their values commitments while remaining in
relationships with others. Both these aspects of DoS are transmitted in one’s
FOO as described above.

Parents as Role Models
Parents are powerful role models. They teach through verbal

communication, but their nonverbal behavior is probably even more
influential. Children learn important lessons about marriage by observing
how their parents communicate with each other—how they express their
feelings of love, affection, and anger. Everything that parents do in their role
as marriage partners will profoundly influence their children’s behaviors and
attitudes as marriage partners. Although true for both husbands and wives,
there was a stronger correlation between wives’ positive experience in their
family of origin and reported marital adjustment. On the other hand, more
negative FOO experiences had more negative effects on conflict resolution
and marital satisfaction for women as compared to men (Dennison et al.
2014).

Research indicates that regardless of whether or not we agree with the
way our parents handled their marriage or parenting responsibilities, when a
similar situation arises in our own family, our spontaneous reaction will be
to behave as our parents did. The young wife who witnessed her mother’s
temper whenever her father was running late may be determined to give her
husband the benefit of the doubt rather than lash out in anger. However, when
a similar situation arises, she finds herself scolding her husband before he
has a chance to explain his tardiness. The husband, who remembers that his
father was less than considerate in not calling home about being detained,
nevertheless forgets to call his wife. In many ways, relationship partners
replicate relational patterns from their families of origin.

Spouses must make an effort to recognize and correct faulty attitudes and
behaviors they unthinkingly bring into their marriage. It is imperative to
avoid the fatalistic attitude that denies responsibility for one’s own behavior
by saying, “My parents have been such a strong influence on my behavior that
there is nothing I can do about it!” To make excuses of this nature is tempting.
A husband may say, “My wife wants me to be more open in communicating
my feelings to her; she just doesn’t realize that we didn’t do that in my
family.” A wife may say, “I can’t help worrying about you when you go on a

trip; my mother always worried about my father.” These defeatist attitudes do
not facilitate needed change.

Equally detrimental is the naive belief that one’s family of origin does not
affect one’s marital life. Such thinking leads to a denial of behavioral
patterns that have similar negative outcomes in one’s marriage. Without
personal awareness of these patterns, change is unlikely.

Parental Support
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, research indicates that social,

emotional, and financial support from parents and other relatives—what is
known as family climate—is very important in helping a newly married
couple establish a solid marriage. In fact, more positive experiences in
family climate are associated with better self-regulation (Hardy et al. 2015).
Children with more supportive and warm family climates internalize the
ability to regulate anxiety and anger in these early relationships. RSR is
cultivated in supportive families and translates to increased marital
satisfaction.

In an ideal situation, children have the freedom to move some distance
from home for schooling or employment, and their parents remain available
to them for emotional and even financial support. This involves both
appropriate differentiation (no strings attached) and support (we want to
empower you). Some parents make their support conditional on the new
couple reciprocating in some way. For support (financial or emotional) to be
empowering, it must be unconditional and freely given. For example,
financial arrangements should be clearly negotiated in an attitude of mutual
respect and agreement. If there are expectations such as paying back a loan
later, these conditions must be specified up front so that responsibility
becomes part of empowerment.

Some parents are threatened by their children’s independence and want to
keep control. The demands they make can undermine the newly established
unit, forcing the couple to concentrate on meeting the expectations of the
family of origin rather than on building the newly formed marital dyad. The
couple that continually needs parental financial or emotional help has failed
to accomplish the important task of establishing autonomy, which includes the
ability to manage financially and to become functionally independent of
parents. The manner in which supportive arrangements are made and the

accompanying attitudes and expectations of both parents and married
children determine whether such help will have positive or negative effects.

The principle of empowerment can be demonstrated by asking the
following question: Does the support lead to responsible action and mutual
respect or to indebtedness, dependency, and obligation? If parents use their
resources to control, the result is emotional distance and resentment. If
parents use their resources to empower, they help the couple establish a
strong marital bond along with a desire to maintain solid ties and connection
with extended family.

A person’s identity is formed in the family of origin. In fact, until puberty it
is hard to think of ourselves apart from our family. In our families, we
acquire the majority of our attitudes, beliefs, and values. What we believe
our parents think of us shapes our self-concept. One’s identity is connected
with being from a particular family, and this identity forms the main
psychological vehicle for living. Identity is so important psychologically that
Dan McAdams (1997) describes identity achievement as the crux of human
development.

At puberty, however, differentiation begins to intensify. Through this
process, teenagers establish an identity separate from the family.
Differentiated individuals are both connected to their families and, at the
same time, sufficiently separated socially and psychologically. On the one
hand, differentiated individuals have a strong sense of belonging or
togetherness with their families. On the other hand, differentiated individuals
know themselves—their beliefs, values, and desires—and are able to live
out those aspects of their self-concept, or what we would call core self
(Bowen 2004), while maintaining relationships with others. This core self
takes personal responsibility and is able to respond to experiences and
relationships in a manner consistent with its values while maintaining those
relationships. It takes a great deal of emotional, intellectual, and spiritual
energy to accomplish this extremely important task of sorting out and
determining one’s own values and beliefs rather than indiscriminately taking
on the values and beliefs of one’s parents. We describe the process of
adolescent differentiation in greater detail in chapter 9. At this point, it is
sufficient to say that people are not ready for marriage until they have clearly
differentiated themselves from their parents.

There are two types of undifferentiated individuals: those who are overly
close and dependent on their family of origin and those who are disengaged

or emotionally severed from it. In overly close (fused) relationships, people
are so tightly involved with their families that there is no healthy
separateness. People who are emotionally cut off, however, are so
emotionally removed from their families that there is no healthy
connectedness. Notice how these two types are utilizing similar relationship
strategies: both fused and cutoff people are using their relationships alone to
define their identities. The fused individual often modifies or disavows
aspects of the core self so that membership with the family is maintained. On
the other side, those who are cut off emotionally are trying to define
themselves in contrast to the FOO.

Genesis 2:24 describes differentiation for the marital couple: “Therefore a
man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become
one flesh.” A person cannot leave mother and father if he or she clings to or
is fused with them. People overly connected with their parents have difficulty
creating a new marital dyad. Yet leaving mother and father is equally
impossible if there has never been a sufficient connectedness with them. In
cutoff families, children lack the skills to make close emotional connections
with others, even a new spouse. In both extremes, it is highly difficult to
establish a meaningful “one flesh” union.

The concepts of fusion and cutoff are illustrated in the parable of the
prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32). The younger son cuts himself off from his
family, demanding his full inheritance and severing all connections. In the
process, he cuts off all cultural, social, economic, and psychological ties by
moving to a far country and working among swine (which are unclean for
Jewish people). On the surface, this may appear to be a sign of
independence, but it proves to be premature.

One might also wonder if the elder son who stays home is somehow fused
with his family. As the story unfolds, he appears to be undifferentiated. We
see this fusion when he complains to his father about his obedience not being
rewarded. The older brother is not willingly doing his father’s will; he is
biding his time until he receives the reward of his inheritance and is obedient
to his father only on the surface. His reaction to his father’s acceptance of his
lost brother is indicative of fusion. A differentiated son would have
established a solid connection with a clearly defined self and thus would
have celebrated his brother’s return. Additionally, his service to the father
and family would not be intrinsically based in identity and motivated by the
expectation of reward. His jealous and angry reaction suggests that he is

threatened by his erroneous belief that his father has only so much love to
give and that giving love to the younger brother means that the father loves
him less. He is not sufficiently separated from his family of origin, and his
dependency leads to possessiveness and jealousy.

Empowerment facilitates personal responsibility and empathy for the
other. Each brother would take ownership of his choices, both appropriate
and inappropriate. They would be able to allow others to experience the
consequences of their behavior while maintaining a relationship with them.
The father exemplifies this, understanding the sons’ choices and avoiding
interference when the consequences of those choices affect his sons. This is
not a cold, detached, unfeeling attitude on the part of the father. This is a
father empowering his adult sons by allowing them to experience the effects
of their choices.

The way God parented the children of Israel afforded them the possibility
of achieving differentiation. God offered covenantal love, which is the basis
of identity, and the building blocks of grace, empowerment, and intimacy. On
the one hand, when the children of Israel went their own way (cut off), he
held them accountable and responsible for their actions. On the other hand,
God continually offered grace in the form of reconciliation and restoration.
This balance of both offering emotional support and affirming differentiation
leads to interdependence in relationships.

We have seen that a very important factor in establishing a solid
foundation in marriage is the differentiation of both spouses from their
families of origin. There can be no cleaving without leaving. When two
individuals are differentiated and secure in their own identities, they can give
themselves to each other and make room in their selves for the distinct other
that contributes toward forming a differentiated unity. Their close and stable
relationships with their families of origin promote a loyalty to the old while
creating a new and distinct system.

Adaptability
In general, people need order in their lives. Scripture teaches that a human

community should be an orderly one. One of Paul’s qualifications for church
leaders is that they should have orderly home relationships (1 Tim. 3:1–7).
Effective families function well with a certain amount of routine and
structure. Yet the desired degree of order varies greatly among families and
cultures. Some families demand an excessive amount of order; others have

almost no structure at all. For example, children’s bedtimes may be observed
so precisely in some families that if the youngsters are not in bed with the
lights out at the prescribed minute, punishment is sure to follow. Other
families have such little regard for order that bedtimes are not even
prescribed, let alone enforced. These two extremes are examples of very low
and very high degrees of adaptability. Degree of adaptability is an important
dimension that marriage partners bring with them from their family of origin
(see chap. 2).

Most often, effective families have a healthy degree of structure and
flexibility (i.e., they are neither overly rigid nor chaotic). Marriages with a
capacity for adaptability endure well over time because they are more open
to and can adapt better to the changes that continually occur in family life.
This ability is especially important because change is inevitable, whether it
occurs in the development of individual members, in relationship dynamics,
throughout the family life stages, or because of an unexpected internal or
external stressor.

But what happens when a person from a rigid home marries a person from
a chaotic home? Both spouses will naturally attempt to implement their own
family style, and this presents interesting clashes, to say the least. Spouses
who come from more balanced and similar backgrounds will undoubtedly
have an easier time of it. All couples need to develop a system that works
best for them. Even such matters as how to celebrate particular holidays or
how to implement daily family routines such as eating, sleeping, and playing,
or rituals such as manners or prayers at the table or reading stories at
bedtime will need to be negotiated. The couple will begin to establish their
own routines, household rules, roles, and rituals. Once again, they may take
certain things from each of their family traditions to enrich their homes and
mutually create new ways of organizing their family life.

The Dilemma of Modern Marriage
The high rate of divorce in most Western cultures supports the notion that it is
difficult to establish a strong marriage in a postmodern society. Although a
variety of explanations can be proposed, such as urbanization,
industrialization, changing gender roles, and high social and geographical
mobility, surely a key factor is high expectations that marriage will fulfill
personal needs. One expectation that Tim and Kathy Keller (2013) describe

is the belief that personal happiness and fulfillment is the most important
aspect of one’s life. Marriage is unable to guarantee personal happiness
because it is inherently a give-and-take between relational partners. Personal
happiness takes a back seat to maintaining the marriage. This is an affront to
the postmodern belief that individual fulfillment and happiness is the most
important aspect of life. Up to one hundred years ago, marriage was
primarily a social institution designed to meet economic needs and provide a
place for rearing children. This view of marriage as an institution has been
replaced by the concept that marriage is a companionship grounded on
romantic attraction, self-fulfillment, and ego-need gratification (Coontz 2004;
Frederick and Dunbar 2019). As the marriage expectation bar continues to be
raised, fewer marriages are capable of delivering what they promise in the
way of personal fulfillment and satisfaction.

The tremendous expectations placed on marriage today are further
exacerbated by the notion that each spouse must compete for power and a
separate identity while in the marriage. In the past, wives simply yielded
their individual identity and rights to their husbands. As late as the mid-
1800s, ownership of any property contributed by the bride’s family
transferred to the husband. In the traditional marriage, the goal of two
becoming one was met by the bride giving up her own identity and taking on
a new identity as the husband’s wife. While few would want to return to this
kind of arrangement, the “challenge in modern marriage is to build a
relationship that is mutual, reciprocal, and balanced by equal regard for each
spouse and mutual sacrifice for the good of the relationship” (Balswick and
Balswick 2006).

One response to the contemporary marriage crisis is to abandon the ideal
that marriage is a lifelong commitment. When marriage is defined as a
business contract between two partners, the focus becomes maximizing one’s
benefits and minimizing expenditures. This implies that marriages are
primarily for the individual’s benefit and that the marriage should be ended
when costs exceed benefits. Family sociologists have documented this
response in the literature as the “deinstitutionalization of marriage” (Cherlin
2004), the “retreat from marriage” (Smock 2004), and the view that lifelong
marriage is “something of an aberration that existed” in the past (Gillis
2004). Ellen Lewin (2004) challenges the idea that marriage is the only
legitimate conjugal arrangement. John Gillis (2004) welcomes the new trend
of a wide range of formal and informal marriage arrangements and asserts

that “seen in the larger historical and global perspective, there is nothing
particularly alarming in the tendency. In fact, there is much to recommend it”
(991). A careful observer might note that these comments are based on
naturalistic assumptions that society should accept what is happening (such
as higher rates of cohabitation and divorce) as normative and not make value
judgments about what marriage should be. Contrary to a biblical view, much
contemporary writing views marriage as a relationship of convenience,
formed according to what the two people decide to make of it.

Differentiated Unity: Becoming One and Retaining Uniqueness
The contemporary crisis in marriage is real. But rather than cave in to
postmodern marital ethics, we believe the dilemma of modern marriage can
be solved by recapturing a biblical view of marriage. Whereas God intends
for marriage to constitute a unity as in “two become one,” it is not God’s
intent for either the husband or the wife to lose his or her own identity in the
process of forming that union. Tim and Kathy Keller (2013) describe how the
beauty of a biblical definition of marriage and Christian sexual ethic is that it
challenges premodern notions of marriage (marriage functions economically)
and modern (marriage is a contract) and even a postmodern view (marriage
is a remnant of a long bygone area that impeded on personal flourishing).
God intends marriage to reflect the unique type of relationality found in the
Holy Trinity. This truth is a core derivative of Genesis 1:26–27: “Then God
said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.’ . . .
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.” The relationality between the distinct
human beings (male and female) reflects the imago Dei—the image of God.

We bring this emphasis on relationality into our model for marriage. The
relational nature in marriage is analogous in human form to the divine Trinity.
As the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (three distinct persons) mutually
indwell the Godhead in a trinitarian fellowship, so do spouses (two distinct
selves) mutually indwell the marriage union. Ever mindful of our human
limitations, we believe this model offers great promise. It is in their
distinctiveness that spouses mutually permeate each other when they form
their union. Unity and distinction coexist. Reciprocal and mutual
interdependency is what God had in mind for marriage. A differentiated
unity brings great satisfaction to both spouses and to their relationship. In

this context, to be human in marriage is to be a particular spouse in a
relationship, distinct and unique and yet inextricably intertwined and
interdependent with the other. Mutual indwelling never negates but rather
enhances the particularity of each spouse. As Gary Deddo asserts, “The unity
and the distinction are each unimpaired by the other” (1999, 23).

DoS, or as we will argue later, differentiation in Christ, is about identity.
We are called into relationship with Christ during conversion. We are given a
new identity, one based on membership in Christ’s family. This new identity
in Christ forms the core self and is the basis for relating to others. Thus, our
differentiation in Christ is the key factor in determining the effectiveness of
spousal differentiation. Both spouses are more than they can ever be by
themselves, because they have become something bigger in their union. In
marriage, spouses are both distinct (male and female differentiation) and
equal (directed to be fruitful and have dominion) in their created purpose.
They find ultimate meaning in and through their relationship with God and
each other. The supreme meaning of being created in the image of God is that
spouses reflect a relationship of unity without absorbing one into the other.
Marital mutuality is reached through a reciprocating relationship in which
spouses encounter their own uniqueness in relation to God and the other.

Assimilation is a process in which two separate entities become one,
while accommodation is an agreement by two separate entities to be
different. From the lens of BFST, assimilation is fusion. The biblical concept
of one flesh might appear to be assimilation. However, the Bible also
describes the relationship of the believer with Christ as becoming one with
him. Does this mean that we lose our identity and personhood when we
become Christians? Of course not! In fact, this is the difference between the
various Eastern religions and Christianity. Salvation according to the Eastern
religions is to acknowledge the self as an illusion and then to recognize
oneness with the eternal force in the universe. The dissolution of the self and
the cosmos is described in the psychology of mindfulness (Grabovac, Lau,
and Willett 2011). In Christianity, salvation is relational. It comes when the
person is rightly related to God, the Creator and provider of eternal life.

Assimilation in marriage, where the personhood of one spouse is given up,
is not what God intended. Christian marriage is more like accommodation,
where two separate people each maintain a distinct personhood but choose to
come together in unity and oneness of commitment, meaning, and service. It is
noteworthy that the key verses in Ephesians 5, which speak about the

marriage relationship, are introduced by the directive, “Be subject to one
another out of reverence for Christ” (v. 21). Ideally, in Christian marriage
each spouse is subject to the other; that is, each makes room for the other to
love and be loved, to forgive and be forgiven, to serve and be served, and to
know and be known. A marriage in which one partner, the husband or the
wife, is asked to give up his or her personhood for the sake of the other
denies God’s expression in and through that unique member of the creation.
The relationship is remarkably more fulfilling when both people are equally
expressed in their union, providing others an opportunity to know two
distinct people as well as to relate to the couple as a unit.

Just because a couple forms a union does not mean there are no differences
between the spouses. Quite the contrary! Precisely because they bring unique
perspectives to the union, they will need to navigate through their
differences. In fact, Genesis 2 emphasizes the complementary nature of the
relationship—male and female. At a minimum, biological differences foster
opportunities to esteem the uniqueness of each spouse as well as incorporate
these differences into the marriage. In navigating these differences, it’s
important that each spouse be open and responsive in an attitude of humble
respect. Conflict is to be expected when two distinct and unique individuals
express themselves equally. Marriage without conflict can signify that one
spouse has given up personhood. In a vital relationship, conflicts are viewed
with an eye to finding a solution that is in the best interest of each spouse and
the relationship as a whole. Agreement is never at the expense of one spouse
over the other. Being subject to one’s spouse does not mean giving in for the
sake of avoiding conflict or maintaining harmony. In fact, giving in for the
sake of avoiding conflict may be a way of letting a spouse down.

Commitment involves a willingness to express your desires and opinions,
to confront a partner in love, to listen with openness to your spouse’s desires
and opinions, to have compassion, and to affirm the other’s ideas.
Differentiated unity assures a mutual love that works out differences for the
good of the relationship.

Learning New Roles in the Marital Dance
Perichoresis is the Greek word used to describe the relationality among
members of the Trinity. Eugene Peterson (2005, 44–45) points out that, in the
original language, perichoresis literally means “a round dance.” Like a round

dance, marriage can be described as two people moving rhythmically
together as they repeatedly embrace, release, hold on, and then let go of each
other. Partners will dance in unity when they share an understanding of their
roles in relation to each other as they perform their particular dance. It may
be an ever-changing dance with new moves as circumstances alter, but when
spouses are in step there is great joy in observing the graceful movements.
We find it helpful to think of spouses being in tune with each other as they
anticipate, construct, change, and live out their roles throughout their
marriage.

Prior to marriage, most spouses have already formulated in their minds a
role for themselves and a role for the person they are to marry. How
husbands and wives define their respective roles can be important. High
expectations often lead to disappointment. It was discovered by DeMaris,
Sanchez, and Krivickas (2012, 989) that “couples characterized by more
traditional attitudes toward gender roles were significantly less satisfied.”
Discussing role expectations prior to marriage will hopefully counter the
unexpected or unrealistic ideals that hinder rather than help the couple work
out their respective roles. This subjective anticipation of new roles before
entering marriage is known as role taking. A rat running a maze is limited to
learning by trial and error. It must randomly follow each corridor in search
of food until it either reaches a dead end or finds the reward. Humans use
their rich vocabulary and elaborate thinking ability to run a maze in their
minds. In fact, before two people decide to marry, they each probably run
through an elaborate symbolic maze by imagining what it would be like to be
married to the other person for the rest of their lives. We constantly engage in
role taking when anticipating the new roles we eventually assume.

An important ingredient in the achievement of marital adjustment is the
ability to take on the role of another person. This requires empathy—the
ability to view the world from someone else’s perspective and to stand in
that person’s place. Research shows that people with role-taking ability
score high on marital-adjustment tests. It is extremely important that partners
be able to see things from the viewpoint of their spouses. This is what
understanding the other is about.

After marriage, spouses engage in role playing. Role playing is the
process of actually assuming the role of spouse and dancing out the part that
has been only imagined up to this point. The first part of role playing can be
thought of as playing at a role. Spouses play at a role to the extent that they

are self-conscious and unsure of themselves in marriage. We can engage in
role playing hundreds of times. However, when we actually assume a role,
we find it to be somewhat different from what we imagined. A newly
married couple will experience some awkwardness in playing at their new
roles as spouses. Even though they are acutely aware that they are
newlyweds, they are not yet accustomed to their new roles as married
people. It takes time to become comfortable with the role so that it feels
natural.

People who begin marriage by playing at a role will eventually become
comfortable with it and spontaneously engage in playing the role of marital
partner. Meanwhile, because of the expectations formed prior to role taking,
the early stages of marriage often bring role conflict. Both people enter
marriage with their personal and family-of-origin definition of what their
role and their spouse’s role should be. This can lead to confusion and
difficulty.

Much emotion is invested in one’s new role as husband or wife, and
consequently there is also great potential for conflict. A husband and wife
may disagree about the definition of the spouse’s role. He may enter marriage
thinking that husbands do not do dishes, while the wife may consider this to
be his role. Similarly, a wife may view her role as including responsibility
for the budget, but the husband may see this as his territory. As the couple
begins to clarify these messages, tension is likely to occur. If they resort to
pulling or pushing while learning this dance, they will appear uncoordinated
and will likely step on each other’s toes. Finding the mutual rhythm and
coordinating the right steps is worth every effort it takes to create a
harmonious pattern of movement.

Role conflict arises naturally and not necessarily because a person is
immature or unprepared for role skirmishes. Role conflicts need to be
worked out in an atmosphere of grace, acceptance, and dialogue. Spouses
who have good skills in problem-solving and conflict resolution will have a
head start. Resolving role conflicts throughout marriage gives the couple a
solid base of operation. Those who cannot achieve solutions are likely to
struggle with these same role conflicts, and the marriage will resemble a
wrestling match more than a dance.

The marital-role dance is an ever-changing dynamic that must evolve as
new patterns emerge. Role definitions appropriate in the beginning stages of
marriage may become outmoded two or three years later; roles will change

over time and in response to family life-cycle changes. In the daily acts of
being husband and wife, new ways of playing out roles are constantly
attempted. Role taking does not stop when a couple marries but continues
throughout the life cycle. For example, even among very egalitarian couples,
the transition to parenthood is associated with a return to more traditional
gender roles in marriage (Frederick and Balswick 2011). A couple may have
decided early in the marriage that one spouse would stay home with the
children when they are young. But when that spouse begins to imagine what a
full-time job outside the home would be like (role taking), a role conflict is
evident. When any new course of action is taken, the couple must carefully
consider its impact on household chores and responsibilities, cooking,
childcare, socializing, and so on. A small step now can make a huge
difference down the road.

The most troublesome adjustments in marriages are those not clearly
worked out ahead of time. In such situations, each spouse may have unspoken
expectations of which the other is unaware. Assuming that spouses can read
each other’s minds is a recipe for relationship breakdown. A typical example
is the wife who assumes that her husband’s agreement that she be employed
outside the home means that he will take on household responsibilities. When
he fails to do so, she finds herself doing double duty, a common complaint in
marriage that understandably leads to resentment. Many women who imagine
they are entering an egalitarian marriage have been disillusioned to find that
they are expected to be the superwoman who does it all.

A spousal role can be defined objectively by spouses, family, culture,
church, community, and society at large, but the one who performs the role
defines it subjectively. And there is rarely a one-to-one correlation between
the general definition of a role and how that spouse actually defines it.
Because each individual person is unique, role playing is always role
making.

Each person plays the role of husband or wife according to one’s own
distinctive taste and style—a person embellishes the marital dance with his
or her unique flair. Marriages in which either partner has a prescribed
definition of what the other’s role should be will most likely encounter
trouble. It’s best to recognize individual differences and unique personalities
in taking on roles. During the Balswicks’ early years, Jack complained that
Judy was too much like her mother, a very spontaneous and expressive
person. Judy’s spontaneous ways would embarrass Jack, who was more

reserved, and he would reprimand Judy for her behavior. Talking about this
helped him see how his role expectation for Judy dampened her free spirit. In
fact, he realized that her outgoing personality was one of the things that
attracted him to her in the first place. Judy, in turn, was willing to be more
considerate of Jack in these situations. It led to an acceptance and
appreciation of each other as unique persons with unique personalities and
became a significant stepping-stone of growth in the relationship.

Tom and Gail married in May, moved across the country in July, and
started seminary in August. They had to rely on one another for help because
Tom’s parents were in Pennsylvania and Gail’s family of origin was in
Taiwan. One early adjustment involved negotiating dealing with others. For
example, Gail would interactive with wives and Tom would interact with
husbands separately at social events. In the car on the way home, Gail would
have a list of details and other information from the wives with whom she
interacted. She would then ask Tom about details from the husbands. He
would frequently respond, “I don’t know,” since he did not want to pry into
other mens’ lives. Initially, it was a little frustrating that Gail would learn
things about others that Tom would not. But eventually they learned to
appreciate how each of them uniquely interacts with those who would
become friends.

Adjustment in the Marital Dance
Throughout the marriage, role adjustments must be made for the sake of the
relationship. Whatever the reason, both partners must recognize the continual
need for flexibility. On occasion, a marriage is adjusted at the expense of one
or the other. Although this may occur from time to time out of particular
circumstances and by mutual decision, when one spouse always gives in to
the demands and needs of the other, it is a one-sided proposition. This is
contrary to perichoresis, which involves two people agreeing to make room
in themselves for the needs and desires of the other. Each learns to honor and
not compromise the unique contribution of the other. Reaching mutual
satisfaction through assuming marital roles is the goal. This occurs when both
spouses derive fulfillment and pleasure from the marriage union. Their
commitment to each other, the relationship, and the marriage permits
flexibility and creative openness to change that is in the best interest of both
spouses and the relationship.

5

A Model for Biblical
Marriage

While the previous chapter dealt with some of the social and psychological
issues involved in marriage, this chapter applies our theological basis for
family relationships, as presented in chapter 1, to marriage in postmodern
society. Both modern and postmodern ideologies have influenced today’s
marriages. For the sake of simplicity, we use the term modern marriage to
refer to contemporary marriages that have been affected by both, in contrast
to the traditional marriage preceding these influences.

It is a common mistake for Christians to defend a cultural version of
marriage as the biblical ideal. They fall into this trap by reading the customs
of their own culture into biblical passages or by regarding the biblical
accounts of specific historical marriages as normative instead of descriptive.
Records of marriages during biblical times do not necessarily reflect God’s
intention for today.

While one mistake is to assume that what our society regards as traditional
marriage is biblical, another mistake is to uncritically endorse secular
humanistic ideals and ignore what the Bible and Christian tradition have to
say about the nature and purpose of marriage. Somewhere between these
extremes is what we believe to be the biblical model. Table 4 summarizes
the major characteristics of traditional marriage, biblical marriage, and
modern marriage, comparing them in terms of the four aspects of our
theological model: covenant (commitment), grace (adaptability),
empowerment (authority), and intimacy (communication). We will explore
each of these characteristics in depth. Close examination will show that both
traditional and modern relationships fall short of the ideal. Parenthetically,
we believe that social-science research will reveal the practical wisdom
contained in a biblical model of marriage. Recently, Day and Acock

(2013, 164) noted that “relational spiritual framework theory posits that
religiousness is associated with couple well-being through relational virtues
(e.g., forgiveness, commitment, and sacrifice).”

TABLE 4 Traditional, Biblical, and Modern Views of
Marriage

Traditional Biblical Modern

Nature of Relationship

Commitment
(to the institution)

Covenant
(between partners)

Contract
(self-fulfillment)

Coercive Cohesive Disengaged

Nature of Sexual Intimacy

Dutiful Affectionate Self-centered

Male pleasure Mutual pleasure Personal pleasure

Adaptability

Law Grace Anarchy

Predetermined
(segregated roles)

Creative
(interchangeable roles)

Undetermined
(undifferentiated roles)

Rigid/Stilted Adaptable/Flexible Chaotic

Leadership and Decision-
Making

Ascribed power Empowerment Possessive power

Authoritarianism
(dependence)

Mutual submissiveness
(interdependence)

Absence of authority
(independence)

Male-centered Relationship-centered Self-centered

Communication

Inexpressiveness Intimacy Pseudo-intimacy

Pronouncement
(legislation)

Discussion
(negotiation)

Demand
(stalemate)

Nonassertive/Aggressive Assertive Aggressive

Commitment

Because Western laws have come to treat marriage as a contract rather than
as a covenant, the common statement “Marriage is a commitment!” is often
misunderstood. A traditional view of the nature of the marital relationship
focused on the notion that a couple should stay married for life; it viewed
marriage as a sacred institution that must be upheld at all costs. Preserving
the marriage took priority over each spouse’s individual well-being. There
was also a collective emphasis on loyalty to the group (family or community)
rather than to the individual. The individual sacrificed his or her (usually
her) preferences in order to maintain the institution and support the
collective. Over the years, this collective emphasis has given way to an
individualistic, “me-oriented” emphasis—the hallmark of modern marriage.
Tim and Kathy Keller (2013) report the results of a survey that describes
how many respondents feel marriages impeded personal freedom. From a
modern perspective, the marriage should be dissolved when the
relationship’s demands outweigh the benefits. The focus has shifted to the
individual’s right to personal happiness. Thus, commitment to marriage as an
institution is rejected when it interferes with the individual’s perceived right
to self-fulfillment.

Prevalence of divorce is one way to gauge the transition from viewing
marriage as an institution to marriage as a contract intended to maximize
one’s personal happiness. It was rare under the traditional system because of
an intrinsic commitment to marriage as an institution. Divorce was
unthinkable because it transgressed a strongly held belief that violating the
institution was morally wrong. The youth counterculture movement of the
1960s challenged these traditional ideas and asserted that commitment to the
institution was an invalid reason to stay married. Sexuality was ideally
confined to traditional marriage, but with the advent of birth control and
increasingly promiscuous sexual behavior, the individual’s happiness and
personal satisfaction were becoming more important. These shifting values
helped transform the nature of marriage (and divorce) from a traditional
institution to a relationship contract between two equal partners. Our
postmodern culture continues strongly to emphasize this self-absorption.

Accordingly, in the early 1970s, the divorce rate began to rise
dramatically and continued to do so for nearly ten years. We have seen a
flattening of the divorce rate beginning around the 2000s to around 50
percent. Social scientists now believe that one of the major reasons for this
phenomenon was that people who were unhappy increasingly turned to

divorce as a way to remove themselves from their past and to find happiness.
This turning to divorce was accelerated by several factors. First, we did not
know the negative consequences of divorce until much later, especially with
the publication of works like The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce
(Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee 2001). Second, social stigma regarding
divorce diminished as the definition of marriage changed. That is, marriage
is no longer considered an institution, so the dissolution of the marriage is
like the ending of other contracts. Divorce was pursued without fear of
shame or failure because the partnership simply did not fulfill its contract.
Finally, therapists tended to encourage the trend. In some ways, therapy
reifies the hyperindividualism of modern and postmodern views. Therapists
would subtly and not so subtly encourage people to end marriages that were
no longer satisfying so an individual could find his or her personal
happiness. Since therapists generally believed individuals had a right to
personal happiness, this value took precedence over commitment to the
sanctity of marriage as an institution.

In the modern marriage, continued commitment is contingent on self-
fulfillment. Indeed, one of the main criteria that sociologists now use to
measure marital success is happiness or personal satisfaction. A common
phrase describing marriage is that it is a 50/50 agreement where each partner
supports exactly half of the entire marriage. Dissatisfaction or unhappiness
occurs when an individual perceives their load to be greater than 50 percent.
A marriage is considered successful if the partners describe themselves as
happy or satisfied. Realizing that something is missing in the concept of
commitment to marriage as an institution, many people have discarded the
whole concept of commitment in favor of individual happiness. This is a
tragedy because commitment is the cornerstone of the marriage relationship.
The problem lies with too narrow a definition of marriage: in the past, it was
solely a commitment to the institution; in the contemporary secular view, it is
solely for self-fulfillment.

One way to frame this issue is to emphasize either the togetherness aspects
of the relationship (marriage is an institution) or the individualistic aspects
of the relationship (personal happiness is all that matters in the marriage).
Neither of these approaches the beauty of the biblical perspective that God
created humans in his image in the context of relationship. Genesis 2 recounts
that God saw it was not good for the man to be alone, so God created the
woman. The man recognized her as equal and complementary, bone of his

bones and flesh of his flesh; they became one flesh and were naked and not
ashamed (vv. 23–25). This is a beautiful picture of interdependency built on
complementarity and sacrifice.

Marriage is not only a commitment to the institution but also a commitment
to the relationship and the well-being of the marital partner. The relationship
is vital in and of itself and needs to be nourished to grow into all God
intended it to be. The commitment of Yahweh to Israel as depicted in the
book of Hosea provides a profound example of a commitment that endures,
renews, forgives, and restores. Marriages are strong when both partners are
committed to the institution, to the relationship, and to each other as persons.
Commitment only to the institution results in legalism; commitment only to the
other person results in humanism. A commitment to all three (person,
institution, and relationship) fosters a transformative, authentic marriage that
reflects or images (eikon in Greek) the trinitarian God of the Bible. This
biblical model takes into account the importance of caring for the needs of
the individual, the relationship, and the social system.

In the complex interplay (perichoresis) of the life of the Trinity—our
model for relationality—identity is not diminished in the relationships among
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Modalism is a trinitarian heresy (Horton
2012) that views God as a single person in three different forms—Father,
Son, and Spirit. This distortion is reflected in traditional approaches to
marriage, in which the individual is subsumed in the marriage. Tritheism,
another heresy, views each person of the Trinity as a distinct, separate divine
being (Horton 2013). This distortion is reflected in humanistic or modern
approaches of maximizing individuality; the partner and his or her “needs”
and desires for self-fulfillment take precedence over the relationship. As the
church has rejected both modalism and tritheism, so should Christians reject
their implications for developing a trinitarian view of marriage.

A trinitarian view of God shapes our view of marriage as a covenantal
relationship between two complementary relational partners. Because of the
mutual interplay of the relational partners, their love expressed in the
covenant fosters individual growth and becoming. Each partner desires the
best for the other. Further, each partner learns to “take up their cross” (Mark
8:34) in denying one’s immediate, self-centered desires in order to benefit
the covenant relationship. Over time, individual needs are balanced with
togetherness needs as the covenant marriage grows over the course of the
partners’ lives.

The core passage in Genesis 2:24 reads, “Therefore a man shall leave his
father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one
flesh” (ESV). This “one flesh” perspective emphasizes both the individual
identity aspect of husband and wife while also highlighting their “one flesh”
unity. When these passages are used in the New Testament by Paul (in
Ephesians 5:22–33, for example), the emphasis is not on either one
(husbands or wives) or the one-flesh nature of the relationship. The focus is
on both the relationship and the individuals in the relationship.

This biblical model also speaks directly to a Christian view of marital
sexuality. In traditional marriage, sex is viewed as a right to pleasure for the
man but as a duty to be endured by the woman. In modern marriage, sex tends
to be self-centered, with the emphasis placed on each individual’s right to
personal pleasure. There is much to be said for the idea that married people
are to be fulfilled sexually, but when this becomes the dominant emphasis,
the relationship suffers and the real meaning of sexuality is lost.

The biblical response emphasizes person-centered, affectionate sex in
marriage. Scripture advocates mutual pleasure and mutual benefit. This
involves a mutual decision to give and receive in love. First Corinthians
7:3–4 clearly states that our bodies are for each other as the ultimate
expression of ourselves to each other.

The security that stems from a commitment to the marriage relationship
provides an atmosphere of freedom and willingness to learn together through
the sexual expression of love. Spouses learn to mesh their lives as sexual
persons in the security of relationship commitment. The biblical ideal, then,
is much more than personal sexual pleasure or one spouse submitting to the
other out of commitment to the institution of marriage. It is relating to each
other on all levels: physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual. The scriptural
concept of one flesh entails a mutual commitment to one’s mate, the
relationship, and the institution of marriage.

Relevant to covenant commitment is the finding by Ellison et al.
(2011, 404) that although general religiousness “bears a weak relationship to
marital outcome—sanctification strongly predicts desirable marital
outcome . . . [and] appears to buffer the deleterious effects of financial and
general stress on marital quality.” We would propose that couples who
define their marriage as a sacred relational union—what we call a covenant
relationship or marriage—relate to each other in sanctified and sanctifying
ways such as “going the second mile” when it comes to handling various

marital stressors. Likewise, in their study of marriages Day and Acock
(2013) report a positive association between couple well-being and the
relational virtues of commitment and sacrifice.

Adaptability
In traditional marriage, roles are inflexibly segregated. The husband usually
assumes the role of working outside the home, and the wife assumes the role
of homemaking and caring for the children. Most people who argue for
separation in marital roles are not aware of how recent this phenomenon is.
Until the Industrial Revolution, 90 percent of all families lived on farms, and
even as late as one hundred years ago, two-thirds of all families in the United
States did so. That the marital roles were far from segregated will be no
surprise to anyone who has lived on a farm. Whereas some kinds of work
were designated as the man’s or the woman’s province, both husbands and
wives performed manual labor on the farm, and both shared the
responsibility in raising their children.

The Industrial Revolution transformed the nature of the family and
economy, which had a profound effect on familial roles (Frederick and
Dunbar 2019). Industrialization fostered the view that the family is a separate
sphere from work and that men could earn enough money so that the wife
would not have to work outside the home. These separate spheres of work
and family life directly led to the segregation in marital roles developed in
the urban family, where home life and work life are divided. In this type of
family, the husband works outside the home, leaving childcare to the wife.
One would be hard-pressed to argue, on the basis of either historical or
biblical evidence, that woman’s place is in the home and that man’s place is
in the business world outside the home.

The modern view that spouses can take on any role in marriage in many
ways is refreshing, yet at the same time, undifferentiated roles may result in
chaos or conflict about what will get done and who will assume a given
responsibility. In the modern world, who does what is often worked out
according to a system of social exchange. This system is based on the simple
assumption that all relationships involve costs and rewards. What one gives
to a relationship is experienced as a cost, and what one receives is
experienced as a reward. Marriages thrive when the rewards outweigh the
costs for each partner. As long as one gets more than or as much as one gives,

there is reason to stay married. The concept of social exchange can be stated
as a formula: rewards minus costs equals profit.

Let’s imagine a couple trying to decide who will cook the evening meal.
The conversation may begin with the husband suggesting that his wife cook,
pointing out that he has had a hard day at the office and that he cooked the
previous night. The wife may respond that she has had an equally hard day at
work and that she cooked dinner three out of the last four evenings. The
husband may then agree that he will cook if she cleans up, washes the dishes,
and takes out the garbage. The point here is that this arrangement demands
constant bargaining and negotiating skills. Each partner keeps a running tally
of rewards and cost and they are constantly calculating the profit margins.
Disaster looms around the corner when roles are not agreed on beforehand.

We suggest that roles be clearly defined but interchangeable in terms of
gender and subject to change (with the obvious exception of biologically
determined roles like childbearing). In the case of segregated roles based on
a traditional view of marriage, tasks are predetermined according to gender,
with no room for change. In modern marriages, roles are often undetermined.
Determining roles through mutual agreement opens up creative possibilities
for husbands and wives to serve each other through their roles. They are
committed together in cooperative efforts to take on certain tasks of daily
living. They agree to periodically review how things are going so that they
can make changes when necessary in order to maximize their relationship
profit.

Although no Bible verses deal explicitly with marital roles, Scripture does
teach that everything ought to be done with a sense of order and harmony.
Assigning tasks on the basis of a person’s interests, skills, and availability is
a loving way to work out marital roles. It also respects differences and
recognizes the unique talents of each spouse and his or her special
contribution to the marriage.

Of the various tasks to be performed, parenting is without question one of
the most crucial. In the traditional family, the mother automatically does most
parenting and caregiving. Unfortunately, this leads to the neglect of fathering,
a major problem in our society today. In the traditional family, the distinct
division of gender roles and responsibilities leaves the emotional nurture to
wives and economic development to husbands. Modern families remove the
role of economic training from families and foster the male being removed
from the family as he is breadwinning. Both of these approaches to fathering

contribute to fatherlessness. In modern marriages, parenting roles and
responsibilities may be avoided or excused because of overinvolvement in
work and extracurricular roles, to the detriment of parenting. These parents
should increasingly prioritize the needs of children over and against their
career goals. Single- and dual-earner parents often rely on excellent
childcare facilities to fill in for them while they are bringing in the income.

In a biblical marriage, both the mother and the father are actively involved
in the parenting process. There is no biblical evidence that would lead one to
believe that a mother’s involvement with children is more important than a
father’s involvement. Scripture refers to the responsibility of both parents, as
in Ephesians 6:1–4: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is
right. ‘Honor your father and mother.’ . . . And, fathers, do not provoke your
children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the
Lord.” Coparenting seems especially critical in our day and age, as the lack
of effective fathering often relates to breakdown in the family system
(Lindsey, Caldera, and Colwell 2005) and many other social ills (Lamb
2017).

In the traditional marriage, roles are stilted and rigidly defined. There is
very little flexibility as to how they may be performed. In the modern
marriage, expectations are so loose that marital roles can be truly lacking.
Without any set procedures to bring stability to these roles, the marriage
relationship lacks integrity. The biblical marriage has flexible and
interchangeable roles as each occasion calls forth what is needed. These
roles are intended to foster authentic Christian character, leading us to
resemble Christ and his work in the world.

Since change can be expected throughout the cycles of family life, it is
vital that spouses be flexible and adaptable. Married life and family life are
at their best when they are neither predetermined nor undetermined but
provide structured security. This structured security allows spouses and
family members to experience the exciting process of each member working
for the good of the whole. Family members are empowered to serve others in
collaborative efforts.

Leadership and Decision-Making
Authority in marriage is persistently a controversial issue among Christians.
Until very recent times, authority in marriage exclusively meant a strong male

headship approach. Christians and non-Christians alike have adhered to the
idea that the husband is to be the head of the home, whereas the wife is
expected to submit to her husband. Recently in Christian circles, a renewed
philosophy of authority has emerged involving mutual submission. The
husband is challenged to love, serve, and submit to his wife, just as Christ
gave his life for the church. Paul argues that family authority should be based
on the model of Christ and the church. Ephesians 5:21 reads, “Submit to one
another out of reverence for Christ” (NIV), which prefaces perhaps the most
famous passage regarding family authority (5:21–33). Everything that
follows—husband-wife dynamics, parent-children relationships, and even
master-slave roles—is based in the context of the church’s submission to the
authority of Christ.

Modern marriages are opposed to the traditional male headship
arrangement and emphasize individual spousal power in marriage. While this
may present power dilemmas for spouses, it enhances equality, freedom, and
personal power. In particular, the postmodern perspective recognizes that
there are a variety of authority styles, determined mainly by cultural values,
and, therefore, not just “one” way to define authority in marriage. Each
couple, considering their generational and culture values, will determine
authority issues accordingly.

The system of social exchange plays an integral part in dealing with
personal power struggles in modern marriage. The focus is on the quid pro
quo notion of getting something for something—“if you scratch my back, I’ll
scratch yours.” Spouses are satisfied as long as everything comes out equal
and neither partner perceives things as unfair. However, it is hard to define
equal, and therefore authority and decision-making power may cause
conflict.

Under a system of social exchange, negotiation is the best way to deal with
conflict. Each partner tries to maximize the returns on his or her investments
in the marriage. Accordingly, research shows that in this system, wives who
work outside the home have greater power in the marriage relationship than
wives who do not. The money earned can be converted into power, thus
elevating the authority of the wife in the marriage.

It should be noted that the system of social exchange is built on an
assumption about humans that is consistent with Christian thought—namely,
that people are basically self-centered by nature. In reality, social exchange
is a fairly good model to describe how many marriages operate. We would,

however, question the assumption that fighting for your own rights without
regard for a partner is ideal. The Christian worldview, by contrast, values
unselfish giving, mutual exchange, and even going beyond what is expected.
The goal is not to maintain power over one’s partner but to empower and be
empowered through the relationship.

Authority in Christian, biblical marriage includes dual submission to the
lordship of Jesus Christ and to each other. The chain-of-command view that a
wife should submit to her husband, who in turn should submit to God, is
popular in some Christian circles. This faulty authoritarian persuasion fails
to take into account the great news of the New Testament promotion of mutual
love, joyful service, and reciprocal submission.

Ephesians 5:25 reads, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved
the church and gave himself up for her.” From this, it is clear that headship is
to be understood not in the hierarchical sense of the husband’s lording it over
his wife but rather as taking the role of a suffering servant who gives himself
out of his love. Christ’s example as a compassionate servant who gave his
life for his bride, the church, is the model of how the husband is to be a
source for his marriage. Wives too are called to this same self-giving,
suffering-servant role. Mutual submissiveness, then, is the overriding
message of Ephesians 5.

In place of mutual submissiveness, the biblical marriage is based on the
concept of mutual regard. That is to say, the biblical view is for marital love
to regard the other as one would want to be regarded. This mutual regard
emphasizes empowering the other to submit to Christ in discipleship and
sacrifice. One way to conceptualize this is the idea of Christ as mediator.
Christ mediates one’s relationship to others (Bonhoeffer 1995)—in this case,
the spouse. When one is a Christian, he or she experiences a separation from
the world and an immediacy with Christ: “Although the direct way to our
neighbor is barred, [Christians] now find the new and only real way to him—
the way which passes through the Mediator [Christ]” (Bonhoeffer 1995,
100). In a Christian marriage, each interaction, each engagement between the
spouses, expresses Christ to the other. This mediation of Christ challenges
each partner to become more like Jesus in love and self-sacrifice. Stanley et
al. (2006, 289) report that sacrificial attitudes were found to predict the
maintenance of relationship adjustment over time.

At times one partner may be required to give much more than an equal
share to the marriage. God calls both spouses to give generously for the sake

of the other when sickness or some other circumstance makes it difficult for
one to give much at that time. Putting the interests of the spouse first out of
regard for his or her needs is the extraordinary way of the cross.

Communication
In the traditional marriage, there is little need for verbal communication.
What communication exists tends to take the form of pronouncements—
talking at, rather than with, one’s spouse. The husband as head of the
marriage legislates without consulting his wife. When conflicts or delicate
matters arise, they are often dealt with by sidestepping the issue. Verbal
communication is de-emphasized because meeting socio-emotional and
companionship needs is not considered a major part of marriage. Marriage is
regarded as an institutional arrangement that provides for economic needs
and social status.

Communication in the modern marriage can be characterized as a series of
declarations and demands that each spouse makes to the other. When
conflicts arise, confrontation is the way to get one’s needs and
disappointments out on the table. The motto is “Openly express what you
need from your mate.” While such openness can be refreshing when
compared to the traditional pattern, a combative posture and insistence on
satisfying personal needs will obviously obstruct a sensitive caring for the
other. Making aggressive demands, such as “I want my needs met regardless
of how you are affected,” results in counterdemands that ultimately lead to a
stalemate.

In a biblical marriage, the partners communicate by expressing themselves
in an open manner. When one talks, the other listens. They care about what is
best for their partner. Differences are dealt with by respecting each other’s
needs and desires. They make an effort to understand each other’s point of
view and to respond accordingly. There is an attitude of submission and a
willingness to consider giving up one’s own needs and desires for the sake of
the other and the relationship. Both spouses work together to seek solutions
through mutual and reciprocal decision-making.

Dual-Earner Marriage

Dual-earner couples bring a new dimension to marriage and parenting roles
in today’s world (Bianchi and Milkie 2010). Based on data from 2019, half
of all couples are dual career or dual earner. The rate of dual-earner families
with children has risen to 63 percent. Balancing career and family
obligations creates unique challenges for dual-career couples (Su 2019).
Economic necessity leaves many families little choice but for both parents to
work outside the home. As they consider what is in the best interest of
everyone concerned, they must decide whether both the husband and the wife
should work. If a couple decides that they will both work outside the home,
then the question is how to accomplish this in the most satisfactory way. In a
recent study, husbands with more traditional gender-role ideology had lower
marital satisfaction if their wives had higher levels of work and family role
conflicts (Minnotte, Minnotte, and Pedersen 2013). Additionally, husbands’
gender ideology also affected wives’ marital satisfaction, while wives’
gender-role ideologies had no effect on either spouse’s marital satisfaction.

The key to finding the right balance is learning how to manage work and
family so that neither impinges on the other in disruptive ways. We believe
that the working couple must proactively establish and maintain a balance
between work and family. The couple will be most successful in coming up
with a suitable arrangement if they (1) mutually contribute unconditional
love, grace, empowerment, and intimacy to their relationship; (2) have an
extra dose of cohesion and adaptability; (3) agree on priorities, recognizing
what is essential and what is nonessential in their family and work roles; and
(4) identify resources within themselves, their marriage, the family, and the
wider community to help them meet the demands of their dual roles.

In dealing with work and family conflict, two key dimensions are needed
(Frederick and Dunbar 2019). First, role salience is critical. Dual-career
couples need to acknowledge that both work and family demands are
relatively pressing at a given time. Within a biblical view of marriage, each
spouse acknowledges the importance of these demands as well as the
individual’s need to fulfill these demands. This means that personal identity
as both a spouse and a career holder is honored. Discernment, based partly
on this personal-identity perspective, enables each spouse to evaluate the
actual salience of each sphere’s demands.

Role satisfaction is the second dimension needed in balancing work and
family conflict. Each partner takes satisfaction in the many or multiple roles
they play in life. One’s overall satisfaction as a person is not subsumed in

either being a spouse or holding a career. One’s ultimate satisfaction is being
a child of God based on Christ’s saving work. Recall the words spoken at
Jesus’s baptism: “And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son;
with you I am well pleased’” (Mark 1:11). These words are spoken of each
Christian as we are adopted into the family of God via Christ. This is the
basis of our ultimate identity, which is expressed as we fulfill our other
callings as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and earners. As we
experience satisfaction in one role, the crossover effect builds endurance for
challenges in another role.

A comparison of dual-earner couples from 1970 to 2001 indicates that the
proportion of income contributed by wives relative to husbands has steadily
increased (Raley, Mattingly, and Bianchi 2006). It is a legitimate question
whether a husband’s contribution to housework and parenting tasks has
correspondingly increased. Some research notes a startling imbalance in
dual-earner marriages, as wives continue to do the majority of housework.
Those husbands who do contribute describe themselves as “helping out.” It
appears there is a dire need for dual-earning husbands to not only increase
their contribution to home and parenting tasks but also to change their idea of
being a helper to taking an active leadership role in parenting.

There are major benefits for both men and women in a dual-earner
marriage in which responsibilities are equally shared. The incorporation of
relational skills with household tasks further endears men to their families.
An important aspect for the man is the knowledge that his intentional choice
to be involved as a father leads to validation and appreciation. Also, when
the wife relaxes her household standards and parenting expectations, it is
much more inviting for the husband to willingly join in. Through the sharing
of roles, the wife is not only validated in her work role but more fulfilled in
her marriage and her parenting role.

A hard lesson for all dual-earner couples to learn is that they can’t do
everything! In prioritizing, they must learn to do a “good enough” job. Given
the economics of living in the United States, more and more couples are the
dual-career type. One reason is that marriage is increasingly delayed due to
educational demands and work. Each spouse then maintains their previous
commitments, including work, after marrying. Research suggests that work-
family conflict is more impactful for single-earner families than dual-career
families (Fellows et al. 2016). One important factor for dual-career couples

is having social support and a sense of community. They need all the support
they can get as they work toward a satisfying and meaningful family life.

A significant part of those family-friendly environments involves the
provision of high-quality childcare centers. Many churches are offering such
services to their community, meeting a need for many dual-earner parents. An
increasing number of young children spend some of their time in day care.
We would recommend that parents who send their children to childcare
ensure a high degree of values alignment between the parents and the day-
care provider. Parents must make every effort to secure high-quality day care
as well as be alert to the unique needs of the child in choosing a facility. The
relationship established between the parent and the day-care staff is crucial.
Children tend to thrive when they have a secure attachment to their parents
and their parents appreciate the special bond between their child and the
day-care worker. Parents and caregivers who are dedicated to staying highly
involved in their children’s lives will establish mutual trust and work toward
the best interest of each child. An important benefit is the perspective that
well-trained and experienced teachers have to offer when it comes to
developmental issues, routines, discipline, and care.

The Mindset at the Center of Christian Marriage
At the very heart of marriage is the willingness of spouses to let go of their
personal agendas so that they can truly listen to what their partners are
saying. Philippians 2 describes Christ as emptying himself and taking the
form of a servant. Kenosis, or emptying, as described in this passage is key
to our view of marriage.

It is really a matter of the attitude or mindset of grace and empowerment
(Phil. 2:5); this humble posture is characterized by servanthood and keeps
relationships and the best interest of others as a precious priority. When both
spouses willingly lay down their own interests for the sake of the other, it
will organically be a mutual and reciprocal process. The meaning of
marriage as mutual edification and ultimately a crucible for sanctification
means that each partner is continually challenged to develop the mindset of
Christ described in Philippians 2. One’s covenant-keeping entails (1) the
expression of grace as both partners need forgiveness; (2) mutual
empowerment as each partner bears one another’s burdens; and
(3) deepening intimacy throughout the process.

We should not overlook the Jewish and Eastern traditions that see
marriage as a gift for the community as well as for the couple. The family is
the foundation of strong societies, and supportive communities beget strong
families. It is wise to move beyond our individualistic bias and affirm that
the bond of marriage is strengthened when a couple invites a supportive
group of people to share in their commitment to their marriage and family
life.

In this chapter we have sought to apply biblical principles of relationality
to marriage. A three-year longitudinal study of a community sample of 354
married couples by Day and Acock (2013) indicates that marital well-being
and religiousness (church attendance, religious practices, belief in God) is
mediated by relational virtue and equality. Specifically, not only do religious
activities contribute to marital well-being, but religiousness also heightens
the relational virtues of forgiveness, commitment, and sacrifice. These
relationship virtues in turn contribute to marital well-being.

PART 3

The Expansion
of Family Life

Parenting and Beyond

In this section we move beyond the marriage relationship to parent-child
relationships. A strong marital relationship serves as the secure foundation,
while children are the building blocks through which the family structure
changes during each life stage. It is a universal truth that the couple
experiences a dramatic change when children enter—as well as when they
exit—the family. In fact, marital adjustment has been found to be at its highest
just before the birth of the first child and continues to decline until the last
child leaves home (Twenge, Campbell, and Foster 2003). Making the
necessary adjustments from the dyad to the triad can be relatively smooth for
some couples, whereas the transition to parenthood is a trying time for
others.

Summarizing twenty-first-century research, Smock (2010) notes that the
“decoupling of marriage and childbearing” draws attention to the fact that
there are many pathways to parenthood. Remarking on these demographic
changes, Cherlin (2010) found that in 1950 only 4 percent of all children
were born outside of marriage, but by 2007, nearly 40 percent of all children
were born outside of marriage. Special consideration needs to be given to
each unique situation when responding to the particular needs of that family.

Parenting is more difficult than most ever imagine it to be! Building
relationships with our children continues to be one of the most rewarding and

challenging experiences of a lifetime. It brings both harmony and disharmony
to the marriage relationship. Children are also experiencing greater levels of
stress and access to information and situations that were unthinkable in
previous generations. Parents are facing these pressures external to the
family while they try to support the positive development of their offspring.

A major adjustment also occurs during the later stages of family life when
adult children leave home (or boomerang back) or when the care of elderly
parents brings other kinds of stressors to the couple. Like any sound group,
the family must have not only a well-organized structure to function
effectively but also one flexible enough to survive the twists and turns of life.
The following chapters present some blueprints for successful family living.

Chapter 6 introduces a model of Christian parenting that empowers
children to become competent, mature, responsible adults. We look at the
pros and cons of some common parenting styles and then offer a biblical
model that we believe incorporates the best of these styles. We propose that
as children mature, parents must also grow so that there is mutual
empowerment and transformation.

In chapter 7, we examine the life of the child from the perspective of
several developmental theories. We evaluate how these theories comport
with the Christian view of human personhood and indicate important aspects
in parenting young children. A primary concern in this discussion is the
matter of empowerment.

The topic of chapter 8 is family spirituality. We use this umbrella term to
represent the role of the family in inculcating values, morals, beliefs, and
religious faith within children.

Chapter 9 deals with the stresses and strains that can develop when
adolescence and midlife occur simultaneously. Important to this discussion is
the origin and impact of adolescence in modern/postmodern society. Crisis
often accompanies these life stages of adolescence and midlife, resulting in a
serious clash between the generations.

Finally, in chapter 10 we discuss the dynamics of the family in later life.
This begins with the launching of adolescent children, an ambivalent time of
life for both parents and children. Parents struggle to let go, while children
seek freedom and yet fear leaving the security of their homes. Following this
is the postlaunching stage, when parents move into the so-called sandwich
generation. At this time, parents feel the squeeze of dealing with both adult
children and elderly family members who are physically, emotionally, and/or

financially dependent on them. This period of family life involves losses of
many kinds, as well as gains reaped from meeting the challenges of changing
relationships.

6

Parenting
The Process of Relationship

Empowerment

A metaphor of what it means to be a child in contemporary society will help
us understand how parents provide empowerment to their offspring. Hyde,
Yust, and Ota (2010) offer the metaphor of children as active agents. From
birth, children are actively engaging and learning from their parents and their
environments. Further, children as agents illuminates how children, in limited
yet emerging ways, are developing shared meaning-making systems with
their parents. Childhood agency develops as children’s bodies and brains
grow and they attain more and more competencies.

In most societies, parents simply expect their children to grow up to be
normal, healthy adults—no special techniques are deemed necessary. In our
modern/postmodern society, however, parents are conditioned to believe just
the opposite—we presume we need the help of experts to tell us how to be
successful. Reliance on education and experts in diverse fields has subverted
the premodern view of parenting. Parents look to websites, pediatricians,
and other mental health professionals to identify the optimal path for
parenting. This sometimes reduces parents to a state of fear—afraid that they
may do something that will have a lasting harmful effect on their children. In
this psychologically sophisticated world, we have developed a cult of the
expert, keeping our eyes set for authoritative opinion and our ears attuned to
the latest wisdom on parenting. Living as we do in a child-oriented society,
we are extremely concerned about the parenting role.

One issue here is the transformation of the meaning of parenting. In
premodern cultures, the main role of parents was to teach children the family
trade. If a child was born to a farmer or blacksmith, the parents would teach

the child the skills essential to participate in that business. Further, this
would teach children their roles in the community. For modern and
postmodern parents, the emphasis is on meeting the needs of children to
enhance their flourishing. The modern and postmodern method for ensuring a
child’s flourishing is to engage them in many activities outside the home.
When it was time for Tom’s son Nathaniel to attend preschool at the age of
three, there was a huge amount of social pressure to decide which was the
perfect day care center based on educational outcomes and pedagogy! When
the open enrollment day arrived, we went to line up for registration at 5:00
a.m., and we were dismayed to see that there were already fifteen parents
ahead of us in line. For preschool day care! The point here is that these types
of decisions are assumed to have a profound effect on a child’s well-being—
that somehow this single choice would determine the outcomes of
Nathaniel’s life.

It is certainly helpful for parents to gain a solid understanding of the
biological, psychological, and social development of children so that they
have realistic, “age-appropriate” expectations. But in the long run, they need
to feel confident in themselves as they nurture, discipline, guide, and relate to
their own children. Together, husband and wife must be coleaders in
deciding what is best for their children. This develops as they integrate
expert knowledge with the personal knowledge that comes from building a
secure relationship with their unique children and empowering them to be all
they can be.

As contributors to the growing body of expert opinion, we hasten to point
out that our quarrel is not with expert opinion but rather with the dogmatism
under which some advice is given. We advocate informing parents about
child development and parenting methods as well as encouraging them to
critically analyze the information and compare it with biblical principles.
Parenting is inherently a values-based process. Parents need to listen to and
engage with expert advice and opinions and ultimately decide for themselves
if and how to apply these opinions in their families. One’s identity as a
partner and parent will inform how one parents his or her offspring. This
identity is crucial because the family is their family, and they will inculcate
this meaning and identity in their children. Effective parenting must always
account for the particular needs of each child and the family as a whole,
incorporating or discarding ideas accordingly.

Various New Testament passages describe the Christian life as growth
from spiritual infancy to maturity. Theologically, this process is called
sanctification, and the goal is becoming more Christlike. The new believer
starts as an infant and eventually grows up in Christ. One moves from a state
of dependency—in which others model, teach, and disciple—to a mature
walk with God. The book of Hebrews describes how new believers need
spiritual “milk” like a baby does, and the expectation is that someday they
will receive solid food as a mature Christian (Heb. 5:11–14). As this growth
occurs, the believer begins to disciple others. Although the believer is
always dependent on God and the Holy Spirit in that growth process, there is
also a natural progression in maturity, leading the believer to be used by God
to serve and minister to others.

The human developmental process encompasses a similar progression
from dependency and infancy toward maturity and adulthood. Maturity is
often defined as self-sufficiency and independence from one’s parents. Most
developmental theorists, however, hold that maturity involves more than
independence; it entails the capacity to contribute in a positive and
constructive way to the good of others. For example, Erik Erikson (E.
Erikson 1980; J. Erikson 1997) identifies the virtue of care as the hallmark of
adult identity development. In adulthood, the resolution of the struggle
between generativity and despair is one of the lengthiest stages. In this stage,
individuals identify, develop, and maintain commitments to career, family,
and community. These commitments and behavior result in care. However,
people may experience regret or lack of concern about career and family,
experiencing stagnation. As Donald Capps (2000, 2008) describes it,
stagnation results in acedia, which is apathy or a profound experience of
disinterest in and inability for empathy. This is a spiritual malaise. The
spiritual cure for this is renewing one’s spirit and understanding one’s
purpose. This means care is essential to Christian development.

The New Testament describes empowerment as the building up of one
another in the Christian faith. It involves loving and serving others and
helping them mature spiritually. This description is consistent with the
social-science literature regarding the type of parenting that helps children
mature. The parenting model we present in this chapter focuses on the parent-
child relationship. Each parent and each child is developing and maturing
throughout the entire process. We believe that our model, which emphasizes
empowering children to maturity, is a needed alternative to models that

emphasize control and coercive power. Our model is based on engendering
hope and growth in parents and children as they journey together toward
maturity.

Speaking for a moment from our personal experience as parents and
grandparents rather than as experts, we would challenge parents to
concentrate less on the technique of good parenting and more on the process
of being a parent. Good parenting is a matter of interacting with our children
day in and day out. It is these day-to-day experiences that build our
relationships with them. The covenantal bond between spouses forms the
basis for the covenantal bond with the children, securing children and parents
together. Children experience the truth that their parents are with them and for
them, which provides security even when correction and discipline are
needed. Even though the suggestions that follow offer useful guidelines that
contribute to an understanding of the child-rearing process, parents can
function more freely and openly in their role if they are simply willing to be
more genuine with their children.

The Basic Components of Parenting Styles
Now that we have dispelled the notion that there is one correct way to parent
children, we will investigate what the social-science literature says about
various parenting styles. Parents and other primary caretakers have a
significant impact on children’s emotional, social, cognitive, and spiritual
development. While some parenting styles encourage growth and
empowerment, others hinder or block growth either by fostering dependency
or by expecting premature self-reliance. Before we analyze these various
styles, it will be helpful to examine some of the components that go into them
—namely, approaches to discipline and types of leadership.

Approaches to Discipline
Early research into parent-child relationships distinguished between

permissive and restrictive parenting. Proponents of permissive parenting,
while not denying the need for discipline, stressed that a child’s greatest need
is for warmth and security. The restrictive school of thought, while not
rejecting parental affection, emphasized that a child’s greatest need is for
discipline, responsibility, and self-control.

Recent literature has taken the same approach but describes the two main
dimensions of parenting in terms of responsiveness and demandingness
(Carlo et al. 2018). Responsiveness focuses on how parents are engaged
emotionally with children’s experiences and expressions of feelings. Highly
responsive parents tend to be more accepting of the children’s actions and
feelings and less punitive. Demandingness describes parents who have
higher behavioral expectations for their children and consistent enforcement
of those standards and expectations. Some of the research on parenting and
parenting styles also uses terms like support and control: Support is defined
as making the child feel comfortable in the presence of the parent and giving
the child a sense of acceptance and approval as a person. Control is defined
as directing the child to behave in a manner desirable to the parents.
Examples of control include giving guidelines and setting limits.

Based on the parental support and control dimensions, Diana Baumrind
(1996, 2005) identifies three types of parents—authoritative, authoritarian,
and permissive—each of which differs in effectiveness in eliciting
obedience and responsibility in a child’s moral/character development. A
number of studies have found that a combination of high levels of support and
control—authoritative parenting—is most conducive to developing
competency and mental and behavioral health in children and adolescents
(Akcinar and Baydar 2014; Larzelere et al. 2013; Pinquart 2017). An
interesting finding here is that authoritative parenting is associated with
better educational outcomes for children, among other things (Majumder
2016). The authoritarian style (low support and high control) produces
children who respect authority but who show little independence and only
moderate social competence. Permissive parenting (high support and low
control) tends to produce children who lack both social competence and
interdependence.

It is important to incorporate both dimensions into the parents’ style.
Children need both nurturing and emotional support and clear expectations
and parameters. As parents gain more experience and learn more parenting
tools, they begin building their parenting toolbox. We generally encourage
more gentle and supportive parenting strategies with children. As behavior
escalates, even when parents have been consistent in setting boundaries, they
may need to be firmer and more creative in establishing consequences for
misbehavior.

Disciplining children takes time, patience, and wisdom. Parents who
employ corporal punishment as the primary or even exclusive method of
discipline are admitting bankruptcy in disciplinary approaches,
demonstrating an inability to be creative and effective. Although coercive
punishment does work when parents are attempting to eliminate certain
behaviors, it also teaches children that force is what counts. Consistent use of
physical punishment eventually leads to dominating or imposing power. This
may lead children to retaliate or try to get even. An effective parent wins a
child’s cooperation by leading rather than coercing.

A comprehensive study of African American, European American, and
Hispanic children examined the relationship between physical discipline,
emotional support, and behavior problems in children. It was found that
parental spanking increased the level of problem behavior in the child over
time, but only when maternal emotional support was low. Additionally,
corporal punishment was associated with higher degrees of parental
frustration regarding children’s misbehavior (Irons et al. 2018). Parental
support is a key factor in how children respond to spanking. The social-
science evidence is becoming more and more conclusive about the overall
negative effects of corporal punishment (Larzelere et al. 2010; Gershoff and
Grogan-Kaylor 2016). We strongly discourage using physical force with
children since there are so many other effective ways of discipline.

Unfortunately, the terms discipline and punishment are often confused in
our society. Some Christians defend physical punishment based on verses
such as Proverbs 13:24: “Those who spare the rod hate their children.”
However, in applying that verse, it is important to consider how the rod was
used in the pastoral culture of Old Testament times. It was an instrument to
guide ignorant sheep, not a means of beating them into submission. Note how
the verse concludes: “But those who love them are diligent to discipline
them.” Discipline is instructive and restorative, used to correct and teach
appropriate behaviors. The heart of discipline is to educate children in the
proper path.

It is important to recognize that child-rearing patterns considered
authoritarian in Western culture might be viewed differently in other cultures.
What seems to make for the best disciplinary parenting practice is the
certainty or consistency of the practice as opposed to its severity. For
example, Asian families frequently exert coercive control because of the

demands for high achievement and conformity in the culture. Children in
these homes tend to adopt their parents’ family and societal values.

The evidence suggests that corporal punishment and physical abuse tend
toward more negative child outcomes, and there is only a slight difference in
the size of this effect between abuse and physical punishment (Gershoff and
Grogan-Kaylor 2016). Continued exposure to corporal punishment is
associated with increased adult antisocial behavior, lower educational
outcomes, and maladjustment (Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor 2016; McKinney,
Morse, and Pastuszak 2016).

Physical punishment leads to disempowerment, whereas natural and
logical consequences lead to empowerment. Punishment is ultimately
discouraging to a child. Children who are physically punished are receiving
a severe consequence for their action, but there tends to be little instruction
or guidance for improvement. Physical punishment emphasizes that the
parents are in control of the environment, which reduces a sense of personal
agency. The best way to empower children is to have them face the
consequences of their behavior and hold them responsible for their actions in
a consistent, firm, and loving manner. Recognition of the consequences of
one’s behavior leads to internal control, whereas punishment focuses on
external means.

Logical and natural consequences serve to stimulate children’s creative
responses. Parents who fail to honor and respect their children will find that
their children fail to honor and respect them. The traits of an effective parent
include wisdom, vision, a sense of humor, patience, encouragement, and
good judgment, not the exercise of superior power. Using everyday situations
to teach consequences promotes the child’s self-confidence, ability to take
others into account, and responsibility for one’s own behavior.

In our metaphor of children as agents who are able to influence and engage
their social environments, increasing self-regulation is key. Parents have a
crucial role in providing emotional support for their children—this is the
responsiveness dimension we discussed. Parents must also provide
consistent boundaries or standards, which reflect the demanding side of
parenting. Erring on the side of permissiveness or responsiveness fosters
adults who have difficulty managing their emotions and delaying
gratification. Erring on the side of demandingness results in rigid, distant,
and domineering adults who have difficulty connecting emotionally with
others.

Types of Leadership
Building on research about leadership and small groups, we suggest that

empowered parenting involves two different types of leadership skills (J. K.
Balswick et al. 2003): instrumental and socio-emotional. Instrumental
leadership is task oriented, focusing on the things that need to be
accomplished in the group. Such leadership organizes activities, sets goals,
and generally keeps the group focused on accomplishing those goals. Socio-
emotional leadership, by contrast, is person oriented and concentrates on
maintaining a healthy relationship among group members. Research indicates
that both types of leadership skills are necessary if small groups are to
function well. Interestingly enough, it has also been discovered that the two
types of skills are rarely found in the same individual.

The studies on instrumental and socio-emotional leadership in small
groups apply to the family as well. Instrumental parenting aims at inculcating
beliefs, values, and attitudes. It involves teaching children what they must
know and how they must behave to be in good standing within the family.
Socio-emotional parenting attends to the emotional nature of the relationship
between parents and children. Whereas instrumental parenting focuses on
tasks and content, socio-emotional parenting focuses on the affective bonding
between parent and child (Baumrind 1996).

Alternative Parenting Styles
Having briefly defined parental support and control as well as the
instrumental and socio-emotional aspects of parenting, we are ready to
combine these two areas to discuss alternative styles of parenting and their
effects on children. We will consider various instrumental styles and then
several socio-emotional approaches.

Instrumental Parenting
Figure 6 represents the four styles of instrumental parenting. Two

dimensions are involved: action and content. Parenting styles can be
classified as either high or low in action. That is, some parents engage in and
thus demonstrate the type of behavior they want their children to adopt; other
parents make no such effort. Parenting styles can also be either high or low in
content. Some parents verbally communicate through a rich elaboration of

rules, norms, values, beliefs, and ideology; others simply do not bother to
teach their children.

NEGLECTFUL

Parenting that is low in both action and content is the neglectful style.
Proper behavior is neither displayed nor taught. Because the parents give no
direction verbally or otherwise, the children are on their own to latch on to
any social norm or form of behavior. The parent who is neglectful in
instrumental parenting is also likely to be neglectful in socio-emotional
parenting. This style leaves much to be desired, since the children lack good
supportive care and must learn by trial and error to fend for themselves.

TEACHING

Parenting that is low in action and high in content is the teaching style.
The parent, in effect, says to the child, “Do as I say but don’t look to my
behavior as a model.” Children in such a situation feel that they are being

preached at. Though this style may be effective in bringing about the desired
behavior in children, it may also breed disrespect for the parents, whose
words do not match their lives. As children mature, they become increasingly
sensitive to any form of contradictory behavior in their parents. The typical
teenager is quick to point out such inconsistency.

Despite its shortcomings, the teaching style is better than the neglectful
style. The teaching style becomes a problem for children, however, when the
parents’ teaching is inconsistent with their behavior. It may be that the
parents do not intentionally cause this confusion if they truly believe in and
desire to live up to the standards they enunciate but fail to do so.

MODELING

Parenting that is high in action and low in content is the modeling style. It
also is only partially effective in that a child must rely entirely on observing
the behavior of parents to gain a system of values, norms, and beliefs.
Modeling does have some advantage over the teaching style, however. While
the teaching style lacks behavior to back it up, the modeling style offers the
behavior (but with little or no explanation of the values behind it). The old
adage that what children learn is “caught rather than taught” applies here, and
parents will find that modeling is an effective way to inculcate values and
desired behavior in their children. Recent research has verified that
modeling does have positive benefits (e.g., Kjøbli et al. 2013).

DISCIPLING

Parenting that is high in both action and content is discipling. This style is
complete in that parents teach their children by word and by deed. It is
curious, however, that while the concept of discipling is popular in the
contemporary church, it is rarely used to refer to parental training. The term
discipline, remember, is related to the word disciple, which refers to one
who accepts certain ideas or values and leads or guides others to accept
them as well. Discipling, then, is a system of giving positive guidance to
children.

Socio-emotional Parenting
An important aspect of socio-emotional parenting focuses on the

attachment quality of the relationship between parents and children. A

resource we highly recommend for parents of young children is the work of
Dan Siegel and Tina Payne Bryson. Based on attachment science and an
understanding of a child’s brain, The Power of Showing Up: How Parental
Presence Shapes Who Our Kids Become and How Their Brains Get Wired
(2020) offers the following building blocks (the four S’s) of healthy
development: safe, providing a place of safe harbor; seen, paying attention to
positive and negative emotions; soothed, being attentive to the hard things
they experience and teaching coping skills; and secure, providing faithful,
ongoing, trustworthy presence. Siegel and Bryson emphasize the significance
of parents attuning to children’s experiences so that their children experience
being felt and known. These experiences emphasize how children respond
when one or both of their parents demonstrate affective attunement. That is,
children experience a sense of validation when a caregiver responds in a
manner that demonstrates attunement. One important way for parents to attune
is to remain curious about what their children’s behavior is communicating
and respond to who they really are, not what parents want them to be.

Repeated experiences of positive relational attachment build children’s
brains to regulate and thrive. Effective and enduring mental health results
when parents teach children how to tolerate the inevitable stress and
distraction of their young lives through insight, empathy, and emotional and
bodily regulation. This model comports well with covenant, grace,
empowerment, and intimacy. In a distressing, unsafe, hyper-focused
postmodern world, it’s not about being perfect parents—it’s about showing
up, being present, and giving wise guidance. These are important components
for connecting and supporting children while also empowering them.

Figure 7 represents the four styles of socio-emotional parenting. Here
again there are two dimensions, support and control, each of which can be
classified as high or low. The four styles depicted should be thought of as
hypothetical rather than precisely representative of the way any one person
engages in parenting.

NEGLECTFUL

The easiest style to criticize is neglectful parenting because of its obvious
shortcomings. With low levels of support and control, little bonding
develops between parents and children. In many homes, particularly those
where economic factors play a devastating role, children are indeed
neglected. This parenting style can also be found in homes where our
modern, individualistic society leaves little time to meet the demands of
caring for and providing sufficient structure for the children. The latchkey
child may be a victim of this system. Single parents have little choice and
agonize over their lack of time to provide support and exercise control due to
the many other demands on them.

There are those who advocate this very free lifestyle for children. They
see no need to teach morals; rather, children should experiment and come to
their own conclusions about personal values. This philosophy emphasizes the
child’s right to discover his or her own beliefs and lifestyle and suggests that
character is built by allowing children to make their own way in the world.

This low-support, low-control style of parenting is characteristic of
disengaged families in which each member’s life rarely touches the others in
any meaningful way. It also characterizes many urban families in which both
parents work outside the home or in which there is only one parent. The
tentativeness of many people in making a commitment to another person may
be a result of being reared in a neglectful home.

We believe that a home without parental leadership is lacking a great deal.
Children who grow up without adequate guidance become fertile ground for
authoritarian leaders or cults that prey on neglected young people. Neglected
children experience a void regarding their identity and values, making them
ripe for manipulation. These individuals hunger for a strong, strict leader to
follow and obey without question. Such people are most susceptible to the
dictates of an authoritarian figure because they have never experienced
bonding with any authority figure. This happens because children are
desperate for connection, and they will seek attention, either positive or
negative, wherever they can find it.

AUTHORITARIAN

When support is low and control high, we have what is called
authoritarian parenting. The children are likely to be respectful and
obedient to their parents. What is missing, because of a deficiency in the
bonding process, is a sense of warmth, openness, and intimacy between
parents and children. Authoritarian parenting has been found to be correlated
with child behavioral problems (Tan et al. 2012). A study by Gromoske and
Maguire-Jack (2012) reported that early spanking (at age one) is predictive
of social-emotional development difficulties by age five. In a variation of the
authoritarian style, the father is cast in the role of the instrumental leader who
expects obedience from his children and teaches them what they need to
know, while the mother assumes a socio-emotional role. There is high
emotional support in the home, but only on the part of one parent—the one
who is not seen as the ultimate authority figure. Compared to those with
authoritative parents, children with authoritarian parents tend to have lower
educational outcomes and prosocial behaviors like helping others, being
sensitive to needs, and offering help before asked (Carlo et al. 2018). This
pattern has been found in patriarchal cultures across the world where fathers
avoid becoming emotionally close to their children due to prescribed
parenting roles.

PERMISSIVE

Where support is high and control is low, we have permissive parenting. It
assumes that a newborn is like a rosebud, needing only tender love and
support to blossom slowly into a beautiful flower. Present-day permissive

parenting can be traced back to the ideals of the counterculture movement of
the 1960s, which can in turn be traced back to the bohemian morality of a
century earlier. The thinking here is that every child has special potentialities
at birth that are destroyed by societal rules and standards. Therefore,
children need to be allowed to find their own purpose through free
expression. During the 1960s, this philosophy was epitomized in the slogan
“Do your own thing.”

Noticeably absent from the permissive style is any idea that children tend
to be self-centered and need parental guidance in learning values and
interpersonal skills. Consequently, children raised in permissive homes tend
to lack a sense of social responsibility; they also fail to develop
interdependence. A permissive parenting style has also been shown to be
related to a number of negative child outcomes, including the emergence of
children’s behavioral problems (Tan et al. 2012).

AUTHORITATIVE

Authoritative parents combine the best qualities found in the authoritarian
and permissive styles. Authoritative parents attempt to direct the child in a
rational, issue-oriented manner; encourage verbal give-and-take; explain the
reasons behind demands and discipline but also use power when necessary;
expect the child to conform to adult requirements but also to be independent
and self-directing; recognize the rights of both adults and children; and set
standards and enforce them firmly. These parents do not regard themselves as
infallible, but they also do not base decisions primarily on the child’s
desires.

Children thrive in an environment of high support and high control. Carlo
et al. (2018) and Pinquart (2017) found that social competence in children
increases in matters of self-esteem, academic achievement, cognitive
development, lowered externalizing behaviors (acting out), creativity, moral
behavior, and instrumental abilities. Children raised in authoritative
parenting homes have an increased capacity to make good internal decisions.

Other Impacts of Parenting Styles
Researchers have begun to study the differing impact of parenting styles on
children according to the ethnicity and gender of the parents. Rodriguez,
Donovick, and Crowley (2009, 195) “showed the majority (61%) of Latino

parents as ‘protective parents’” and that “while mothers and fathers were
similar in their parenting styles, expectations were different for male and
female children.” Kawabata et al. (2011) observed that children’s relational
aggression was higher when they were raised by psychologically controlling
fathers but not by the same controlling behavior by mothers. Another study of
adolescents reported that although “authoritative mothering was found to
relate to higher self-esteem and life-satisfaction and to lower depression,”
for fathering “the advantage was less defined and only evident for
depression” (Milevsky et al. 2007, 39).

Parenting styles affect other areas of a child’s life as well. As might be
expected, children’s internet use is highest when the parenting style is
permissive and lowest when the style is authoritarian (Valcke et al. 2010).
Even when it comes to physical activity, children perceive themselves to
have higher fitness competence and value when their parents have a high
challenging style in physical activities (Kimiecik and Horn 2012). Parenting
styles have also been associated with obesity (Kakinami et al. 2015) and
physical activity (Poppert Cordts, Wilson, and Riley 2020).

It should be noted that certain kinds of parental control are more effective
and produce better results. For example, a coercive approach that forces a
child to act against his or her will usually results in low levels of social
competence in that child. Withdrawing one’s love to obtain compliance is
also ineffective. Inductive control—giving explanations, using reasoning, and
encouraging a child’s voluntary compliance by avoiding direct conflict of
wills—proves to be the most effective approach. Coupling this type of
control with strong emotional support produces competent children (Carlo et
al. 2018). Coercion has an adverse effect on the development of social
competence in children, which supports the type of empowerment we have
suggested above.

Biological Factors in Parenting
In chapter 2, we discussed the importance of biological factors in
understanding family life, including parent-child relationships. Some parents
may wrongly hold to a social deterministic view of parenting—thinking that
they have an amazing power to make sure their children grow up to be happy,
well adjusted, and free from any developmental difficulties. This sets parents
up for harsh judgment of themselves or their children, resulting in sure

failure. Instead, child development must be understood as an interplay of
biological and social-environmental factors. Parents of a child struggling
with hyperactivity, attention deficit, addiction, mental illness, or other
developmental challenges should be acutely aware of the biological factors
that play a major role in their child’s struggle.

Many parents find parenting to be especially difficult during the teenage
years, when biological changes enter the relationship dynamics. Significant
changes in a teenager’s endocrinology system mean that a child’s hormones
are expressed in mood swings and emotional-sexual struggles. In addition,
the brain is still undergoing normal developmental changes during late
adolescence and early adulthood. In fact, the brain does not reach adult
capacity until the mid to late twenties (Cohen et al. 2016). Adolescents are
prone to engage in risky behavior due to their inability to execute higher-
order thinking such as planning for the future, controlling impulses, and
setting priorities, and that inability impacts their judgment. Of course, this is
a cause of concern for parents because these judgments can lead to lifelong
consequences.

If that isn’t enough, the developing self-structure of teenagers means that
they have an increasing desire to make their own decisions. In this struggle
for independence, teenagers may strike out in ways that tempt parents to ask
themselves, “Where did we go wrong?” Not only do parents need to offer
more grace to their children at this stage; they also need to offer grace to
themselves. In this spirit we advocate a parenting style that is relational in
nature. Open communication and firm guidance are achieved in the context of
warm, secure, and caring interaction.

A Biblical Model of Parenting
Having summarized the social-science literature on the effects of various
parenting styles, we will now present a biblical model, with the goal of
integrating these various materials into a model of biblical parenting.

We believe that a biblical model of parenting can be derived from the
scriptural depiction of God as parent. The nature of God is love. God cares
for us, is faithful to us, bestows gifts on us, redeems and forgives us,
disciplines and grows us, challenges and tests us, comforts and consoles us,
and is with us through the difficult times. Taken as a whole, the Bible clearly
emphasizes the love and grace that God freely gives (Gen. 6; Ruth; Matt.

9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 19:1–8; John 3:16; Romans 3:24; 4:16; 5:1–20; Titus
2:11; Hebrews 4). Yet this unconditional love is not free of expectations and
demands. God’s love includes disciplinary action for our good. God’s love
as parent bears a striking similarity to the parenting style advocated in the
social-science literature: a high degree of support and of inductive (rather
than coercive) control.

The actions of God as parent clearly point to a model in which parental
love (support) and discipline (control) intertwine to help children develop
toward maturity. This model comports well with the theological basis for
family relationships that we introduced in chapter 1—covenant, grace,
empowerment, and intimacy. Parent-child relationships begin when the
parents make an initial covenant (a one-way, unconditional commitment) of
love with their child. This covenant makes demands and provides
stipulations reflective of God’s covenant with Israel and us. Although the
infant cannot return this commitment, as the child matures the initial covenant
should grow into a mature covenant (a two-way, unconditional commitment).
This maturing of the parent-child relationship is possible because the
covenant commitment establishes an environment of grace and forgiveness in
which parents empower their children and reach new levels of intimacy with
them.

Initially, the parents need to maintain both parties’ responsibilities in the
covenant. The parents provide for the emotional and physical needs of the
child as is their duty in the covenant. Children in the covenant initially have
no responsibilities. As children grow in competence, their responsibility
grows more and more. Further, they increasingly engage intentionally in the
covenant relationship. This covenant is characterized by grace—a gift on the
part of the parents. Over time, children are exposed to both responsiveness
and demandingness, which empowers them by communicating their value and
identity in the covenant family. As children take on more and more of the
family identity and develop increasing levels of competence, more and more
mutual forms of intimacy occur.

This is illustrated by the story of Jesus’s baptism (Mark 1), where the
covenantal relations of the Trinity are expressed physically. The Holy Spirit
is there in the form of a dove, the speech of the Father pronounces love and
identity over Jesus, and Jesus is being baptized physically. The covenant
relation of the Trinity is Jesus’s identity—God the Son. This identity forms
the basis of Jesus’s actions in ministry—revealing grace and forgiveness,

empowering others via healing, preaching, teaching, and discipling, and
making intimacy with God possible (Heb. 5).

When each parent’s identity is based on Christ, we develop a
differentiation of self that is based on our adoption into God’s family. Our
primary calling as a Christian takes precedence over all other domains in our
lives. Differentiation in Christ means that we can parent our offspring in
noncoercive and noncontrolling means because of our experience of grace
and empowerment in Christ. We can extend grace to our children because of
our experience of forgiveness in Christ. We can empower our children as
opposed to controlling them as we are discipled in a Christian community
under the guidance of the Spirit. Finally, we can experience intimacy as we
are fully and authentically known by Christ.

In an ideal situation, the four elements of the parent-child relationship are
in a continual process of maturing: intimacy leads to deeper covenant love,
which enhances the atmosphere of grace, which strengthens the empowerment
process, which leads to deepened intimacy, and so on. This cycle is
relational and requires reciprocity, meaning that it is based on the
development of competencies in all relational partners. The foundation
consists of a faithful commitment and accepting environment where children
and parents can be vulnerable and open with each other. This relationship
connection promotes the empowerment process in which parents and
children learn to serve and to give to each other.

Empowerment is the central element in our biblical model of parenting.
Exactly what is involved here? Parents and children are initially at different
levels in their relationship. As Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy and colleagues
(Boszormenyi-Nagy 1987, 1996; Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner 1986)
remind us, this relationship contains ethical obligations. That is, parents are
ethically obligated to meet the needs of offspring, and children are in a
position to make those ethical demands. Children are not obligated to meet
the parents’ needs until they are adult peers. Good parenting is the wise
exercise of parental position and ability. Empowerment is the process of
instilling confidence, of strengthening and building up children to become
more powerful and competent. Parents who have been empowered by the
unconditional love of God and the Holy Spirit are best able to empower their
children.

Jesus redefined power by his teaching and by his action in relating to
others as a servant. He rejected the use of power to control others and

instead affirmed it to serve others. Using parental power to serve our
children involves nurture, guidance, love, discipline, and empowerment.

The capacity to be a servant-leader to others requires a high level of
maturity and unconditional love. It demands that a person achieve a maturity
going beyond self-sufficiency to interdependence. Abundant life is more than
a narcissistic euphoria in which all one’s personal needs and desires are met.
It involves having a meaning beyond oneself. The admonitions in the New
Testament to submit to one another and to love, forgive, serve, and value all
of God’s people are actually a call to mature living.

The most striking example of mature servanthood is the way Jesus honored
children. His example is vital to developing a proper theology of power.
Like his approach to children, Jesus related to his disciples in terms of
empowerment. He even provided for a continuation of the empowerment
process after his departure: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all
that I have said to you” (John 14:26). Jesus wanted them to have the capacity
and confidence to carry on the message. They had been prepared by his
teaching ministry to be independent and by his example to be servants.

Parents who empower their children help them become competent and
capable people who will in turn empower others. Empowering parents are
actively and intentionally engaged in various pursuits—telling, teaching,
modeling, delegating—that equip their children to become confident
individuals able to relate to others. Parents who empower help their children
recognize their inner strengths and potentials and find ways to enhance these
qualities. Parental empowerment is the affirmation of the child’s ability to
learn, grow, and become all that one is meant to be as part of God’s image
and creative plan.

Empowerment, from a biblical perspective, does not entail the child’s
gaining power at the expense of the parent. The view that the supply of
power is limited is purely secular. When empowering the children of Israel,
God did not give up power but offered it in unlimited supply. The authority
(exousia) of Jesus flowed from his personhood; it was in no way diminished
when he empowered his disciples. Similarly, the authority of parents, which
flows from their personhood, is not diminished when they exercise the
responsibility to nurture their children to maturity. The process of
empowering children does not mean relinquishing parental authority, nor are
parents depleted or drained of power when they empower their children.

Rather, when empowerment takes place, authority and ascribed power are
retained as children develop, grow, and achieve a sense of personal power,
self-esteem, and wholeness. Successful parenting results in the children’s
gaining as much personal power as the parents themselves have. In the
Christian context, children are empowered to love God and their neighbors
as themselves. They are capable of going beyond themselves to reach out to
others.

Find a more detailed account of this biblical model in Relationship-
Empowerment Parenting: Building Formative and Fulfilling Relationships
with Your Children (J. K. Balswick et al. 2003).

The Case for Coparenting
It should be noted here that the relationship-empowerment model—our name
for the biblical ideal—is most efficiently achieved if both parents bring their
respective strengths to the process in a complementary way. There are two
types of complementarity. In the case of longitudinal complementarity,
parents complement each other over time. One parent may be better at
dealing with infants or young children, while the skills of the other emerge
once the children have developed greater cognitive ability. In the case of
situational complementarity, parents complement each other on a day-to-day
basis throughout their parenting years. Here the situation determines which
parental skills are most needed. Thus, at times, the parent who is more
capable of helping a child with homework is needed; in other instances, the
parent who is more able to provide encouragement when the child lacks self-
esteem is needed. Notice that these types of complementarity require a high
degree of communication and flexibility. This type of complementarity
allows each partner to express his or her needs (intimacy), express grace and
forgiveness as challenges arise, and be mutually empowering as talents,
skills, and responsibilities are developed and used to parent. All of this is
built on the covenant between the relational partners. Complementary
parenting offers an advantage in that one parent does not have to meet all the
child’s needs. The main point is that both parents have an essential role in the
empowerment of children.

While children benefit from having both parents involved, it is imperative
that parents agree on the basic parenting process. We would warn against
parental determinism—the view that parenting is a one-way process—for

there is sufficient evidence that “child temperament plays an important role
in shaping the coparenting relationships” (Szabo, Dubas, and van Aken
2012, 554). One certainly must take into account the personality dynamics
that play a part in the relationship between children and each of their parents.

Parenting that empowers children to maturity is conceptually similar to the
New Testament depiction of discipleship. Jesus gathered and trained
disciples, empowering them to “go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded
you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt.
28:19–20). Parenting follows a similar course. The ultimate reward for
parents and children is a relationship that grows into maturity so that when
the children have been empowered, they will in turn empower others.

7

Developing a Mature,
Reciprocating Self

The outcome of parenting, as was the focus of the previous chapter, is the
development of a competent, productive adult. In the United States, the route to
this outcome is fraught with concern and challenge. Parents are given many expert
opinions—often contradictory—that contribute to this sense of uncertainty about
parenting the next generation. This anxiety is further exacerbated by the internet
dumping an overload of information on parents, many of whom are ill-equipped to
evaluate the quality of the information being provided.

As we mentioned in the preceding chapter, we believe that parents need to
resist bowing uncritically before expert opinion and simple formulas that
guarantee parenting success. It is more important to develop a parenting
philosophy that takes into account cultural beliefs, family of origin (FOO)
heritages, personal strengths and limitations (both one’s own and those of one’s
children), knowledge derived from firsthand experience, and common sense.
Confidence in one’s ability as a parent comes from integrating these elements with
the clear findings of child development professionals and solid biblical
principles. Parents who wait with bated breath for the next gem of wisdom from
the so-called experts are setting themselves up for disillusionment when their
offspring do not automatically develop into the ideal children they were
promised. Child-rearing is a much more complex process than most people
realize.

In chapter 2, we introduced the family developmental systems perspective, and
in this chapter, we use developmental systems theory (DST) to understand child
development (Ford and Lerner 1992; Lerner 2018). Consistent with biblical
assumptions about human nature, DST provides an integrative approach to child
development.

Many child development theories are limited in that they split explanations of
development into oppositional camps—nature versus nurture, individual versus
the group or family, mechanistic versus organismic, continuous versus

discontinuous (stage) development, and so on. In its emphasis on relationalism,
DST emphasizes the interaction among all factors that contribute to human
development. In other words, DST incorporates the context of the individual’s
development (family, community, etc.) into understanding how biological, genetic,
relational, and psychological factors affect human competence.

Rather than focusing exclusively on the unique contributions of nature or
nurture, DST emphasizes the interaction between them as playing a significant
role. A proper understanding of child development must consider an interactive
rather than an additive process. It is not enough simply to add together the
influence of the mother, plus the father, plus other family members, plus peers,
plus school and church; we must consider the overall impact of all these factors
interacting together on the development of a child.

Some key assumptions in DST (Lerner 2018) are that (1) child development
includes a multiplicity of biological, cultural, social, and psychological
influences; (2) influences are reciprocal in that parents not only affect their child
but also are affected by the child at the same time; (3) each child is a unique
human; (4) the development of each child is different; (5) children are active
choosing agents, participating in their own development; and (6) children are
created for community. At the end of this chapter, we revisit these basic
assumptions as we critique child-development theories in light of biblical
assumptions about being human.

Jack Balswick, Pamela King, and Kevin Reimer (2016) seek to understand
human development from a Christian theological viewpoint. In doing so, they note
that developmental theories lack a guiding teleology, an understanding of the goal
of development. Implicit in all theories is a soft teleology, or the idea of what is
optimal human flourishing. There is a lack of consensus regarding this ultimate
goal of human development, as each theory and researcher tends to focus on a
limited number of variables and theories of human nature. Balswick, King, and
Reimer cite this lack of teleology as a developmental dilemma resulting from the
lack of a theologically informed understanding of development completeness. The
naturalistic assumption underlying most developmental theories alludes to
survivalistic inclinations (humans evolve based on characteristics that best
contribute to the survival of the human species) but lacks theological explanation.

A secondary issue tied into the developmental dilemma concerns the difference
between description and prescription. Many developmental theorists and
researchers attempt to describe the natural process of human development over
the course of the lifespan. This description is needed to understand and document
how humans change over time. When experts try to popularize these theories and
research, they are offered as normative or prescriptive, meaning that this is how

human should change over time. A move from description to prescription is a
move from science to scientism. It incorporates morality as important questions
arise: Does this theory and research contribute a moral good? Does this
understanding of development consider cultural and other influences on human
development? How does this research reflect naturalistic or mechanistic views of
human nature (called psychological anthropology)? Science alone cannot answer
the questions of the developmental dilemma—we must propose a theological
telos.

In response to the developmental dilemma, we begin with the assumption that
humans are created to reflect the image of God. The theological dimension of
human development is sanctification, or the process of becoming Christlike.
While part of that image includes rationality (mind), the relationality of God, as
exemplified in the relationship among the three persons of the Holy Trinity, is also
a core part of that image. Being created in the image of God encompasses a
relationality that simultaneously includes differentiation and unity. From a
theological perspective, the goal or purpose (teleology) is for people to develop a
mature, reciprocating self—a self that in all its uniqueness engages others in
relationships (Balswick, King, and Reimer 2016) that reflect the renewed or
sanctified nature of Christ. As Hebrews 1 reminds us, Jesus Christ is the perfect
image of God, representing humanity and allowing access to God the Father.
Therefore, our understanding of child-development theories centers on how each
child develops into a reciprocating, relational self with respect to God and others,
as emulated in the incarnation of Christ, the perfected image of God.

Theories of Child Development
Theories of child development consist of systematically organized knowledge
accumulated through empirical observation of children. A good theory is like a
pair of glasses in that it allows one to focus more sharply on that which is being
observed. This is important to remember, as each theory tends to focus on a select
aspect or domain of human development. These theories tend to describe distinct
aspects of child development, and they shed light on the total developing person
when taken together. We draw attention to the major child development theories
so that we aren’t blinded by one theory while ignoring the others.

To illustrate this point, let us suppose that representatives of the major theories
of child development are watching a child playing in the family living room.
Although the observers will be exposed to the same behavior, they will not see it
through the same set of lenses. Each observer will perceive the child’s activity
through lenses of predetermined notions about human behavior. The cognitive

development theorist will be especially aware of the particular stage of
development; the psychoanalytic theorist will look for unconscious motivations in
overt behavior; the symbolic interactionist will concentrate on the child’s self-
concept; the social learning theorist will pay special attention to what the child
has learned from observing others. Although it is not a conscious process, all
theorists engage in selective perception, viewing the child’s actions in accordance
with their own general conceptualization of human behavior.

It is also important to discern the goal of each developmental theory. In The
Reciprocating Self (Balswick et al. 2016), we learn that each stage theory’s
teleological focus is described in the final stage of development. In other words,
the highest accomplishment or the competence that humans should strive for
occurs in or is described by the final level of development. We need to understand
the Christian-worldview implications of these views of human flourishing in
order to discern their relationship to the reciprocal self and becoming more
Christlike.

Table 5 compares the major theories of child development that conceptualize
development as emerging in specific sequential stages. After presenting brief
summaries of each theory introduced in table 5, brief summaries will be given of
four important non-stage-specific theories—object relations, social learning,
sociocultural, and social ecology. Due to the specific nature of moral
development theory and faith development theory, they will be summarized in the
following chapter on family spirituality. A good strategy is to consider how these
theories are complementary and not just contradictory in yielding insights into the
child development process. As a summary, we will compare and contrast the
strengths and limitations of each based on biblical assumptions about being
human.

Psychoanalytic Theory: Internal Focus
The father of psychoanalytic theory, Sigmund Freud, began by describing the

newborn baby as all id—a bundle of unrestrained instinctive energy seeking
gratification via expression. Although he posited that the id contained both a
positive instinct (Eros, or life) and a negative instinct (Thanatos, or death), Freud
described the id as amoral, impulsive, and ruled by unconscious and irrational
demands for immediate gratification. In other words, the motivating or animating
force for human development is the gratification of one’s instinctual drives.
Therefore, Freudian psychological approaches are often referred to as drive-
reduction models. The id seeks the immediate gratification of these drives
regardless of social context. Freud saw parents as attempting to impose their own
wishes on the child, which when internalized by the child formed the superego.

You can imagine the internal struggle between the id wanting immediate
gratification and the superego (the internalization of parental wishes) seeking to
deny the immediate gratification of impulses of the id. The superego operates as a
moral police officer attempting to contain the id, or to find more socially and
morally appropriate expressions of id impulses. The third part of the personality,
the ego, develops out of the struggle between the id and the superego. The ego
(self) functions as a type of internal diplomat. The ego attempts to calm the wishes
of the id and the superego by finding acceptable ways of rewarding each. The
superego rewards the ego by building up self-esteem but punishes the ego with
guilt when it does not comply (Freud 1949, 1954).

TABLE 5 Major Stage-Specific Theories of Child
Development

Psychoanalytic

Erikson

(Neopsychoanalytic)

Cognitive Development

Piaget
Kohlberg
(Moral) Fowler (Faith)

(0–1½)
Infancy

Oral Trust Sensorimotor Undifferentiated

(1½–3)
Toddler
Stage

Anal Autonomy Preoperational Obedience
and
punishment

Intuitive-
projective

(4–6) Early
Childhood

Genital Initiative

(7–12)
Childhood

Industry Concrete
operations

Individualism
and
exchange

Mythical-literal

(13–21)
Adolescence

Identity Formal
operations

Interpersonal
relations

Synthetic-
conventional

(21–30)
Adulthood

Intimacy Maintaining
social order

Individuative-

reflective

(30–45) Generativity Social
contract and
individual
rights

Conjunctive

(46–) Ego integration Universal
ethical
principles

Universalizing

Parenting from a psychoanalytic perspective can be thought of as a journey
through a minefield of potential dangers. If parents are overly rigid and
moralistic, they risk suppressing positive aspects of the life force residing in the
id. If they are too permissive and fail to provide adequate boundaries for the
child, they risk allowing the formation of a child with an inadequate superego,
resulting in the unchecked id running wild. Effective parenting is a balance of
allowing a child’s expression of innate creativity while at the same time taming
the child through societal behavioral norms.

According to the psychoanalytic theory of the personality, healthy development
is characterized by a strong ego, which can monitor the extreme demands of the id
and the superego. During their first six years of life, children move through three
developmental stages—oral, anal, and genital—in which they must negotiate
their need for gratification with parental and societal approval. In Freud’s theory,
eros and thanatos are encapsulated in the sexual organs’ development. Freud’s
theory is based in the appropriate expression of id drives that are mainly
sexualized in nature (except for the latency stage, where these drives lie in a
dormant state). Secure gender identity and self-esteem develop during the latency
stage (age seven to twelve) if a firm foundation is established during the first six
years of life. If earlier conditions were less than ideal, the child may have
difficulty relating to others and experience increasing self-doubt and lack of self-
esteem. The internal conflicts (id, ego, and superego) are experienced through
each stage of the relationship with parents. When relationships with both parents
are strong and unwavering, the child will feel a sense of well-being and worth.

Erikson’s Neopsychoanalytic or Psychosocial Theory: Infancy
through Adulthood
In traditional psychoanalytic theory, the basic personality is thought to be

formed by puberty, with minimal change likely thereafter. Two major
contributions to our understanding of psychoanalytic human development are
provided by Erik Erikson (1968, 1985), who argues that development continues
into adulthood. First, Erikson suggests eight developmental stages (as opposed to
the five stages proposed by Freud), the last emerging at approximately age forty-
five. Erikson focuses on how parents and wider psycho-historical and social
factors affect a person’s learning each stage-specific developmental task. Mastery
of the developmental tasks at each stage is vital to successful achievement of the
tasks at the next stage.

The degree of mastery determines the strengths and deficits with which an
individual develops. The mastery of these strengths resulted in what Erikson
referred to as virtues or vitalities for the individual. To arrive at maturity (the last

stage of development) with a sufficient sense of ego integrity, one must have
achieved trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, identity, intimacy, and generativity
during the previous seven sequential stages. At the opposite extreme are those
individuals who end up in a state of despair because they have experienced
mistrust, shame and doubt, guilt, a sense of inferiority, role confusion, isolation,
and stagnation sequentially during the developmental stages.

A major strength of Erikson’s theory is its recognition of the importance of both
familial and extrafamilial influences on human development. Recognizing the
cumulative effects of experience throughout the life span, the theory also suggests
interventions to help those who have been socially or psychologically deprived at
a specific stage of development.

Cognitive Structural Theories
We now turn to cognitive structural approaches to human development. This

transition is facilitated by a change in how psychologists understand and study
humans. First, we notice that both Freud and Erikson attempt to describe more
general human characteristics. Their theories are more global. For example,
Freud’s theory attempts to explain why people make verbal mistakes (i.e., a
Freudian slip) all the way to why a person marries someone else or chooses a
specific vocation. Second, in moving toward the cognitive revolution in
psychology, theorizing and research focus on more limited human phenomena like
language learning or moral development. Finally, there is an increasing emphasis
on understanding the interrelationships among biological, neurological, and
psychological processes (like thinking) that are reflected in the research.
Cognitive structural approaches like those of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Fowler share
an emphasis on combining an understanding of the need for brain development to
occur before a child is able to achieve a specific level of cognitive, moral, and
faith development. In other words, the brain has to have the neurological
mechanisms in order for the cognitive, moral, and faith psychological processes
to be developed.

Cognitive Development Theory: The Child as a Developing Scientist
While cognitive development (CD) theory singles out the cognitive aspects of

human development, it should be noted that Kohlberg’s moral development model
and Fowler’s faith process model, while reflected in table 5, will be discussed in
chapter 8 as part of the topic of family spirituality. Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget
starts with the assumption that children are not merely passive objects but also
active agents in constructing their personal reality; that is, they turn all life

experiences into action. In a rational fashion, the child continually attempts to
make sense of the world. Piaget bases his theory on qualitative data, mainly from
observing his own children; he observed how babies make use of their natural
reflexes as they contact an object or a person. The child is a “little scientist,”
learning by acting upon the world. Children are discovering the scheme into
which a thing fits so they can act toward it consistently. A ball is to be bounced,
but a dog will bark, growl, move away, or bite. Therefore, the child learns to act
accordingly by picking up on these cues. The acquisition of language brings a
wide variety of new possibilities. With time, the child learns to discriminate
between and distinguish parents as “Mommy” or “Daddy” and strangers as “man”
or “woman” (or “boy” or “girl”). In analyzing this process, Piaget uses the terms
assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration. Assimilation is taking
information in and construing it in terms of one’s established way of thinking.
Whatever is perceived is made to fit into existing schemes. The more refined a
scheme, the less likely it is that new pieces of information will be misplaced
(Piaget 1932).

However, if children could assimilate experiences only into existing
categories, no new scheme would emerge. And because many things do not fit into
existing schemes, new schemes must be formed. This is the process of
accommodation: altering the existing cognitive structures to allow for new objects
experienced. Children continually engage in assimilation and accommodation.
The balance between the two is equilibration. People with mature cognitive
structures engage in both assimilation and accommodation. People with immature
cognitive structures fail to engage in one or the other and thus do not achieve
equilibration (cognitive balance).

According to Piaget, cognitive development in a child takes place in four major
stages. The first is the sensorimotor stage, which covers the period from birth
until about two years of age. During this stage, children are primarily focused on
basic motor skills and learning to adapt their behavior to their external
environment. The child classifies objects by acting upon them. In the process, the
child begins to grasp the idea of object permanence—that is, to realize that
objects that are out of sight have not ceased to exist.

Children also learn to coordinate the different parts of the body during the
sensorimotor stage. For example, when trying to reach for an object, they will
stand on their tiptoes and stretch their arms as high as they can. Toward the end of
the sensorimotor stage, children intentionally engage in goal-directed behavior;
that is, they push a chair up to the table and then climb on the chair to get the
cookie on the table, all in an orderly sequence.

Mastery of linguistic skills is primary during the preoperational stage, in
which children are able to name objects, to place words together into meaningful
sentences, and to begin to construct a view of reality.

Because the acquisition of language skills is so complex, the thinking and
behavior of a child are characterized by unsettledness, fear, and confusion—
precisely why this stage is referred to as preoperational. For example, the child
may conclude that firefighters, since they always appear at the scene of a fire, set
fires, or that police initiate trouble. Parents must be mindful that children need
help in logically explaining the events they experience. It is natural at this stage
for children to think everyone else experiences the world as they do. If they are
happy, they project happiness onto everyone else; when they are sad, then
everyone else must be sad.

Eventually children are able to move beyond self-focused thinking. At about
seven years of age, they reach the stage of concrete operations, when thought
processes become more stable and consistent. Children at the concrete operations
stage can understand the principle of invariance (certain matters of space and
weight are in some sense unchangeable regardless of the shape). For example,
children at the concrete operations stage understand that the water’s volume does
not change, no matter the shape or size of the container it is poured into. Children
at this stage are also avid collectors since they love to classify and arrange their
priceless objects on the basis of color, size, shape, and every other aspect
imaginable. This reflects an expanded reasoning ability.

At the formal operations stage, children understand causality and can perform
scientific experiments. By using deductive reasoning, they formulate hypotheses,
carry out experiments, and reach conclusions based on evidence. At this point in
children’s lives, there is an increased concern for basic values and truths. Formal
operations is the teleological trajectory for Piaget. The highest level of human
cognitive flourishing is described as the attainment of formal operational thought.

Object Relations Theory: The Child as an Object Needing Love
Even though object relations theory is rooted in psychoanalytic theory, it is

useful in understanding the child’s development of self within the context of
parent-child relationships. Object relations theory emphasizes the development of
the self or personality within the context of an infant-caregiver relationship. This
is actually the strength of object relations theory compared with classic Freudian
approaches. An important assumption of Freud’s understanding of human nature is
that drives are satiated by nonspecific objects. This means that any mother could
fulfill the drives of any infant. Object relations theory contends that the early
interactions of a child and its most intimate caregiver, usually the mother, shape

and form personality. That is, the specific mother-child relationship uniquely
influences how the child develops.

In object relations theory, there is a shift from biological to interpersonal
determinism and a corresponding change from an internal to a relational
structural model. Melanie Klein (1932) is a transition figure (Greenberg and
Mitchell 1983) in the development of object relations theory and practice. She
replaced biological drives with psychological and relational drives. Her work
brought about a major paradigmatic shift from biological determinism to a
perspective that took into consideration the significance of interpersonal
interaction.

The core element in Klein’s theory consists of the internalization by the child of
its relationship with the primary caregiver(s). Klein’s theory has similarities with
Freud’s drive theory, but she changes the essential nature of the drives. Klein
posits the essential relatedness of human beings; children are essentially
relational in nature (Ogden 1990). Children are born with drives that inherently
have objects that can satisfy the drives (Greenberg and Mitchell 1983; Ogden
1990). Klein sees early relationships between mother and infant as primarily an
internal event for the child, who cannot differentiate between the experience and
the meaning of the experience (Ogden 1990). “Klein conceives of early infantile
experience as nonsubjective (that is, devoid of a sense of ‘I-ness’)” (Ogden
1990, 27).

Once internalized, the internal object can bring the child comfort or pain. No
matter how well the caregiver interacts with the infant, the infant most likely will
internalize an object with some negativity. The internalized object then becomes
an organizing principle for future interactions. If the child internalizes a good or
safe object, he or she will feel secure and will be able to form positive
relationships. If the child internalizes an anxious or hateful object, he or she will
anticipate having negative experiences in other relationships.

Donald Winnicott’s (1971) version of object relations theory strongly
emphasizes that the mother or the caregiver is almost solely responsible for
influencing the development of the self. He refers to the “holding environment,”
since a mother provides a physical and psychological space where the baby
experiences a sense of well-being. In this secure holding environment, the infant
begins to gain a sense of self and other (Grolnick 1990). The mother as an internal
object provides a sense of security and safety. If the holding environment is
adequate (good enough), the infant’s needs are satisfied. A crucial element of this
holding environment is how mothers respond to and reflect the experiences of
their infants. Parents attuned to the baby’s physical and emotional needs provide
the foundation for trust and security. The good-enough mother can also find a

balance between empathetic gratification of the infant’s needs and satisfying her
own needs. Parents attuned to the child’s needs mirror the child’s behavior and
feelings. For example, a mother is mirroring her child when she produces the
same sounds of delight the infant produces when he is lifted into his mother’s
arms. Rather than ignoring or overwhelming the child, an appropriate response
provides an authentication and validation of a child’s sense of self.

Transitional space (psychological space) emerges through the process of
internalizing the presence of an emotionally attuned but nondemanding parent. The
child who has internalized the parent as a good object has the capacity to be
alone. Sometimes a transitional object (a special blanket or stuffed animal) can
help the child internalize the mother. By symbolizing the calming presence of the
caregiver, transitional objects allow toddlers to feel secure even when they are
alone.

Transitional space allows for the expression of the true self. The true self is the
authentic, spontaneous self, aware and comfortable with his or her uniqueness.
The false self is a result of a lack of transitional space. The major contributors to
the false self can be seen in the extremes: absent parents or impinging parents.

In summary, a good holding environment includes a present, mirroring, non-
impinging mother; transitional space; and a fostering of the ability to be alone.
Transitional space is created by the nondemanding, good-enough mother in a
holding environment where she mirrors the child in a non-impinging way.

Social Learning Theory: The Child as Learner
During the past half century, behaviorism has been shaped by the creative

research and writing of B. F. Skinner. Skinner (1953) developed what is known as
operant conditioning, which is a modification of classical conditioning. Rather
than using a stimulus to bring about a desired response, Skinner’s model
emphasizes reinforcement—that is, a system of rewards for desired behavior and
punishments for unacceptable actions. The basic principle here is that
consequences shape and maintain behavior. Operant conditioning has proven
useful in bringing about changes in behavior.

Social learning theory emphasizes learning by observation rather than through
direct reinforcement (Bandura 1977). Children learn how to behave by observing
the consequences of the behavior of other people. For example, children learn not
to hit other children on the playground primarily by observing that children who
do hit others experience negative consequences, such as getting hurt themselves or
being reprimanded by a teacher.

Social learning theory also observes that children learn from the modeling of
parents and important others in their lives. As role models, parents influence their

children in both positive and negative ways. Comparison of direct learning
(reinforcement) and indirect learning (observation and imitation of modeled
behavior) reveals that modeling is more effective. The application is obvious:
effective parents are those who model the behaviors they want their children to
implement.

The idea that learning comes through the child’s observation and interpretation
of behavior implies a self-consciousness and self-determination within the child.
Change, then, can be activated both by environmental stimuli and by the child, a
discovery that has enhanced learning theory.

In Albert Bandura’s concept of reciprocal determinism, three factors
reciprocally influence one another: behavior, the person (i.e., one’s cognitive
makeup), and the environment. Children not only change their environment but are
being changed by it. Children do not simply react to their parents but act upon
them and influence how they parent. The colicky baby elicits a different parenting
response than the easy baby does, just as the way the parent deals with the baby
affects the baby’s response. Although social learning theory doesn’t stress innate
or biological factors, it views children as actively involved in the construction of
their environment and thus in their own developmental process.

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory: Parenting as Scaffolding
In the 1930s, in forming a sociocultural theory of child development, the

Russian theorist Lev Vygotsky concentrated on the relational influences on
children as they live in a sociocultural context. Vygotsky paved the way for
understanding how culture affects development and how language serves as the
primary vehicle for the transmission of cultural information. Vygotsky’s concept of
the zone of proximal development is especially helpful in understanding how a
child masters a task. The zone contains the range of tasks that a child cannot yet
accomplish without the active assistance of parents and others (Vygotsky 1986).
The expansion of the child’s skill comes through interpersonal relationships since
children’s immediate potential cannot be magically realized on their own. The
child learns new skills each step of the way in the context of relationship support
until he or she masters a specific task.

The child is a collaborator, learning new skills through interactions with more
cognitively advanced people. Parents must create what Vygotsky refers to as
appropriate scaffolding. Those who provide an adequate scaffold (not too much
or too little support and control) provide an optimal learning environment. The
scaffold extends just slightly beyond the child’s abilities but never so far beyond
as to create unreasonable expectations that end in failure. The concept of
scaffolding is similar to the empowerment principle, according to which

guidance, assistance, and support are given so the child reaches his or her full
potential and mastery. When parents do too much or “take over,” the child is
disempowered and feels inadequate and dependent. When the child accomplishes
a task on his or her own, the parent wisely removes the scaffolding. The child is
now competent and confident and has no need to be dependent on the parents.

Children require a high level of interpersonal commitment as they develop. It
follows that abused or neglected children often develop negative representations
of the self. They have not had sufficient support or scaffolding to reach full
maturity. In fact, they need to develop protective strategies for self-survival.
Abuse frequently results in the child internalizing the social influences of shame,
violence, or emotional abuse that lead to negativity toward others, such as
bullying, delinquency, or violence.

Social Ecology: Child Development in the Village
The African proverb “It takes a village to raise a child” is verified in a social

ecological theory of child development. Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggests that
child development is best understood within four increasingly encompassing
ecological systems. At the smallest, most specific level is the microsystem, the
parent-child relationship. Beyond the microsystem is the mesosystem, consisting
of social environments such as a child’s kindergarten, Sunday school class,
neighborhood playgroup, and so on. Each of these settings in and of itself is a
microsystem, but the collection of all these microsystems and the relationships
between them constitute the mesosystem for the toddler.

Children are also influenced by what occurs in the social environment beyond
the settings in which they directly participate. This constitutes their exosystem.
When both parents are employed outside the home, the child is affected because
of parental involvement in these work environments. The child’s exosystem
consists of all those environments, even when he or she is not a direct participant,
because, even from a distance, they affect the parents or the siblings.

Encompassing all three of these systems is the macrosystem, best understood as
the wider cultural level. Macrosystemic influences are such things as popular
culture, the mass media, the government, and moral and religious beliefs and
practices in a culture.

According to Bronfenbrenner, “The ecology of human development involves
the scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommodation between an active,
growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in
which the growing person lives, as this process is affected by relations between
these settings, and by the larger contexts in which the settings are embedded”
(1979, 21).

A social ecological understanding of child development complements the child
development approaches that have a more limited focus. Parenting is best
understood as part of a web of social relationships that affect the development of
a child. As children mature, they become increasingly involved in a variety of
settings as they learn to adapt to new environments, roles, and relationships in the
process of developmental growth.

A Critique of Child Development Theories in Light of Biblical
Assumptions
Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to present a complete synthesis of
the child development theories discussed, it will be helpful to briefly critique
them on the basis of how well they comport with biblical teachings on being
human. We shall build our critique around three biblical doctrines: (1) humans are
in a state of constant internal tension: though created in God’s image, they have
fallen into sin; (2) humans are active agents who have the capacity to make
choices; and (3) humans are created for community.

Internal Tension
None of the theories adequately takes into account the biblical view that

humans are distinct from all other living creatures because they carry the image of
God within them. Granted, the human condition is marked by sin, and therefore we
are a broken image. “Sinning must be understood in the context of its relation to
the general human longing for goodness” (Shults 2003, 190). The biblical view of
being made in God’s image and being marred by sin acknowledges that the human
condition is marked by internal tension. As Paul states in Romans 7:21–24, “So I
find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For
I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law
at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in
my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of
death?”

In viewing human behavior as part of the natural order, developmental theories
refer to internal tension but stop short of using the concept of sin. If the ultimate
meaning and purpose of human development is to be understood, we need to know
what it means to fall short or miss the mark in human development. In Ray
Anderson’s theological anthropology, sin is understood in a relational context. He
defines sin as “defiance of God’s gracious relation to those who bear his
image . . . [resulting] in separating persons from the gracious life of God”
(1990, 234).

Shame illuminates the experience of sinfulness (Capps 1993) as it is (1) self-
involving, (2) self-constricting, and (3) results in estrangement. Sin is self-
involving, as it is centered in one’s physical being as well as one’s thoughts and
motivations. Further, sin prevents the flourishing of the person, and the ultimate
outcome of sin is alienation or estrangement from others. Sin as the shame
experience impacts the relational dimension of the image of God—estrangement.
Capps (1993) also argues for the structural impact of the shame experience—
increased psychic depletion of resources as well as the division of the self.
Broadly, sin may be conceptualized as an orientation to life that (1) destroys
community; (2) impedes God’s intentions for the world—human and natural
(cosmos); and (3) inhibits or destroys individual well-being (Capps 2000).

In like manner, Shults states that at the “heart of the doctrine of original sin . . .
is that each and every person is bound by relations to self, others, and God that
inhibit the goodness of loving fellowship” (2003, 309). Humans desire to be
related to good objects—this is a core feature of being made in God’s image.
Human nature is motivated to secure relations with these good objects. The good
but sinful human is unable to truly discern what is of ultimate value. This means
humans often substitute idols for the ultimate security provided by God—
salvation in his Son.

Sin is the condition of failing to be in proper relationship with self, others, and
God. Brokenness in relationship is the heart of human sin. Thus, the goals of child
development from a Christian point of view are realized in capturing a sense of
the relationality in the divine Trinity, as exemplified in the covenant love, grace,
empowerment, and intimacy modeled by God for us in the Old and New
Testaments.

Capacity to Make Choices
In developmental theories, the capacity to make choices is generally couched in

terms of human agency. From a theological perspective, human agency is
understood in terms of people struggling to live as broken images of God yet
being responsible to God and others for their behavior. Child development
theorists differ significantly in the degree to which they conceptualize humans as
choice-making creatures.

Classic learning theory assumes that children are born as clean slates on which
social conditioning imprints the cultural script. In this mechanistic view, people
operate on much the same principles as do machines.

Social learning theory leans toward the conviction that children are active
organisms who continually act upon and construct their own environments.

The contemporary theories maintain that children are unable to take any action
apart from the options presented by their environment. While we can use the
wisdom of child development theories to understand human freedom, we must not
allow this knowledge to deter us from accepting the scriptural view of free will.

Humans, from a Christian perspective, (1) act intentionally and judge between
objects, (2) are motivated by desire for certain goods, and (3) act to attain
perceived goods (Shults 2003). “The emerging agent is embedded in a dynamic
trajectory in which one finds oneself loving and longing to be loved” (Shults
2003, 191). However, this agent is ambiguously related to the good. Humans have
the capability to choose and are inherently motivated to choose. Sin has not
removed the ability to choose; it has warped humanity’s ability to accomplish
good in that choice.

Created for Community
Whereas child development theories have only recently leaned toward the view

that children are active organisms or are agents working on the environment, they
have been in continuous agreement that human input is necessary if children are to
take on human characteristics. Deprived of a human social environment, very little
in the biological structure of children would induce them to embrace norms,
values, or attitudes. When children are part of a human social environment,
however, they take on the attitudes and behaviors of that community.

God created humans to live in community. Imaging God means being in
relationships. This is the message from Genesis 1:26, “Let us make humankind in
our image,” and from Genesis 2:18, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that
the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’” Relationships
are reflected in the Trinity and are modeled in Adam and Eve’s relationship. The
“be fruitful and multiply” aspect of the creation of humanity is known as the
cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28; Wolters 2005), indicating God’s desire for humanity
to flourish and build community and culture. This core theme of living in
community is woven throughout the Old and New Testaments and is central to our
theological model of relations. Humans require an empowering community of
grace, based on covenant commitment, to provide the security and emotional
intimacy all humans need.

In summary, children need not only a family; they also need a family of
families. This is essentially the New Testament model of what the church is to be
to the family—a place where family members are nurtured, empowered, and
developed in a community of faith. The covenant community is to care for
members as well as to help them mature spiritually.

Parenting Young Children
The major theories of child development provide a basis for discussing important
dimensions of parenting young children. In this section we address the matter of
how parents can best facilitate the social, psychological, and spiritual growth of
their children. In keeping with our theological basis for family relationships, we
believe that parents need to provide unilateral unconditional love. This is the
indispensable component in the empowerment process. The fundamental qualities
—loving, accepting, knowing, and communicating—kindle in children the
capacity for mature bilateral commitments. The question of how to empower
children comes down to a twofold concern: (1) how to build self-validation and
(2) how to discipline.

Unconditional Love and Self-Validation
Children need to be valued for who they are and their unique contributions to

their families. When parents have high self-esteem and model mutual regard and
cooperation in their marital relationship, they establish a climate in which self-
esteem is nourished in their children.

The covenant commitment from parents to children establishes children’s
identities. As children experience responsiveness and accessibility from their
parents, this identity as belonging to the parents is solidified. Covenantal love
cements belonging in children. Children learn that they are valued for who they
are, not only for how they behave or contribute.

This identity is reflected in our adoption into God’s family. In a poignant
passage, Paul describes how gentiles and Jews are joined into one family: “So
then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and
also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19–20).
Identity is based on acceptance into God’s family; analogically, identity is based
on the covenant commitment parents make to their children.

Unconditional love should be shown not only in the parents’ commitment to be
responsible and faithful in child-rearing tasks but also in verbal and behavioral
demonstrations of affection for their children. The children will then begin to
recognize that they are loved not only for what they do but also for who they are.
This gives them a sense of security and increases the incentive to be cooperative
and helpful family members.

Acceptance of Differences Inherent in the Family Constellation

The order in which siblings enter into a family is referred to as the family
constellation. Although research is inconclusive about the empirical effects of
family constellation on adult personality (Miller, Anderson, and Keala 2004),
many therapists emphasize how an individual’s birth order affects adulthood.
Each position in the family is important, and every child needs to feel secure in
his or her place. Particular characteristics accompany each position. For example,
the oldest child is usually an achiever since parents tend to give first children
special attention and expect them to take responsibility early. Middle children
often try to compete with the older sibling(s), but since they cannot catch up, they
often achieve in areas untried by the older sibling(s). Sometimes middle children
feel squeezed or lost. The family usually caters to the youngest children, who,
therefore, tend to be more easygoing and relaxed. The terms babied and spoiled
are usually affectionate labels, but there can also be resentment toward the
youngest children. An only child is similar to the oldest child but tends to be more
adult in attitudes and actions. Children who come from large families tend to
separate themselves into smaller sibling groups.

Every position in the family has certain advantages and disadvantages. The
only girl in a family of boys or the only boy in a family of girls may have special
privileges and problems. Siblings who are more than five years apart tend to feel
separated into different subsystems. And, of course, there is great variability in
how each unique family reacts to each individual child.

It is important that every position be respected and that age-appropriate
behavior be expected of every child. Parents who exert too much pressure or
expect too much burden a child unnecessarily; however, parents with low
expectations or who show little faith in a child’s abilities provide insufficient
stimulation. Neither of these extreme approaches empowers the child.

Older siblings need assurance that their positions in the family are special and
secure. Knowing that younger children are not more loved or more valued
encourages them to be helpful with their younger siblings rather than jealous or
competitive. If middle children are noticed and perceive that they are cherished as
special and capable, they will not feel the need to outdo the older children. If the
youngest children are given adequate attention and encouraged to accomplish
appropriate tasks, they will be able to contribute to the family system without
feeling overindulged or coddled. Parents send their children a strong message by
believing in them and in their ability to contribute to the well-being of others.

Communication
Parents use verbal and nonverbal communication to show that they respect and

value their children. Critical to effective communication is the ability to be

genuine. Most children can sense an inauthentic remark because the verbal claim
is incongruent with the body language. It behooves parents to be congruent; that is,
words, body language, and tone of voice should convey a consistent message.
Expressing one’s feelings honestly gives children clear and direct messages to
which they can accurately respond.

When there is a discrepancy between verbal and nonverbal messages, a child
will be confused and frustrated. This is sometimes called the double bind: the
child cannot respond to both messages at the same time without being
contradictory. The major problem is that neither the parent nor the child talks
openly about the confusion, which further obscures the truth. Such distorted
communication disrupts family functioning.

Communication will be enhanced if parents use encouraging statements such as,
“Mike, you did a fine job of cleaning out the sink,” or “Barb, I know it’s difficult
for you to do those math problems, but you’re getting better at it.” These messages
are very different from negative appraisals, which tend to become self-fulfilling
prophecies—for example, “What’s wrong with you; don’t you know any better?”
Such remarks lead to discouragement and uncooperative attitudes.

The most important element of communication is listening. When we are
listened to, we feel validated and cared for. Our children also need to be heard
and understood. Considering their ideas and caring about their feelings are ways
in which parents show they accept their children’s perspectives. Taking the time
to know how they think and feel leads to deeper understanding. This is the very
essence of how children gain the confidence that culminates in self-esteem and
good decision-making.

The following illustration demonstrates the supreme importance of listening.
When eight-year-old Mario comes home because he has been hurt by his friend
Reed, it is important for him to process his feelings with a parent who will listen
and try to understand what he feels. This is not a time for the parent to question,
scold, make suggestions to fix or repair the relationship, or insinuate that Mario
was wrong; nor should the parent march to Reed’s house to solve the dispute.
Listening is especially helpful because it gives Mario a chance to express and
deal with his feelings safely with someone who truly cares about him. Doing so
provides a perspective that most likely will enable him to decide for himself how
to handle the situation. In other words, listening in this situation allows Mario to
become responsible for the relationship. Knowing that parents accept, understand,
and support them gives children confidence in themselves. Given such assurance,
they will be empowered to act appropriately.

Forgiveness

There are three main types of definitions of forgiveness (Shults and Sandage
2003). First, we can think of the legal aspects of forgiveness, as in eliminating a
debt. Second, therapeutic forgiveness focuses on the psychological and relational
benefits of going through a forgiveness process. The final definition of
forgiveness is redemptive forgiveness, which emphasizes restoration and
reconciliation as an outcome of forgiveness. In family relationships especially,
there are many opportunities to practice the virtue of forgiveness. Forgiveness in
families is redemptive in nature, not therapeutic, as covenant-keeping families
empower and exude the grace of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a two-way process:
neither parents nor children are perfect, and they all need forgiving when they
make mistakes. Every day, we need to admit when we’ve offended or
disappointed someone. Saying we forgive each other is living out grace and
acceptance, which is rooted in unconditional loving.

Love You Forever, a wonderful children’s book by Robert Munsch (1986),
illustrates this kind of love. The boy in this story makes many mistakes throughout
his growing years, infancy through adolescence. However, he is assured each
night by his mother that he is loved unconditionally: “I’ll love you forever; I’ll
like you for always!” This guarantee of always being accepted, no matter what he
has done, gives him the confidence and incentive to love others in the same
unconditional way. Such is the love we experience as God’s children and ought to
extend to our children.

Serving
Empowerment gives children the sense that their contribution to the family is

valuable. The perspective that each family member serves and supports the others
imparts a feeling of worth and esteem to children and adults alike. When children
are expected and encouraged to participate in the functioning of the family, both
emotionally and physically, they sense that the family is more than a group of
separate individuals. They begin to see themselves as part of a larger system that
is greater than all the individual members put together.

When children sense that they are an integral part of the family and that their
input is esteemed, they are glad to cooperate and serve. Their contribution will be
not only instrumental (doing chores) but also emotional (uplifting the family
mood). They will help create family morale, identity, and unity.

Discipline
The Bible uses words such as love and honor to describe the ideal parent-child

relationship. Various Old and New Testament passages also discuss the

importance of guidance and correction, and these passages promise that good
training will pay off because children will not depart from it. They learn from
sound discipline and eventually become self-disciplined, responsible adults.

One helpful method of discipline is the concept of natural and logical
consequences (discussed in chapter 6). This method is familiar to us because God
dealt with the children of Israel in a similar way. God’s people had to face the
consequences of their choices and behaviors. There are consequences to be
reckoned with when we disobey. The blessing of the covenant was conditional in
that they reaped what they sowed (although God’s gift of love and grace was
unconditional). God has laid down laws such as the Ten Commandments to guide
us in rightful living, which will bring meaning to our lives. God has our best
interests in mind and knows what will bring fullness and peace and purpose.

In the same way, children learn best when they experience consequences for
their behavior, especially if they realize that the rules are a product of their
parents’ love and concern for them. This is in contrast to training children
primarily by punishing their negative behavior, an approach that puts all the
responsibility on the parents—they alone make the decision to wield punitive
power when they are displeased. It is more helpful for children to come to
understand that their misbehavior has specific consequences and that the ultimate
responsibility rests with them.

Take the example of five-year-old Alexis in a rocking chair. Rocking back and
forth brings pleasure and joy, but if she rocks too hard or becomes too
rambunctious, the chair falls over and she suffers the consequences of her action.
This experience helps her monitor herself the next time she rocks in the chair.
Children find their own limits through these consequences. As they self-correct
and set appropriate boundaries for themselves, they are taking responsibility for
their actions.

How should parents go about the business of setting up fair and reasonable
rules (with logical consequences) to help their children learn limits and
eventually become responsible for their own behavior? Children should be given
a reasonable limit and told that a specific consequence will be applied if they go
beyond that limit. For example, if Ming is given the task of taking the garbage out
before dinner, he has a clear task and timeframe. When dinner comes and he has
not remembered to take out the garbage, his place at the dinner table is not set
(meaning no plates, utensils, cups, etc.). Of course, he will get dinner once he
completes his task of throwing away the trash.

Notice how the consequence is logically related to the misbehavior and carried
out in a clear and pleasant manner. There is no need for a verbal reprimand,
which might well lead parent and child into a useless power struggle and

sidetrack attention from the child’s responsibility for the consequence. The main
point is that the parent does not need to scold or punish but must see to it that the
child becomes fully aware of the consequences of the behavior. Additionally, with
a clear expectation and consequence, silence allows the child to own the problem
and its solution. One important caveat is that the consequence needs to be
something the parents can live with. For example, if it is challenging or
uncomfortable for parents to withhold dinner until the task is completed, then this
approach should be used with some other logical consequence. This allows the
child to accept limits and eventually to achieve self-discipline.

Obviously, a crucial point is how the consequences are set up and carried out.
The consequences should, of course, be appropriate to the child’s age and
maturity. Also, parents should not be unduly restrictive and punitive by making
rules and regulations that seem unfair or unreasonable to the children. Remember
that the certainty of the consequence is more important than the severity.

Here the idea of the family council comes into play. When children are old
enough, they should be included in setting up the rules and the consequences of
failing to keep them. The family decides together what are reasonable rules and
expectations for everyone. It must be an equitable arrangement. For example, if
the family rule is “no dishes are to be left in the sink after supper,” then every
family member must submit to the consequence. Therefore, if the father forgets,
he, like any other family member, must wash the dishes the next morning.

When assigning chores, wise parents are flexible and listen to every family
member. Perhaps someone is too fussy about how the beds are made, and another
too careless in mowing the lawn. If folding laundry is assigned to a teenager, then
clear expectations about how to fold the laundry should be provided. However, if
a particular family member is too picky about how the laundry is folded, they
should either take the chore on themselves or not complain or redo the folding
after the teen completes it. Individuals need to complete their tasks to their ability
and their preference. These matters need to be discussed together openly in the
family council. This is the time and place to set up assignments that are age
appropriate and fair. The family council provides an opportunity for children to
learn the democratic principles of equality, freedom of speech, and fairness. All
members should have input as to whether the emotional needs of the family are
being met. Even the youngest child can point out that the family is not spending
enough time together having fun and give suggestions for remedying the problem.
Or the teenagers may need to point out that since they are older and can handle
more independence, it is time to make some changes in policies.

The mode of discipline we have suggested entails personal empowerment. The
ultimate goal is mutual empowerment among all family members. Of course, the

onus of responsibility will initially be on the parents. They will need to take time
with the family, listen to each member, and consider the uniqueness of each child.
The parents must be willing to forgive and be forgiven, set an example by
submitting to the same requirements asked of the others, and model love and
caring behavior, fairness, and consistency. As modeled in the story of the prodigal
son (Luke 15), wise parents allow a child the right to choose a behavior despite
the consequence to be faced. They know when to step back and allow the
consequence to do the correcting, as well as when to intervene to prevent a
destructive consequence from exacting its toll.

These principles of the empowerment process involve serving and being
served. They are built on a foundation of unconditional love and commitment,
operate most successfully in an atmosphere of acceptance and forgiving grace,
and result in intimacy through deep knowledge of and communication with one
another. People who have been empowered have a competence and self-esteem
they can share both in the family and with their community, society, and the world
at large.

Once again, God’s covenant serves as an analogy. Unconditional faithfulness
and love form the foundation. Even though we deserve the consequence of our
failure and sin, God offers grace and forgiveness when we fail to meet
expectations. Moreover, God provides the Holy Spirit to encourage, empower,
and enable us to live according to the law so that the blessing may be ours.
Finally, our hope of intimacy and relationship with the Almighty One renews and
revitalizes us. As we grow in this circle of covenant, grace, empowerment, and
intimacy, we experience a deeper and more intense level of God’s love and of our
love for one another. And so does the love within a family deepen as its members
implement the empowerment process.

8

Family Spirituality
Nurturing Christian Beliefs, Morals,

and Values

In traditional family systems, grandparents played a central role in the
spiritual development of the young. The decline of an extended (three-
generation) family system changed that, leaving the isolated nuclear family
solely responsible for spiritual formation. For the most part, busy modern
families have relinquished to other institutions (church and school) the
responsibility of teaching moral beliefs and values to their children. Without
question, social institutions play a vital role in inculcating values, yet parents
are the ones who are directed to “train children in the right way” (Prov.
22:6). We believe spiritual formation begins in the home through everyday
interaction practices and patterns of modeling that occur in day-to-day living.

The sometimes-conflicted understanding of education regarding values is
described as secondary socialization by Peter Berger and Thomas
Luckmann (1966). Berger and Luckmann describe how the family is the
primary socialization context for children, meaning that children learn values
and morals in the family. These values and morals are oriented toward filling
important roles in the community. Secondary socialization occurs when
children are sent to institutions like schools for education. In modern and
postmodern cultures, education is highly valued and inculcates the morals of
the dominant culture. Often these dominant values are at odds with the
worldviews of families and communities.

The family is indispensable when it comes to building character. How
parents live out their faith in the context of the family relationship has an
enormous impact. Ideas about how to facilitate this can be found in Sacred

Matters: Religion and Spirituality in Families by Burr, Marks, and Day
(2012).

In this chapter, we use the term family spirituality as an umbrella concept
to refer to all the ways family members cultivate an understanding of biblical
truth, moral beliefs, and values in children. Family spirituality forms the
value, moral and ethical, and characterological core of one’s identity. Moral
values are based on underlying beliefs concerning right and wrong. Ideally,
the internal formation of becoming Christlike is manifested in attitudes and
behavior that are truly transformative. Although the word faith can refer to
one’s religion, we use it to refer to a personal relationship to God the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We begin this chapter with a discussion of
moral and faith development, using trinitarian concepts as a model for family
interaction, and we conclude with an examination of family spirituality as an
essential aspect of faith communities.

Moral Development
Building on Piaget’s assumption that children reason differently at different
stages of development, Lawrence Kohlberg (1963) suggests that moral
development is best understood in an analogous way (see table 5 in chap. 7
above). During early childhood, moral decisions are made in terms of
obedience and punishment. The child obeys rules because to disobey results
in punishment. The second stage of moral decision-making—individualism
and exchange—is slightly refined as the child becomes aware of his or her
own individual needs as well as the self-interests of every other family
member. A sense of fairness accompanies this realization, and the child is
motivated to make moral decisions that show impartiality to each person
involved. The capacity to think more abstractly in early adolescence moves
one toward the interpersonal relationships stage. During this third stage,
personal intentions and character traits are taken into consideration in terms
of how they affect the relationship when one makes decisions. The fourth
stage of moral development involves maintaining social order. Now a
person comprehends the more complex way that moral judgments maintain
social order through laws and societal responsibility. This more abstract
understanding emphasizes the fact that laws exist to serve a greater social
order.

However, in the next stage—social contract and individual rights—the
person recognizes that social order does not always equal societal goodness.
Therefore, one searches for a criterion higher than the existing social order
when making moral decisions. At this point, a person moves on to the highest
level of moral reasoning—the universal principles stage. Here all people
are valued equally, and therefore one bases moral judgment on the principle
of the greatest good for the most people. This is known as utilitarianism.

It is clear that Kohlberg’s major focus is the form of a person’s moral
reasoning, not the content. His model is epigenetic in that the sequence of
moral development moves forward through these stages, never skipping a
stage or reverting to an earlier stage. Although stages of moral development
might approximate chronological age, Kohlberg acknowledges that it is
possible to “get stuck” in a specific stage of moral development and never
move forward. Therefore, he reasons, only a small minority reaches the more
advanced stages of moral reasoning. This model has been criticized for
neglecting the research findings that females tend to make moral decisions
more from a personal context rather than simply in consideration of rights
and justice. In light of this, some social scientists are interested in getting
beyond a cognitive approach by looking at the importance of moral identity
—one’s self-identity as a morally responsible person.

The Handbook of Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence
(Roehilkepartain et al. 2005) proposes that moral identity is formed by
social influence and most importantly through relationships with others. The
authors insist that moral development is not merely a reflection of cognitive
ability but primarily the result of a personal relationship. These personal
relationships or identifications with moral exemplars—individuals who
devote their lives to bettering society—form the basis of moral identity.
Moral exemplars can be famous people, such as Mother Teresa or Martin
Luther King Jr., or simply people who have forsaken personal ambitions to
devote their lives to the good of others. The inspirational stories of moral
exemplars tell of life-changing experiences, such as serving the poor, that
have transformed them (Reimer 2003). While cognitive development is
certainly an important dimension of moral decision-making, the role of moral
identity has a profound personal impact on a person. Having a relationship
with a person of strong moral character is a transformative experience in and
of itself.

Therefore, we conclude that a holistic understanding of moral
development includes content, cognitive reasoning, and relationships with
moral exemplars. What is important for family spirituality is that values,
norms, and rules be based on biblical truths and lived out in family
relationships.

We would argue that family spirituality fosters what we earlier described
as differentiation in Christ (DifC) (see “Differentiated Unity: Becoming One
and Retaining Uniqueness” in chap. 4). DifC emphasizes that Christians’
authentic identity comes from one’s relationship to Christ. This identity base
is the bedrock from which all behaviors and relationships are built. In other
words, DifC forms the basis of identity- or values-based action. Core values
and meaning-making are the center of one’s identity. DifC provides the value-
and-meaning system upon which one engages in value-based action. There
will be more on this below.

Faith Development
In his classic work, James Fowler (1981) brings cognitive development
theory to his “faith process” mode. He argues that faith is always relational.
There is always someone to trust in or be loyal to. Faith, according to
Fowler, is an epistemological process—a way of knowing. It is a covenantal
relationship between an individual, or meaning-making community, and the
transcendent Other. It is important to note that Fowler squarely relates the
capacity to have faith to the bonding process between parent and child:

In the interaction of parent and child not only does a bond of mutual trust and loyalty begin to
develop, but already the child, albeit on a very basic level, senses the strange new environment as
one that is either dependable and provident, or arbitrary and neglectful. Long before the child can
sort out clearly the values and beliefs of the parents, he or she senses a structure of meaning and
begins to form nascent images . . . of the centers of value and power that animate the parents’
faith. As love, attachment, and dependence bind the new one into the family, he or she begins to
form a disposition of shared trust and loyalty to (or through) the family’s faith ethos. (1981, 16–17)

When parents model covenant love to their children, they expose them to a
way of seeing and being in the world. Their provision of a safe, trustworthy
environment allows the child to experience loyal and faithful connection,
which opens up a meaningful structure for the child. Fowler understands faith
as developing through six sequential stages. Infancy begins with
undifferentiated faith, derived from the infant’s initial experience of being

sufficiently cared for by parents. The formation of secure or insecure
attachments establishes the foundation on which faith is built (and is not
counted as one of the six stages). The first stage, intuitive-projective faith,
emerges during early childhood as language acquisition and emotional
development allow a child to imagine through stories. Since logical thinking
does not control imagination, reality and fantasy are indistinguishable during
this stage. Children begin to form a conscious image of God. The mythical-
literal faith stage emerges during middle and late childhood. As children
begin to reason in a more logical and concrete manner, they can distinguish
between fantasy and reality. Children’s understanding of God is largely a
projection from human characteristics they find present in “godly” characters
in stories. Adolescence is characterized by a synthetic-conventional faith
that allows children to integrate their abstract religious ideas and concepts
into a coherent belief system. Developing a personal identity spurs teenagers
to incorporate God into that identity, while an increasing capacity for
intimacy in personal relationships leads to a desire for a personal
relationship with God. Stage 4, individuative-reflective faith, emerges as the
adolescent transitions into young adulthood. The process of anchoring faith
within the self is often accompanied by examining and questioning the
unexamined conventional, community-referenced faith of the previous stage.
Individuative-reflective faith tends to be both consciously chosen and
intellectually based.

Advanced chronological age is no guarantee that one has automatically
moved to a new stage of faith. In fact, a majority of young adults do not
advance to the conjunctive faith stage. During this fifth stage, the need for a
rational, intellectually consistent faith is replaced by the acceptance of a faith
that includes paradox, ambiguity, and mystery. The black-and-white certainty
of the previous stage is replaced by the reality of gray areas.

At this time, one moves toward a deepening of one’s relationship with
God through spiritual disciplines and practices. It is a time when young
people take up a clear devotion to God as their own personal quest rather
than riding on their parents’ coattails.

The highest developmental stage is universalizing faith, reached by few
and then rarely before middle to late adulthood. Universalizing faith is
characterized by a commitment to overcome division, violence, and
oppression, and an ability to transcend specific belief systems. Fowler
suggests that a quest for universal justice that moves beyond self-interest can

be observed in the lives of people such as Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi.

To summarize Fowler (1996), faith (1) is an integral, human process;
(2) underlies the development of beliefs, values, and meanings; (3) provides
coherence—a sense of sharing trust and loyalty with others; (4) grounds
one’s relationship to the ultimate; and (5) provides a coping mechanism for
human finitude. This is incapsulated in Fowler’s term centers of value and
power (CVP), which form the basis of faith relationships. These CVPs are
crucial in relating individuals with the transcendent other based on family
and community relationships.

Although these specific stages of faith development are helpful markers,
Fowler maintains that children enter the faith process through the
relationships with their parents and primary caregivers, which are so
persuasive. Children deprived of trusting and caring relationships are
therefore hindered in the development of a mature and trusting relationship
with God. The ability to experience God as a loving and trustworthy Parent
is related to personal experiences of loving and trusting in and through family
relationships. The Christian family plays a crucial role in the development of
faith.

A Trinitarian Model of Family Spirituality
Using a trinitarian focus on relationality, we suggest that the core aspect of
family spirituality centers on each family member achieving a differentiated
faith. Differentiated faith in the context of family life is multilayered: first,
each family member is differentiated (identity) in Christ; second, each
member establishes spiritual differentiation in the context of the family; and
third, a differentiated family spirituality develops, which serves as a unifying
and transforming process in the life of each family member. This approach
also connects and unifies the believer with the Christian community, which is
ultimately the context for both the individual and family to flourish
spiritually.

Differentiation in Christ
Differentiation in Christ refers to the New Testament emphasis on each

believer finding his or her identity and reference in relationship with Christ
rather than with other humans. Trusting in Christ’s death on the cross for

salvation and looking to the Holy Spirit for indwelling and transformation
starts the process. DifC is based on being adopted into God’s family: the
words from Jesus’s baptism—“You are my Son, the Beloved” (Mark 1:11)—
are said over us when we are adopted into God’s family through Christ’s
saving work. Surrendering one’s will to the will of God places Christ at the
center of each family member’s identity. As the Spirit enters, this individual
family member takes on a Christ-centered focus. The apostle John expresses
it this way: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). Each family
member’s personal relationship to Christ and growth in the Spirit enhances
family spirituality. Mutual commitment to spiritual transformation keeps
family members consciously aware of how God is working in and through
each of them and how it affects the family as a whole.

Spiritual Differentiation in the Family
The theological concept of perichoresis is based on the reciprocal

interiority of the divine persons through mutually indwelling and permeating
one another. Miroslav Volf (1998) writes that the “internal abiding and
interpenetration of the Trinitarian persons . . . determines the character both
of the divine persons and of their unity” (208). In a similar way, we suggest,
the internal interdependence and mutual indwelling (interpenetration) of the
spiritual lives of its members defines a family’s spiritual character. Just as
the members of the Godhead do not cease to be distinct persons in their unity,
neither do family members cease to be distinct spiritual persons in the family.
Volf further explains, “The distinctions between them are precisely the
presupposition of that interiority, since persons who have dissolved into one
another cannot exist in one another” (209). In other words, differentiation
makes interiority and interdependency possible.

If family members absorb into one another spiritually, they cease to be
distinct spiritual presences to one another. We call this spiritual fusion.
When members dissolve into one another, they cannot offer unique spiritual
perspectives. They relinquish their uniqueness, which is based on their
personal relationship with Christ. At the other extreme, when the spirituality
of family members has little or no mutual impact, spiritual interiority and
interdependence are nonexistent. We might call this spiritual cutoff. When
family members distance or cut off from one another spiritually, they cannot
draw on the spiritual resources that could enrich their spiritual lives as a
family. The relationship is sacrificed for a pseudo-individuality.

Spiritual differentiation means that each member is ultimately formed
through a personal relationship with Christ and God’s Spirit. The family
supports and nurtures this spirituality, and the family encourages each
member to cultivate spiritual meaning individually while maintaining
relationships with one another and the local church. DifC means that one is
personally called beloved of God and finds his or her identity in Christ and
his family, the church. Second, this identity forms the foundation for relating
to the family as well as the local church.

In spiritual fusion, the spiritual trials or doubts experienced by one
member precipitate a crisis that threatens the faith of the whole family.
Hardships necessarily bring questions about the faith to the forefront. These
questions produce anxiety as they are perceived to threaten the family’s
Christian identity. Further, individuals are unable to express honest
differences because members are overly invested in being of one mind on
spiritual matters. Any expressed difference sends members into a reactive
panic mode, and honest doubt and questions are interpreted as a personal
affront to the family faith—an existential threat to the family’s identity. Such a
state of spiritual fusion puts all family members under duress, leading to
shaming and judgmental tactics to bring the straying member back into the
fold. It might be helpful to make a distinction between spiritual
overdependence and spiritual interdependence among family members.

The opposite end of spiritual fusion is spiritual disconnection and
indifference. In this case, a low level of differentiation in Christ leaves
family members cut off from one another’s spiritual lives. In spiritually cut
off families, individual spiritual lives are kept private, as are most personal
experiences. Spiritual joys and struggles are not shared, resulting in
disconnection. The family misses out on the spiritual meaning that emerges
when members openly express their beliefs and spiritual visions. What is
needed is neither spiritual independence nor spiritual dependence but rather
spiritual interdependence.

The spiritually differentiated family, in contrast to the spiritually fused or
cutoff family, allows members to share their spiritual lives in a way that
expands and connects. In other words, this type of differentiated spirituality
is transformative (Shults and Sandage 2006). Family relationships become
the means for growth because spiritual differences become a catalyst for
spiritual differentiation. In a spiritually differentiated family, the personal
faith of each family member can remain firm regardless of what is happening

in the life of another member. At the same time, the doubts, struggles, and
questioning experienced by one family member can serve as a catalyst for
dialogue and personal self-examination before God for the others. Interest,
concern, and support are given for the others’ spiritual lives. Bringing
resources to bear creates a beneficial balanced perspective.

This type of transformative spirituality (Shuts and Sandage 2006) reflects
two of the main types of spiritual development. Shuts and Sandage focus on
the two-step process of dwelling (togetherness) and seeking (individuality).
Times of spiritual dwelling emphasize relationship-oriented activities like
fellowship, worship, and connection. In the family, these practices are
supportive and reinforce how the family identifies with the Christian story.
Times of spiritual seeking are characterized by individuals increasing their
knowledge of and relationship with Christ. This intensification aids the
individual in making spirituality more personally meaningful. Often times,
seeking facilitates isolation and “desert” experiences. Research suggests that
individuals with higher levels of DifC tend to have more relational forms of
spirituality (Frederick et al. 2016).

Family Spirituality and Sanctification
We believe that healthy spiritual differentiation within the family and

among family members offers the greatest potential for a transforming
experience. Because of the sheer magnitude of shared life experiences, no
other human arena is as potentially powerful to form the inner spiritual life.
In a parallel sense, there is no other human arena in which living a Christlike
life is more difficult. In the family, we are more exposed than anywhere else,
and it is nearly impossible to wear a mask in front of other family members
or to fake a spiritual life. Individual spiritual growth is an ongoing and
sometimes painful journey that takes place in the demands of actually living
together as family. The family becomes a resilient vessel in which a spiritual
metamorphosis occurs. Family relationships can become the catalyst for
members to grow and to change in response to one another.

It should be noted that family tensions and conflicts can also be the
catalysts for healthier forms of spiritual differentiation. Although not
pleasant, family tensions and trials allow one to understand oneself more
clearly and take responsibility for one’s own growth. The family is a safe
place where we can encounter others honestly and deal openly with spiritual

differences and disappointments. However, if the family is an unsafe arena,
spiritual stagnation will result.

Family members become acutely aware of their human frailties in the
context of relating to one another. However, living out the biblical
components of unconditional love, grace, empowerment, and intimacy offer
the deepest possibility of being transformed into the image of Christ.

Dealing with Differences in Faith
In this section, we address the issue of diversity of faith commitments within
a family. Although one should not assume that the lack of a common faith
automatically negates the possibility of family spirituality, it certainly makes
it more challenging. Differences in faith commitments can seriously limit
family spirituality or place a family at a distinct disadvantage in this area.
Under the conditions of diverse faith commitments, spiritual differentiation
within a family becomes even more important. Since the adolescent is
typically at a development stage in which she or he is trying to develop a
personal faith, we use the family with an adolescent child to illustrate this
point.

In a spiritually fused family, the teenage child must either conform to the
family ideal or risk the dire consequence of fracturing the family’s spiritual
unity. Since spirituality is foundational to both the individual’s identity and
the family’s, there is intense pressure to maintain this family identity,
sometimes at the expense of individual identity. Spiritually fused families
have lower thresholds for allowing members to think differently about issues
of faith and spirituality, as thinking differently reflects divergent values and
consequently a divergent identity. The unfortunate cost for such “spiritual
unity” is that the adolescent does not form a personal faith and may be
especially vulnerable when he or she leaves home.

We (Jack and Judy) remember when our fourteen-year-old daughter,
Jacque, announced at the dinner table that she no longer believed in God. We
gulped, tried to remain calm, and listened with interest to what she was
saying. We asked questions to help her sort out her ideas. Instead of giving
pat answers, we responded to her questions by sharing our beliefs. A few
weeks later from our living room, we overheard a conversation Jacque was
having with two of her high school–age friends on the front-porch swing. To
our amazement, Jacque was reiterating some of our beliefs as well as

expressing more clearly her personal belief in God. We realized others were
challenging her faith, and she was searching for answers. Much of her
questioning about religion during her teenage years was an attempt to make
personal a faith she had learned from her parents and church. We were not
always cool parents when our teens expressed doubts. Because it is difficult
for us to tolerate our own anxiety, we can’t help but bombard our children
with what we think is correct theology. However, with Jacque we learned to
trust in God to be at work in her and to be at work through others as well. We
will always be thankful to the youth pastor and a sixty-year-old mentor from
our church who allowed our son, Joel, to grapple with faith and ask honest
questions without fear. This is how he finally came to a personal faith in
Christ.

As we are working on this latest revision, there is intense angst as the
COVID-19 pandemic continues to challenge our faith in God. Questions
abound regarding the meaning and purpose of God allowing the pandemic to
continue. My (Tom’s) son Nathaniel is entering his senior year of high school
and has felt this angst acutely. Our family has encouraged Nathaniel to
develop his faith personally, and we have had many conversations about
God’s nature and purpose. For Nathaniel, like so many seniors in 2020 and
2021, missing one’s friends and many important senior-year activities
(especially graduation) looms large. We have adopted a listening approach;
it is important for Nathaniel to have space to ask and process the questions,
frustration, anger, and grief (anticipated and actual) caused by the pandemic.
We are hoping that our relationship with Nathaniel, as well as his connection
with God, will sustain him—and all of us—during this uncertain time.

Spiritual insecurity is likely to be at the heart of family spiritual fusion.
Insecurity about spiritual differences tends to set up defiant and hostile
attitudes toward other family members. Parents may be tempted to ridicule or
put down their child’s tender beliefs in their attempts to cajole or coerce
their child to believe a certain way. Parents may even have a need to punish
their wayward child for not conforming to what they need him or her to
believe. Having a child who holds to a religious belief different from their
own may cause them to feel defeated as Christian parents or to be
apprehensive about their status in the church community when their children
are not following the faith. These self-focused concerns diminish a genuine
concern about their child’s spiritual well-being.

At the opposite extreme, spiritually disengaged families take a “hands-off”
approach in the name of respecting faith differences. Although such evasive
tactics succeed in eliminating religious conflict (each family member can go
his or her own independent way), they do little to enhance family spirituality.
Consciously ignoring the spiritual differences, doubts, questioning, and
struggles of other family members renders them “ships passing in the night.”
Compartmentalizing spiritual dimensions may prevent spiritual conflicts, but
it also stifles sharing spiritual joy and meaning as a family unit.

When there is a high level of family spiritual differentiation, children can
share spiritual and faith questions with their parents, free of the fear of being
rejected. Of course, it is always disheartening when your child seems to
reject God. Yet knowing that your children can honestly come to you with
doubts and questions means that they are secure in your love. This gives you
the best of all possibilities to be with them in their journey of faith.

Family Spirituality Embedded in Supportive Community
Although a family may be able to survive on its own spiritually, we believe it
will never thrive without a supportive community. Stanley Hauerwas (1981,
283) describes the church as the first family of every Christian by pointing
out that we learn “fidelity and love in a community that is sustained by a
faithful God.” When the family stands alone, it is difficult for it to withstand
the onslaught of spiritual distortions from a secular society.

The relationality exemplified in the Holy Trinity is a model for
congregational life as well as the family. Identity in Christ, or differentiation
in Christ, at the congregational level means there is a healthy degree of
connectedness as well as a healthy degree of separation. Permeable
boundaries show respect for individual, couple, and family needs as all
people participate in the life of the church. All voices are respected and
decisions are made in the best interest of the whole body. This community
lives out themes of reconciliation, transformation, restoration, and spreading
peace and justice. In other words, the church that is differentiated in Christ
embodies the kingdom or reign of God.

A faith community must be invested in the spiritual maturity of all
believers (1 Cor. 12:7–12). Baptized by one Spirit into one body, members
acknowledge their interdependency and mutual submissiveness (Eph. 5:21).
When one stumbles, everyone is affected, just as the healing of one brings

blessing to the entire congregation. The community calls members to
accountability for destructive patterns of relating and empowers them through
care and challenge. The church is a place where a family’s differentiated
faith is nourished and preserved. It supports the making and keeping of the
family members’ covenant commitments to one another. Through its multiple
resources, the church supports the family’s growth through instruction and
enrichment opportunities. Colossians 3:12–15 provides a model: “As God’s
chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness,
humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a
complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven
you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which
binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule
in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be
thankful.”

The deep undertone of hyperindividualism in modern society is an
enormous barrier to faith. It is nearly impossible to hold on to community
values in a society that promotes the “I” and the “me” over the “we”and
the“us.” In fact, community words such as cohumanity, reciprocity,
interdependence, and mutuality are undervalued and rarely used. This self-
focused mentality goes against the Christian ideal of forsaking self for the
sake of other. This in itself is a compelling reason for families to join a
community of faith that upholds biblical principles. We need all the help we
can get to be God-centered and relationship-centered. Being part of a
Christian community of care is not just a wise thing to do; it is a necessary
spiritual discipline.

Family Spirituality as a Process
The foundational element of family spirituality is covenantal love, which
responds to shortcomings with grace and uses personal gifts and strengths for
mutual empowerment, resulting in intimate relationships. Family spirituality
is not a static state to be achieved but a relational process to be lived out.

In introducing the model of family relationality, we stressed that such a
form should be found not only inwardly but also outwardly. As family
members are called to love unconditionally, forgive, and empower one
another in moving toward greater intimacy, so they are called to do the same
with those outside the family. The greatest evidence of strong family

spirituality can be seen in the way families reach out to minister to the needs
of others.

Family spirituality is an evolving process that corresponds to the major
developmental issues of living together as a family. The early stages of
marriage establish the foundational spiritual practices. With the arrival of
children, family life re-centers around and immerses in teaching and
modeling faith. When children become teenagers, parents and children
negotiate the meaning of an independent faith. After grown children leave
home, both those children and the parents redefine what it means to relate as
adult to adult and honor one another’s spiritual beliefs. Later in life, a
couple’s faith extends to grandparenting and elder-care roles, while in the
last stage of family life, the finality of death is faced in light of one’s faith. At
each stage of family life, the potential for individual spiritual growth or
stagnation reflects the health of family spirituality and the nature of its
corresponding relationality.

The relationship between Jesus and his Father serves as a model. Jesus
proclaims in John 17:22–23, “The glory that you have given me I have given
them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that
they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have
sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” God’s desire for
family life is for Christ to indwell each family member so that his or her
unique spiritual gifts mutually serve and empower the other members. Christ,
the cornerstone of faith, is the grounding force that permeates family
relationships and the life of the family with sacred meaning.

In anticipation of his death on the cross, Jesus offers us a glimpse of the
spiritual differentiation between the Father and the Son. In his time of
greatest spiritual anguish, Jesus tells his disciples, “I am deeply grieved,
even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me” (Matt. 26:38). He
reprimands them for falling asleep rather than joining him in prayer. In his
humanity, Jesus seeks comfort and support from his disciples. After they fail
him, Jesus prays, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me”
(v. 39). Jesus faces the anguish of being torn to the breaking point. He
desperately wants to be relieved of the upcoming suffering but also agonizes
about being separated from his Father in death. But in the intimate connection
of prayer and assurance of his Father’s love, he willingly submits: “Yet not
what I want but what you want” (v. 39).

The text reveals that the Son and the Father have individual wills. Yet the
Son’s desire is that his will be one with the Father’s will. Does the Father
feel the anguish and the “sorrow unto death” of the Son? We have no doubt
that he does. In a fatherly sense, he is very present through his love and
certainly dies with Jesus in that love. However, it is the Son, not the Father,
who physically dies on the cross. In a spiritual sense, the Father is there for
the Son without depriving the Son of his spiritual purpose. And in the end,
after the resurrection, Christ is fully transformed as he becomes one with
God. Here we have a glimpse of the differentiated spiritual unity between
God the Father and God the Son that can be a model for spiritual
differentiation in human family relationships.

9

Adolescence and Midlife
Challenging Changes

The greatest conflicts within the family are likely to occur when children are
in their adolescence. One reason is that at the very time children are in the
difficult period of adolescence, their parents are likely to be reaching
midlife. Research on adult development has shown that reaching midlife is
often a time of crisis for adults (Sneed et al. 2012). Thus, the conflict that
frequently occurs during the strain of adolescence must be viewed in light of
the parental strain as well. Both parents and adolescents are experiencing
significant developmental transitions individually, which adds potential
stress for the family.

A systemic approach helps us understand the interactive effect of these
transitions: adolescent stress does not just add to parental midlife stress—it
multiplies it. Further, midlife challenges affect and are constantly affected by
adolescent changes. These transitions influence one another, either
magnifying conflicts or dampening them. Whenever two or more family
members are going through a period of personal crisis simultaneously, the
potential for conflict increases exponentially. It is also true that some
conflicts with a particular teen may elicit more difficulty than others.

This chapter presents the stressful challenges of adolescence and midlife
separately and then considers the special problems that arise when they
happen concurrently. We begin with an examination of the factors
contributing to the rise of adolescent and midlife strain in our society.
“What’s the big deal?” the reader may be asking. “People pass through
adolescence and midlife in every society. Why make such an issue about
them?” But this is not, in fact, the case. True, people in every society pass
through the chronological ages corresponding to adolescence and midlife, but

these are not distinct stages of life in most societies. We will attempt to
explain why our society seems to produce more adolescent and midlife strain
than most others.

Adolescence

The Origin of the Adolescent Stage
Western societies initially possessed the cultural equivalent of puberty

rites, which marked the transition from childhood to adulthood. Prior to the
Industrial Revolution, youth learned to farm or acquired a trade by
developing skills through the apprenticeship system. As they both lived with
and worked under the watchful eye of the master craftsman, apprentices
occupied clear-cut positions. Once the skills were mastered, one was ready
for adulthood and marriage. Mastering the skills of one’s future trade was the
rite of passage into adulthood.

Urbanization and industrialization brought about a slower and more
ambiguous passage into adulthood. With the development of factories, the
apprenticeship system declined. Factory work did not require a high degree
of skill, so youth could begin working independently at an early age.
Children began to leave their homes to work in urban factories. Because of
the extremely low pay, most of them lived in slum apartments. Alienated from
the rest of society, they increasingly became a problem to society. Because
these adolescents were disenfranchised from adult life, an adolescent culture
emerged.

What in the beginning included just a few urban youth for a brief period of
their lives has grown to include virtually all young people in our society. The
period in view—the gap between childhood and adulthood, which we call
adolescence—has also expanded. There are several reasons for this
phenomenon. First, as our society has become increasingly technologically
oriented, more jobs have been created at the highly skilled level and fewer at
the lower level. Thus, young people must continue their education and delay
their entrance into the full-time workforce, which would normally award
them adult status.

Second, one of the effects of the Industrial Revolution has been the
development of the separate spheres of home and work life. The upshot is
that home is a place of refuge, relaxation, and enjoyment, where work is a

place of toil, difficulty, and challenge. As children are prevented from
entering the work sphere until they have sufficient skills and education,
adolescence has expanded. This is changing to a certain extent, as technology
has been eroding the clear boundaries between work and family life. In some
respects, technology (social media, for example) has allowed individuals to
be more connected with the world and peers; but it has also increased
loneliness, depression, and isolation (Woods and Scott 2016).

Third, the extended family has been replaced by the nuclear family
because of high mobility. The nuclear family is a small, fragile unit, isolated
from relatives who could provide resources and give young people a sense
of stability and belonging. In many families, divorce, separation, or the need
for parents to work long hours in the marketplace further complicate the
situation. In the present day, nuclear families outsource to churches, agencies,
and the local community many needs that extended families once met.

A fourth factor contributing to the expansion of adolescence is the
affluence of youth in Western societies today. Either because they earn their
own money or because their parents give them money, many young people
possess a degree of independence not experienced by any previous
generation. The greater independence of youth today goes hand-in-hand with
a loss of parental and societal control.

Although these factors did not produce adolescence, they have been
instrumental in furthering it. Adolescence came about because social
structures developed that slow the movement of youth toward adult status.
Concomitant with this arrested development is a lack of meaning in the lives
of young people today. Locked out of adulthood, they find their lives void of
the meaning that is a part of adult roles. From this vantage, the creation of
adolescent subcultures can best be understood.

Adulthood is generally marked by marriage (or having a stable, committed
relationship), the end of occupational training, childbearing and rearing,
gainful employment, and home ownership (see Townsend 2002 for an
excellent discussion of the effect of these markers on gender identity), and
adolescence is supposed to equip individuals to attain those markers.
Because these markers are increasingly difficult to attain, adolescence has
been stretching beyond the traditional end point of eighteen years old and into
the mid to late twenties (Kail and Cavanaugh 2017).

There is evidence that, because of a combination of biological and social
factors, adolescence is beginning earlier and lasting longer, resulting in the

identification of an emerging adulthood stage between adolescence and
young adulthood (Kail and Kavanaugh 2017). Formal attempts to define the
beginning of adulthood in contemporary society do very little to dispel this
confusion. For example, the legal age at which one may marry varies from
state to state. In terms of voting privileges and military service, an eighteen-
year-old is judged to be an adult. In most states, a young adult is permitted to
drive at sixteen and legally allowed to drink alcohol at age twenty-one. It is
enlightening to note the age at which a person is regarded as an adult when
financial profit is involved. Movie theaters, airlines, and most public
establishments that require an admission fee consider a twelve-year-old to
be an adult. Teenagers are asked to pay adult prices but are told to wait until
they are older to receive adult privileges.

To grow up in the United States can be a free-form experience.
Adolescence can be compared to a jam session in which experienced jazz
musicians play without a score. They simply improvise as they go along,
relying on their skills and experience as musicians to feel the ebb and flow of
the music. Unfortunately, being a teen or parenting a teen usually means
having little experience or expertise in navigating the crescendo and
diminuendo of the sometimes-turbulent improvisation. Unlike the master jazz
musician, adolescents follow no clear cultural norms. This explains the rapid
change in adolescent fashion and style, whether it be clothes, hairdos, or
language.

Adolescence as an Identity Crisis
Although adolescence can be explained as resulting from the social and

economic conditions of Western cultures, its effect is most profound at the
individual level, where it is often experienced as an identity crisis. This
identity crisis is the most important feature of the psycho-social development
of adolescents (Erikson 1980, 1997). Our discussion of adolescent stress
needs to be tempered by the fact that the media are quick to report on all that
is wrong with adolescents but rarely give positive examples illustrating the
good things adolescents do (Damon 2004). The popular depiction of
adolescence focuses primarily on teenage risk-taking and other negative
stereotypes of this life stage.

The creation of an adolescent subculture is an attempt to establish identity.
One learns from peer groups what to wear, what music to listen to, what
movies to see, what language is “in,” and so on. The greater the adolescent’s

insecurity, the greater the slavish obedience to doing all the right things
sanctioned by the peer group.

During the process of differentiation and identity formation, the adolescent
is often caught between the family and the peer group. We might think of the
family and the peer group as being alternative gravitational forces around
which teenagers are orbiting satellites. Young children orbit quite closely
around their family, but the orbit becomes wider and wider as the children
grow older. As they approach their teenage years, they are increasingly
drawn by the alternative gravitational pull of their peer group. As the pull
from the peer group intensifies, they sometimes retreat from the family and
reorient themselves around the peer group. Parents know quite well when
this has happened because their teens usually give more weight to the
opinions of their peers than to those of their parents.

The generation gap can be understood as the result of the identity crisis
faced by most adolescents. An important aspect of identity development for
teens and young adults is technology. As teens communicate more and more
online via social media such as Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok, social
pressure, almost instantaneous feedback, and pictures and video form the
context for identity. We can see distinct changes in the ways in which
personal pictures reflect increasing confidence, scope (through sharing),
intimacy, and intentionality (Yang and Brown 2016). Social media’s role in
teen and emerging-adult identity formation is both a positive in that
geographical distance is overcome and also a negative, as feedback can be
very harsh and overwhelming. Research has identified a strong connection
between social media use and depressive symptoms (Nesi and Prinstein
2015). The increasing role of social media has added a dimension to
adolescence that many parents are unable to understand. When a teen can
receive a million likes and severely negative feedback in the span of a few
minutes in his or her own bedroom, caregivers can be at a loss to understand
the sometimes-positive and sometimes-negative effects of social media on
the teen.

Midlife
Adults continue to pass through individual stages of development throughout
their lifetimes. One of the most widely recognized stages is the onset of
midlife, used to describe the feeling of not being able to keep up with the

vast changes of the postmodern world. The rapidity of social and
technological changes tends to shock each new generation. Personal
adaptations can reach crisis proportions when we are not prepared for the
future.

Technology has had a profound effect on adults in the workforce. Younger
workers tend to adopt technology based on their perceptions of how the
technology will assist them in accomplishing their tasks. Older workers rely
on workplace social norms and the subjective experience of exerting control
over the use of the technology (Morris and Venkatesh 2000). Adults in the
labor force are especially vulnerable when they realize that the jobs they are
trained to do and have been doing for most of their adult lives are becoming
obsolete due to the introduction of new technology that boosts productivity.
Automobile workers quite understandably experience a crisis when they
realize that robots can do much of their work. A similar anxiety plagues
managers and other people in the business world. They fear being overtaken
by younger, better-trained college graduates, especially in the computer age.

Midlife transition may also be a crisis for people who begin to realize that
they will not reach the lofty goals they set years before, goals that represent
self-esteem. Erik Erikson (1980, 1997) describes the longest period of one’s
development as the generativity versus stagnation stage. As individuals
begin to reflect on their contributions, they invest in caring for their current
relationships and work-related developments. Individuals in this stage
develop and cultivate the life they have been creating thus far—at work and
at home. That is, individuals experience generativity by enhancing their
relationships with family and further cultivating or growing the tasks and
projects they have built. Care, as the resulting virtue of this stage,
emphasizes the commitment and concern one has in establishing and
developing what has been generated. Capps (2008, 126) explains:
“Generativity involves an expansion of one’s personal interests and
emotional attachments to include that which has been generated (conceived,
originated, produced, etc.) while stagnation suggests either that nothing has
been generated or that, once generated, nothing is being done to insure its
survival, growth, or development.” This means that individuals make or
renew commitments to the investments they have made, whether it be to
work, family, friends, or the community. This is known as stewardship from
the Christian perspective. Individuals experiencing generativity express care

for their contributions to the world. Generativity is achieved when
individuals exercise stewardship over their creations.

On the negative side of generativity versus stagnation, individuals
experience depletion or emptiness over the lack of meaningful contributions
at work and home. In an extreme case, this could result in burnout, but usually
individuals begin to lose the sense that work is meaningful and they become
increasingly lethargic (Frederick, Dunbar, and Thai 2018). Still others who
have worked long, hard hours at their jobs reach midlife only to realize that
they have spent little time with their children, who are now nearly grown,
and have had little actual influence over them. Some of these hardworking
people find that when they do want to relax with their families, they are
unable to do so. The crisis in this case is that one has become a slave to
work and career.

In his study of career-oriented men, Daniel Levinson (1978) has identified
four polarities of midlife transition:

1. Youth/Age. Many men in midlife occupy a marginal status: they feel past
their youth but are not ready to join the rocking-chair set. They attempt to
appear young by the way they dress or to improve their physique by
running or lifting weights.

2. Destruction/Creation. Having experienced conflict on the job and being
battle scarred and hurt by others, men in midlife may resort to the same
tactics. They are aware of the death of friends their age, but at the same
time they have a strong desire to be creative as they enter what often
proves to be the most productive years of life.

3. Masculinity/Femininity. Concern over a physically sagging body is
coupled with a desire to become more nurturing.

4. Attachment/Separateness. A continued need for bonding with others is
balanced by a need to prove that one can get by alone.

Levinson believes that although these polarities exist throughout the entire
life cycle, they are accentuated during transition periods. Men who have
dealt with these polarities throughout their lives, having met minor crises on
a regular basis, do not experience the midlife transition as a crisis period. By
contrast, men who have not dealt with them are candidates for a major
midlife crisis.

Although much of this is also true of women, Levinson (1996) suggests an
important gender difference. For women, midlife transition is less
pronounced than for men. This is especially true for women not employed
outside the home. Women employed outside the home engage in gender
splitting, simultaneously holding dichotomous identities. Four common types
of gender splitting are domestic/public, homemaker/provider, women’s
work/men’s work, and femininity/masculinity in individual psyche. Most of
these splits in identity involve women wanting to uphold a traditional view
of marriage while also holding an nontraditional view that allows for more
independence and equality with men when participating in the public world.

For the woman whose only role has been mother and wife, midlife may be
traumatic for other reasons. She may feel her role is being phased out—her
maturing children have less need of her, and her husband may no longer
appreciate what she is doing in the home. For the woman whose whole
identity and self-esteem are based on being a supermother and a superwife,
this can be a devastating blow.

Parent-Adolescent Relationships
Having considered the stressful aspects of adolescence and midlife, we are
now in a position to consider the interaction between them. To begin with, it
should be noted that a family with adolescents is likely to have a double
inferiority complex when parent and teen have an insecure identity. This will
have an enormous impact on the parent-adolescent relationship.

While the major task during this stage of development concerns identity
formation, the following relationship tasks are needed (McGoldrick, Garcia
Petro, and Carter 2016):

1. Shifting parent-child relationships to permit adolescents to move into
and out of the family system. In other words, adolescents spend more and
more time outside the parents’ sphere of influence. As a result,
adolescents begin to create new relationship and authority networks that
may contradict the parents. Parents and adolescents need to negotiate and
communicate about these relationship networks that extend outside the
family of origin.

2. Refocusing on midlife marital and career issues
3. Beginning the shift toward caring for the older generation

As adolescents gain competence, they expect more and more freedom and
responsibility. The family system needs to accommodate the teen entering and
exiting the family and engaging with the community as a peer. Further, the
teen’s growing competence and autonomy allow for parents to reengage as
spouses rather than just as coparents. Finally, there is an increasing shift on
the part of the parents to care for their own parents. Parents who are
confident in themselves do well in making these transitions.

Parents are a source of stability when they encourage these changes as a
natural part of their adolescent developing a mature self. Parents in the midst
of their own identity crises, however, may not be as understanding or
psychologically prepared for the changes. They may personalize the
problems and feel angry, rejected, or overwhelmed. In reaction, they may
place unnecessary restrictions on their teenagers and dampen the teens’
ability to find their own way. It only complicates matters when personal
needs in both cases put inordinate strain on the relationship.

One of the factors in parent-adolescent conflicts may be that the parent in
midlife and the adolescent are experiencing contrasting physical changes. At
a time when the adolescent is developing the physical characteristics of
adulthood, the parents are beginning to lose theirs.

There are a variety of other reasons for parent-adolescent conflict. Lack of
connection and intimacy between parent and teen is a cause of conflict,
especially when interpersonal boundaries are tested. The disagreement peaks
in mid-adolescence, around the age of 18, then becomes less intense when
realignment occurs in the relationship. This transition occurs when parents
and adolescents are able to develop more peer-to-peer type relationships.
The teen’s sense of identity is supported, and the relationship with the parent
is maintained, especially in times of disagreement. The parents emotionally
support the teen, and the teen is increasingly responsible for his or her
emotional and physical needs. Interestingly, parents tend to view the
relationship as more positive and the conflicts as less severe than do the
adolescents. The relationships parents maintain with their teens have
important consequences for their future relationship. Interestingly, research
suggests that teens with more cohesive relationships with their mothers tend
to live in closer proximity to the parents, especially in early adulthood
(Gillespie and Treas 2017).

Parental Stimuli of Adolescent Rebellion

Sociocultural factors often escalate adolescent strain and rebellion. But
while these factors help explain the emergence of adolescence as a general
phenomenon in societies around the world, they do not entirely explain why
some adolescents go through a period of rebellion and others do not.
Evidence suggests that parenting style and structural components within the
family contribute to adolescent rebellion (Sogar 2017).

UNWISE CHILD-REARING PRACTICES

In chapter 6, we compared the effects of four socio-emotional parenting
styles. Parenting styles are not directly associated with academic
achievement (Pinquart 2016). Parenting styles subtly and indirectly influence
academic outcomes. Authoritarian parenting styles are associated with more
emotional and behavioral problems and less prosocial behaviors (Kuppens
and Ceulemans 2019). Authoritative parenting styles, on the other hand, are
associated with fewer behavioral and emotional problems and more
prosocial behaviors.

The relationship between parental restrictiveness and adolescent rebellion
is far from simple. Adolescent rebellion is highest in very permissive and
very restrictive homes, and lowest in homes with a balanced approach to
discipline. This may be related to the important task of differentiation.
Adolescents are challenged to develop a self in relation—that is, establish a
separate self (attitudes, beliefs, and values) while remaining connected with
their family. Finding and asserting a clearly defined self is critically
important because it is the only way one learns to establish a genuine
relationship with parents and others. When an adolescent feels confident as a
separate self, he or she has a new capacity to interact in meaningful ways
with others.

An example may be helpful here. One of my (Tom’s) client families came
to me with a “teen defiance” problem. This African American family
consisted of a mom, dad, and their only son—a teenager who was sixteen
years old at the time they came in for family therapy. The defiance problem
concerned identity and membership in the family. The family’s identity or
core-self consisted in valuing membership in the military as the primary way
to serve the public. It was important to their identities as African Americans,
as well as being a military family, that their son also follow in their
footsteps. For this family, there were generations of elders that sacrificed for
the country via military service. As sixteen-year-olds tend to do, the teen

began to question whether he wanted to go into the military. The parents, who
were highly educated and had spent significant time in the military, were
taken aback. They experienced their son’s identity question as a challenge to
their own identity. Could their son not go into the military and still be part of
the family? They immediately became defensive and angry. In my time alone
with the teen in therapy, we discussed the meaning of his questioning and
how it related to him being a member of the family. In other words, he was
questioning his desire to be in the military and if that meant he could no
longer be a member of his family. The teen only wanted to investigate and
decide whether going into the military was important for him personally. He
did not mean to question his parents’ ideals or identity. The parents, son, and
I were eventually able to have these important identity conversations in a
nonreactive, emotionally neutral manner. The teen eventually decided to
prioritize going into the military, but he had to do so of his own volition.

In terms of differentiation, the core self of the family needs to be
internalized intentionally on the part of the children. This means that they are
choosing to adopt the family’s values and identity. In families with lower
levels of differentiation, identity is either forced onto the children through
compliance (restrictive parenting practices) and emotional fusion, or identity
is diffused through cutoff and emotional distance (permissive parenting
styles).

Ideally, the child moves from complete dependence on the parents to semi-
dependence to relative independence and eventually interdependence. The
change from dependence to independence tends to proceed smoothly if the
parents are moderate in their disciplinary practices. Although younger
children seem to thrive on structure, when they become teenagers, they need
far more breathing space. If parents continue to be very restrictive,
adolescents are likely to rebel out of frustration. Overly restrictive parents
hold the reins too tightly and do not allow for a gradual development of self.
This creates a situation where independence can be achieved only by a
drastic break from the parents. Restrictive parenting fails to provide enough
structure/support in the child’s process of developing a self. Children in such
families may become frustrated or aggressive toward their parents and
society in general, acting out in rebellious behavior. Maintaining a good
balance of staying connected while supporting differentiation is the goal.

UNSATISFACTORY DIVISION OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY

It is no secret that there is currently much controversy about the best
authority pattern in the home. Studies show that the incidence of rebellion
tends to be high in homes where either the father or the mother is dominant,
moderate where the parents share equal authority, and low where one parent
has slightly more authority. We believe that extreme inequality in parental
authority results in a state of confusion for the teen. When authority is
perceived as being primarily in the hands of one parent, the child may have
problems interacting with both parents as authority figures.

Identity development in adolescence can create anxiety among family
members as they feel that the family’s identity is threatened by the questions
the teen is expressing. Confusion may result if the child is not sure where the
ultimate authority resides or tries to pit one parent against the other. Power
imbalances tend to foster increasing use of triangulation in relationships
between the parents and offspring, which indicates a lower level of
differentiation (Titelman 2007).

This is why parents need to agree about discipline and stand together as a
united front. It is best when teens are crystal clear about their parents being
the coleaders in the home. The balance of parental power means that parents
consult each other about final outcomes. When both mother and father are
actively involved in coparenting, trust is established as they love, discipline,
guide, teach, nurture, and empower their children. The key is that parents
work in tandem.

Empowering Adolescent Children
Although they may not realize it at the time, parents play an extremely

important role in the lives of their teenagers. Parent-adolescent conflict is
associated with negative outcomes like emotional and behavioral problems
for adolescents (Ehrich, Dykas, and Cassidy 2012). Pamela King and James
Furrow (2004) found that young people having a strong sense of shared
beliefs, values, and goals with their parents is related to their being altruistic
and empathetic toward others. Supportive and encouraging relationships
between parents and teens promote empathy and altruism. Positive effects
were found for such parental monitoring as setting clear boundaries,
establishing clear expectations, and being aware of when their teens left and
returned home. Pamela King and Ross Mueller (2004) found that parents
significantly influenced their teenager’s religiosity.

Delegating responsibility is a challenging task for parents. Fostering teen
responsibility is an important aspect of the teen and parents’ relationship. To
trust one’s teenager to make the right choices and to act responsibly is
perhaps one of the hardest things a parent is asked to do. It’s important to let
go as well as to stand firm with teenagers until they reach their full adult
status.

Adolescent empowerment depends on parents giving responsibility and
adolescents acting responsibly. Adults are an often-overlooked source of
empowerment for adolescents. In fact, there may be times of emotional
turmoil in the parent-teen relationship when another adult can be more
influential than the parents. King and Furrow (2004) found that formal
mentoring relationships and informal school, neighborhood, or church
relationships are most effective when the relationship between adult and teen
is positive and trustful, with open communication and a shared sense of
values. Again, adults most positively influence teens when they provide a
balance between accountability and guidance on the one hand, and
encouragement and affirmation on the other.

Undoubtedly, mistakes will be part of the learning process. But the
empowerment process will be most successful, we believe, in parent-child
relationships based on covenant commitments. The true test of unconditional
parental love occurs when the child reaches adolescence. Where
unconditional love prevails, the family lives in an atmosphere of grace.
Where there is grace, there is room for failure and the assurance that one will
be forgiven and afforded the opportunity to try again. Our teens need to feel
our deep affirmation of who they are and acknowledgement of their unique
gifts and purpose. This deepens the intimacy between young people and their
parents and makes mutual empowerment possible.

10

The Joys and Challenges of
Family in Later Life

Families in later life are those that have passed beyond the child-rearing
years. The typical parent whose children are in their twenties or thirties can
expect to live one-third of his or her life in this particular family life stage.
Because of the increase in life expectancy, this stage can last several
decades. Many find this time of life an awesome, complex, and arduous
journey, especially when there are three or even four generations of family
members with which to deal.

The “sandwich generation” describes those “mid-life adults who
simultaneously raise dependent children and care for frail elder parents”
(Grundy and Henretta 2006). Around the age of fifty, people who are at the
peak of their earning capabilities may find it necessary to provide emotional
and economic support to both young adult and elderly family members. The
responsibility of caring for parents and/or adult children can come as quite a
shock, especially after looking forward to a time of freedom to enjoy the fruit
of one’s active years of labor and raising children. Hoping for a breather
after adult children have finally left home, fifty-year-olds may find it
burdensome to meet the increasing needs of their adult children and elderly
parents. A study of job burnout and couple burnout in dual-earner couples in
the sandwich generation revealed “significant differences in burnout type
(job burnout higher than couple burnout); gender (wives more burned out than
husbands); and country (Americans more burned out than Israelis)” (Pines et
al. 2011, 361).

On the positive side, although the phenomenon of living longer results in
greater complexity in family relationships, it also opens up the possibility of
increased cross-generational family interaction, support, and connection. In
this chapter, we describe three separate stages of later life: launching,

postlaunching, and retirement. We will clarify the unique aspects and typical
dynamics of each of these stages.

The Launching Stage
The launching stage is the period when adult children leave home to establish
an independent life outside the family. Tasks to be accomplished by the young
adult include (1) achieving autonomy in caring for oneself, managing
finances, and being a responsible citizen; (2) developing meaningful
relationships and support systems; and (3) finding a personal purpose and
spiritual meaning in life. If all goes well, young adults prove able to manage
their own lives effectively, think and act on their own behalf, take
responsibility for their choices, and accept the consequences of their
decisions. Other indicators of maturity are the establishment of relationships
within and outside the family that lead to mutual interdependence and respect
and settling into a career and lifestyle that give personal meaning and
satisfaction.

In chapter 7 we noted Erik Erikson’s thesis that identity and intimacy are
key developmental goals to be achieved by young adults on their way to
maturity. Subsequent research has shown that while this sequence (identity
then intimacy) holds true for males, the reverse (intimacy then identity) holds
true for females. During adolescence, males are more likely to be members
of an identifiable peer group, while females are more likely to have made a
few close friends. For males, one’s rank in the peer group helps to form
personal identity; while for females, the emotional bonding and
communication between close friends develop intimacy. As a result of these
differences during adolescence, the average male enters young adulthood
with a firmer sense of identity, while the female has more fully developed
intimacy skills. This difference explains why, among those who marry young,
husbands struggle more with achieving intimacy and wives with identity.
Working on those areas in which one is deficient is essential for young adults
at the launching stage.

Adulthood is defined in most cultures as the time when people are held
accountable for their behavior in society. It must be remembered that each
culture, with its particular beliefs, traditions, and values, determines the pace
of the launching period. We must not judge all families by the Western ideal
but respect how each unique culture helps its young adults reach the point of

accountability. Many circumstances influence the launching of each
individual young adult, so we must pay attention to cultural diversity as well
as individual differences and oscillations throughout the process from
dependence to independence and eventually to mature interdependence.

In chapter 9 we identified some of the normal tensions that arise when
parents are grappling with midlife issues just as their children enter
adolescence. How well the launching goes is in large measure determined by
how well parents and adolescents have addressed and resolved these
tensions. We might speak of a smooth launch when the adult child who has
left home orbits around the family at a safe distance; good connections are
maintained, and there are mutually gratifying touchdowns. In a recalled
launch, everyone seems prepared and ready for the big day, yet complex
family circumstances prevent the adolescent from actually getting off the
ground. More time is needed to make necessary repairs or to right wrongs
before a successful launch can be accomplished. Sometimes there is clearly a
blastoff, fueled by anger and dissension, which propels the young adult to a
distance beyond the gravitational pull of the family. In such cases, the
premature cutoff leaves young adults floundering without support, and it is
not surprising that they come crashing back, often having an impact on
everyone in their path. Thus, there are sad and incomplete leavings, just as
there are happy and satisfying leavings. Perhaps one of the most reliable
predictors of the chances for a successful launch is the level of
differentiation a youth has achieved while in the home.

There may also be times of renesting, when adult children return home to
cohabit with parents due to educational circumstances, financial hardship, or
partner breakup (such as death or divorce). Renesting requires that adult
children and parents renegotiate their relationship and the accompanying
rules of cohabitation. This renegotiation should be based on adult, reciprocal
relationships, and not based on parent-child relationships. Some specific
aspects of this negotiation should be (1) rent or other renumeration for living
in the parents’ home, (2) dealing with grandchildren regarding rules and
expectations for behavior, (3) the adult child having intimate partners visit,
and (4) a plan for relaunching. None of these suggestions should be
considered final, but the negotiations should be ongoing, as the reasons for
renesting are often complex and multifaceted.

Differentiation is the process whereby an individual assumes his or her
unique identity as separate from while remaining connected to the family.

Those who approach the launching stage without a clear self-definition can
be overly dependent or too cut off and disengaged from their parents. Without
a solid, sufficient sense of self, they either pretend that they don’t need
anybody or they lack the confidence that they can succeed on their own. In
contrast, differentiated young adults can assume interdependence in their
relationships because they are both separate from yet stay meaningfully
connected to their parents.

Transition Tasks
Successful transition through the launching stage is accomplished through

four tasks. First, married parents must refocus on their marriage relationship.
When the marriage is doing well, an adult child’s leaving home unites rather
than divides the parents. However, if unresolved issues have caused ongoing
tension and disagreements, the marriage may be on shaky ground. If the
couple has focused solely on the parenting role, whether through trials or
delights, the loss of that role puts them at jeopardy. They may need to face
each other and their relationship in new ways. This can lead to growth and a
stronger marriage if the couple is able to refocus on their partnership. If not,
there is little to keep the marriage vital, and it may disintegrate. Adult
children feel the freedom to go forward with their own lives when they are
assured their parents have a substantial marriage.

The second task is related to the first: parents and children need to learn to
relate to each other as adults. Part of the letting go involves allowing the
child to take on a new adult role. Respecting young adults and
acknowledging their adult status can be a challenging task for parents. It is
especially problematic for parent-child relationships based on authoritarian
practices; affirmation of the child’s adulthood is more difficult for
controlling parents. Easing into an adult-adult relationship is more natural for
those working from an empowerment model, since there has been continual
affirmation as the child developed toward maturity.

A third task for successful launching is for parents to develop good
relationships with their adult child’s mate. Often the daughter-in-law/mother-
in-law relationship is the most conflicted. One reason may be that mothers
tend to be more heavily involved in the lives of their married children. This
may be exacerbated when the husband compares his wife to his mother on
such matters as cooking, cleaning, and parenting. These comparisons put the
daughter-in-law in a no-win situation, since the husband defines “good” in

terms of his family of origin. The new wife naturally operates according to
her family’s traditions and tastes.

Also prone to conflict is the relationship between the son-in-law and the
mother-in-law. The popular stereotype of a mother-in-law interfering may
serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The expectation that she will interfere
serves to increase the son-in-law’s reaction to her involvement with her
daughter. The conflict in the son-in-law/father-in-law relationship seems to
be centered in the father-in-law’s view that the son-in-law is inadequate to
provide for his daughter. Indeed, when the son-in-law is perceived by the
father-in-law as a good provider, the chances are good that this will be a
positive relationship. The least conflictive relationship seems to be between
the daughter-in-law and the father-in-law. This relationship is often
characterized by mutual acceptance and well-intended humor. Perhaps the
relational skills of the daughter-in-law give her an ability to get along with
her father-in-law.

The fourth task for successful launching is to resolve issues pertaining to
the older generation. When the emotional and economic needs of their adult
children have consumed and drained parents, the problems presented by their
own aging parents may come as a disturbing reality. Having fewer resources
to give may fuel resentment about the needs of aging parents. Taking time to
anticipate and prepare for the needs of the elder generation can alleviate
some of the frustration.

Contemporary Obstacles to Successful Launching
Clearly, the process of leaving home is not as easy as it once was. In a

highly technological society, the majority of well-paying jobs demand a high
degree of education, training, and skill. Even adequate entry-level jobs may
require a college degree at a minimum. Given the high cost of education and
training, the adult child today often needs additional economic help. The
pattern of adult children leaving home only to return a few months or years
later has given rise to the term boomerang children.

The cost of housing also makes it difficult for newly married couples to
move into their own homes. This means that adult children frequently ask for
financial help from their parents even after they have established themselves
in careers and significant relationships. Given this trend of continued
financial need on the part of children who have already launched, the

contemporary family may be returning to the more traditional extended-
family structure.

The Postlaunching Stage
Whenever we (Jack and Judy) visited Jack’s parents, a predictable ritual
would take place. Dad Balswick would gleefully announce, “I think it’s time
we washed your car!” Clean cars were a priority for Dad, and our car was
sure to need a good washing after traveling three hundred miles. The car-
washing ritual dated back to when Jack was a little boy. Dad would hold the
hose and give the instructions as Jack did the grunt work of soaping down
and scrubbing the car. Now, as an adult, Jack moved back into his little-boy
position, while Dad assumed his “father knows best” position. Although this
was an innocent ritual, one that Judy thoroughly enjoyed because her father-
in-law winked at her as he bragged about how he got Jack to wash the car, it
points to an area of struggle during the postlaunching phase. Old patterns of
relating can sometimes be hard to take and even more difficult to break
during family reunions, especially if the parents fail to relate to their children
as adults to adults.

Tom’s journey in the postlaunching phase has been similar to Jack’s. One
challenge when I (Tom) return home is the need to return as a more helpful,
caring son as opposed to an adult. Due to my mom’s history of strokes, I had
to do more caregiving as a child than most of my peers. I learned to wash and
fold clothes at an early age. When I return home as an adult, Mom’s chronic
health issues often become a source of conflict. Having conversations with a
parent about what they can and cannot do for themselves is challenging under
the best of circumstances, let alone when significant health issues are a part
of the picture.

Leaving home is definitely a challenge for both parents and adult children.
The fact that launching has taken place doesn’t mean that all issues have been
clearly worked out between family members. In fact, working out these
family relationships is a lifelong process. Making adjustments is difficult
because the family is a network of patterns and roles so predictable that they
seem cut from a template. And even greater adjustments are required when
adult children bring their partners and children into the mix. Old routines
will be tested, and new coalitions will bring a mosaic of different
interactions and interconnections. Expectations and unspoken messages can

leave the new spouse feeling excluded. If parents and their adult children are
to have a successful relationship during the launching and postlaunching
stages, new roles and patterns must be established. The family should
endeavor to create new ways of relating that are also inviting to and include
the new members.

An aspect of differentiation is the ability of launched children to be
objective about their families and resist the pull that hooks them into the old
patterns. Instead of responding in predictable ways of the past, parents and
adult children alike need to find appropriate new ways that work best in the
current circumstances. A flexible environment allows changes that enhance
all relationships so that there is a feeling of well-being and harmony among
family members. Rodney Clapp (1993, 86) comments insightfully: “When
family is not the whole world, parents can let children go and in turn find
themselves reclaimed as parents. Truly letting a child go is hard, not only
because of the pain of separation, but because a child fully released will
reclaim and reshape the relationship in a way that may not be entirely to the
parents’ liking.” This opportunity for change and growth can increase
interconnectedness and renew the relationship.

Grandparenting
Grandparents have long been depicted as gray-haired, slightly frail, sitting

in their rocking chairs, and passing out sugar cookies to their adoring
grandchildren. Such stereotypes do not fit our modern picture of grandparents
between the ages of fifty and sixty-five who dress in blue jeans and tennis
shoes as they actively engage with their grandchildren. In view of the amount
of financial and emotional support given by grandparents, it is now accurate
to describe the North American family as a modified extended family.

Research has provided insights into the changing nature of how
grandparents contribute to their grandchildren as they develop and mature
from childhood to adulthood. Infants and toddlers benefit most from secure
bonding with grandmothers who provide physical and emotional care. During
the early school years, grandchildren value what grandparents do for and
with them, such as showing love, giving presents, taking them places, and
having fun together. In preadolescence, grandchildren continue to value
indulgent grandparents but focus on the feelings of connectedness and the
family pride they derive from the relationships (Ponzetti and Folkrod 1989).

When the relations between parents and teenagers become strained,
grandparents can be sensitive, nonjudgmental listeners to their grandchildren.
It is especially important that grandparents of teenagers listen to the problems
relating to self-esteem, affirm their grandchildren’s strengths, and
demonstrate their care by attending special school events and other
performance-oriented activities. An intimate, meaningful relationship
between grandparents and teenage grandchildren can be mutually beneficial,
contributing to both the grandparents’ mental health and the grandchildren’s
efforts to resolve identity issues. Adult grandchildren and great-
grandchildren can benefit from the emotional support given by grandparents
and great-grandparents.

What goes around comes around, for those grandparents who actively
bond with their grandchildren when they are young can expect their
grandchildren to be emotionally supportive and concerned about them when
they are old. Although granddaughters and grandsons bond equally well with
their grandparents, there is a tendency for both to be closer to maternal than
to paternal grandparents and to be closer to grandmothers than to
grandfathers (Hodgson 1995). Since women traditionally take on the role of
keeping up relationships with extended-family members and kin, this finding
is not surprising.

In traditional nonindustrial societies, most grandparents were highly
involved in the lives of their grandchildren. Since parents devoted much of
their time to work, the care of children as well as the inculcation of morals,
beliefs, and values were frequently the province of grandparents. Indeed,
Scripture emphasizes the grandparents’ spiritual role of passing on the faith:
“I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that lived first in your
grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, lives in you”
(2 Tim. 1:5). But because of both the decline of the extended family and the
high geographical mobility of industrial society, few grandparents have daily
involvement with their grandchildren, let alone the opportunity to pass on
their faith. Moreover, in our society, not only the parents but also often the
grandparents work outside the home.

The extent to which contemporary grandparents are involved in the lives
of their grandchildren varies greatly. Differing circumstances create different
styles of grandparenting that can include grandparents as fun seekers,
parental surrogates, reservoirs of family wisdom, or even distant figures.
Margaret Mueller, Brenda Wilhelm, and Glen Elder (2002) found that

grandparents who were most influential and supportive were usually part of
a highly cohesive family, had more education, fewer grandchildren, and lived
closer to them. Grandparents with a more traditional view tend to be formal
figures who take on the role of defining moral behaviors and rules.
Grandparents who live a great distance from grandchildren pack a lot into
brief visits once or twice a year. They are prone to engage in fun-seeking
interaction during those visits but remain background figures for the rest of
the year.

Grandparents who live with or close by their grandchildren usually have
frequent contact with them. It may be that they serve as surrogate parents for
a variety of reasons. And this surrogate parenting is an unfortunate necessity
for many in the later-life developmental stage. According to a US census
report in 2012, about 10 percent of all children cohabited with grandparents.
The number of grandparents who were “grandparent caregivers” or primarily
responsible for their grandchildren was roughly 2.7 million (Ellis and
Simons 2014). In terms of households, roughly 3 percent of all households
include grandparents co-residing with grandchildren. Most of these
households are maintained by the grandparent. When Tom was in full-time
private practice, grandparents were increasingly seeking parenting education
and individual and family therapy to improve parenting. Fortunately,
evidence suggests that parenting interventions by grandparents are effective
(Sherr et al. 2018). In these cases of surrogate parenting, it goes without
saying that grandparents have a great impact on their grandchildren.

Many adults tell heartwarming stories that credit grandparents with
providing the love, prayer, values, faith, and beliefs that made all the
difference in their lives. The sad news is that when grandparents are
divorced, they, and particularly grandfathers, are less involved in the lives of
their grandchildren (King 2003). Most grandparents make quite an effort to
connect with their grandchildren, even if they are geographically distant.
Interest, support, and concern can be communicated through phone and video
calls, cards, email, packages, visits, summer trips, and vacations. Regardless
of the grandparenting style, most grandparents can be counted on for support
in one way or another.

Most adult children turn to their parents for help during times of stress and
crisis. Grandparents are called on to fill in the gaps and provide a significant
amount of support to their children and grandchildren when divorce occurs.
The role of grandparents in the lives of grandchildren can be especially

meaningful at transition points, such as leaving home, when the tensions
between parents and child are at their highest. Think of the advantage for a
child of any age who can draw on unconditional support and love from both
maternal and paternal grandparents. Grandparents who have intense
relationships with grandchildren during their childhood promote continuation
of the relationship into adulthood (Geurts, Van Tilburg, and Poortman
2012a). Parenthetically, it is good to note that intense relationships between
grandparents and grandchildren are predictive of adult children supporting
their elderly parents (Geurts, Van Tilburg, and Poortman 2012b). Yorgason,
Padilla-Walker, and Jackson (2011) found that the emotional and financial
support from nonresidential grandparents had a positive effect on their
grandchildren.

There are increasing numbers of grandparent-headed households in the
United States. Grandparents who assume the responsibility of raising
grandchildren face special challenges, including “financial burden, worry,
health issues, and freedom restrictions” (Williams 2011, 948). Drawing from
a number of research studies on resident grandparents, Strom and Strom
(2011, 910) suggest that successful grandparents are able to “establish
suitable priorities, recognize the necessary adjustments in their thinking and
behavior, and discover how to assess progress by being willing to amend
their dreams, get to know grandchildren by spending time together, and adopt
a perspective that enables management of stress.”

Multigenerational Households
Multigenerational households, consisting of three or more generations

living together, are most common during the postlaunching stage. In extended-
family systems, such as those in Asian societies, the family by its very nature
is multigenerational. In the nuclear-family system of Western societies,
multigenerational households are of two types. First is the postlaunching
multigenerational household of married children and their offspring who live
with their parents or return home after they have been on their own for some
time. A second type of multigenerational household forms during the
retirement stage, when elderly parents move in with their married children.
The dynamics of these two types of multigenerational households may be
extremely rich and rewarding or extremely stressful and disruptive. In most
cases, there is a mixture of rewards and stress.

In general, families that have not coped well with major transitions in the
past are likely to find that multigenerational living amplifies the strain. The
stress will be less intense in those multigenerational families characterized
by good health, emotional maturity, and self-differentiation. Other factors that
can help alleviate stress include adequate material assets, financial security,
a house of ample size, access to transportation, and availability of community
resources. Among the more beneficial community resources are elder-care
programs, day care centers for young children, and a network of extended
family, friends, and church members who can step in to provide assistance
when needed.

Establishing appropriate boundaries helps combat one of the most
potentially troublesome areas within multigenerational households. The
homeowners will quite naturally feel that it is their right to establish
household rules and boundaries with their adult children, grandchildren, and
elderly parents. These rules and boundaries are likely to concern questions
of space, household responsibilities, child-rearing or elder-care practices,
and time schedules. Although most of the space in the house may be
understood as a common living area, it is wise to establish clear guidelines
before living together. Taking time for mutual consideration of each
individual’s needs will help with the negotiation.

During the Balswicks’ postlaunching period, our married daughter, son-in-
law, and two young grandsons came to live with us for three years. Although
we developed clear spatial boundaries from the start, we experienced some
humorous moments. Much of the rather large house was open to everyone, but
Curtis and Jacob had to be reminded that Grammie and Grampie’s bedroom
and upstairs living-room areas were private space that was off limits when
the doors were closed. We soon learned that our grandsons lived by the letter
of the law, so when the door was open just a crack, they would rush in with
all the exuberance of young children. One morning, as our grandsons were
trying out Judy’s hairbrush, comb, perfume, and other items of interest while
she was getting ready for work, it was necessary for her to explain that these
things belonged to Grammie and were not to be “messed with.” After
listening to Judy expounding on the boundary rules, Curtis piped up with a
serious expression on his face, “And Grammie, when you’re in our room, you
don’t mess with any of our things either!” It was a lighthearted moment, but
Judy was quick to reply, “Yes, Curtis, that is right! Grammie and Grampie
will knock before we come into your room and ask if we can play with your

things!” The boys had learned that boundary issues are a matter of mutual
respect.

Other rules concern the responsibility for household tasks such as
cleaning, yard work, and meal preparation. In the three years we lived as a
three-generation household, our son-in-law took responsibility for house
repairs, Jack did the yard work, our daughter cleaned the common living
area, and Judy planned the meals, to which we all contributed by cooking and
cleaning up. Similarly, when elderly family members move in, it is vital that
they contribute to the household in any way they can. For some it may simply
be doing a little dusting or clearing the table or gardening or making their
beds; the very act of participating gives them meaning. Those unable to help
physically can say a prayer or contribute through their presence at family
gatherings. They should be affirmed for what they contribute to the family and
be told how much they are appreciated.

An area of potential conflict and misunderstanding is caretaking. When it
comes to discipline of children, for example, grandparents may tend to take
charge. Having strong ideas about parenting since they have already been
through the experience, they may find it tempting to criticize the parents’
methods. The task facing grandparents is learning how to share knowledge
without undermining or disrespecting the parents. Grandparents must also
acknowledge that adult children have both the right and the responsibility to
raise their children their own way. A sacred rule for the Balswicks was to
never interfere with our daughter and son-in-law as they were actively
parenting but to share any concerns or suggestions with them in private. Of
course, when they were not in the home, we clearly took the leadership role.

Different ideas about caring for elderly parents can also become a serious
area of conflict between couples. Making good judgments about what is
needed, without being over- or underprotective, is the key. When there are
differences that can’t be resolved, it is wise to protect the marriage by
bringing in substitute caretakers who can ease the load.

When an elderly family member moves into the home, it is essential to
discuss some important issues. First, talk openly and honestly about feelings,
expectations, strengths, and limitations as you anticipate caring for an aging
parent. Get together with one or two close friends to talk through the hopes,
fears, and doubts that having this particular parent in the home raises.
Discuss the parent’s physical and emotional needs and your ability to meet
those needs. Consider the role that your sense of obligation plays in the

decision to care for your parent and be willing to examine any resentment
you may have. It is also vital to spend time reflecting on how the decision
will affect your life and your significant relationships. Are there hidden
expectations about the extent to which others (spouse, siblings) will be
involved? What fears are there about becoming emotionally distant in your
relationships as you focus on the needs of the elderly parent? Clearly voicing
these concerns helps you be as realistic as possible about the decision.
Periodic discussion about how things are going ensures that necessary and
appropriate changes are made.

A second set of questions concerns the family as a whole. These questions
center on the family’s relationship with the aging parent and the impact of the
decision on each member. Do they all get along with the elderly individual?
Are there particular concerns with any family members that put them at
special risk? How will they deal with illness? What feelings of intrusion or
resentment are present? These and other questions should be processed in a
family meeting. Letting family members voice their fears and concerns as
well as their positive attitudes about the decision allows everyone a chance
to make it a successful venture.

A third set of questions deals with the adequacy of living space, privacy,
and financial resources. Finally, investigating the community resources that
can contribute to the well-being of the elderly members of the household will
benefit everyone. Such community resources might include transportation
programs, senior-activity centers, home-delivered meals, housekeeping
services, and home health care.

The Retirement Stage

Couple Satisfaction and Challenge
Most couples report retirement to be a satisfying phase of their lives.

Those who are most satisfied engage in rewarding activities and reserve time
for themselves. They have fulfilling marriages, a sexual relationship founded
on mutual expressions of affection, open communication, and the ability to
resolve conflicts. Good communication and compatibility in marriage are
most important in preventing stress during retirement. Highly satisfied
couples are also fairly healthy, financially secure, and involved with church
and friends. Couples in long-term marriages report more affection and