Society as Family:  Two Religious Models (Edited)

Part 2 in a 2- Sermon Series

By Pastor Marcia Moret Sietstra

March 12 & 19, 2006     Crestwood United Church of Christ

Text: Luke 6: 32-38; I Peter 5:1-5

Last week I presented the first part of this two-part sermon.   I want to take a moment to summarize what I said last week, since it is the basis of my sermon today. 

There are two models of family that act as frames through which most Americans view families and society.  The first is the Strict Father Frame, which assumes that the world is a dangerous place, that children are naturally sinful and want to do what feels good rather than what is moral.  They have to be taught how to be moral through discipline, or they will never develop self-discipline, which is necessary to be successful.  There is an absolute right and absolute wrong.

In this model, the father protects the family and is the authority over mother and children.  He teaches the children right from wrong and makes sure that the mother doesn’t spoil the child, making the child dependent and weak.  Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own, and the father no longer meddles in their lives. 

If you see society through the Strict Father Frame, your priority is going to be enforcing the kind of morality that comes through authority figures, ultimately from a particular version of an authoritarian, strict Father God.  These are generalities, of course, but people with a Strict Father Frame tend to believe that people who are moral and disciplined will become prosperous.  Further, the reward of economic success is often interpreted as a sign of God’s favor.  Social programs, in this view, are generally not a good idea because they remove the incentive to be disciplined, they remove the principle of working to care for one’s self and one’s family.  In short, social programs that give things away screw up the way things are meant to work.  Like children who refuse to grow up and be disciplined and self reliant, unsuccessful citizens need to be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.  This reflects the Protestant work ethic, a merger of economics and religion that says the best way for society to function is for each person to pull herself or himself up by their own bootstraps, work hard and be strong.  You can understand this model of self-sufficiency if you can understand John Wayne or Arnold Schwarzenegger movies! 

The other frame through which Americans view families and society is the Nurturant Parent Frame.  This model is based on the equal, cooperative relationship between parents and begins with the assumption that children are basically good.  If the children are nurtured to develop empathy, they will learn to feel responsible for making the world better for everyone. It takes a lot of listening and communication, and negotiation with the other parent to teach this to children.  When a child misbehaves, these parents are apt to separate the child from the community or remove privileges, rather than using physical discipline, because their aim is to inspire the child to learn empathy.  If you understand the old Bill Cosby show, you understand the Nurturant Parent Frame.

If you see society through this frame, you will want social programs that nurture people toward personal responsibility, and you will want society to protect people.  Just as you protect a child, as a member of society you will focus on worker protection, environmental protection, consumer protection and the like.  You will tend to favor making educational opportunities widely available as a matter of fairness.  Now folks in the strict father model worry about people like you, that you will coddle people too much and invite sloth.  Your response is likely to be this:  when all people feel fairly treated and somewhat protected, the world is made more peaceful for everyone.  There is, in this frame, emphasis on dialogue and community building, and a resistance to authority and strict definitions of right and wrong.   

Now I need to pause here and point out two things: 

· First, nearly everyone, at least on some level, has both of these frames operating in their heads.  You may favor one over the other, but they are both there, influencing you, unconsciously as well as consciously.

· Second, that is not surprising, because they reflect our Biblical tradition, which includes the experience of God as a Strict Father who judges and punishes (particularly strong in the Old Testament) and includes the experience of God as one who patiently forgives and loves us (much stronger in the New Testament).   Last week I suggested that Jesus showed a strong preference for the nurturant parent values: he showed empathy, yet called people to responsible behavior, he refused to judge people; he refused to endorse anyone lording it over anyone else; and he told us to love our neighbors as much as ourselves. 

One thing that I want to suggest to you today is that either model can become a problem when taken to excess and not balanced by the other.  Here’s how…

The strict father model, when it is not tempered by nurturant values, runs the risk of molding tyrants.  When authority figures who see themselves as the God-apppointed moral authority are given power, in a family or a society, that power is easily abused.  When the authority figure does not place the needs of others on a par with his or her own, s/he becomes a bully.  That’s why the Biblical writers consistently warn leaders to temper their authority with humility and mercy.  This is why a dictator, even a benevolent dictator, is a bad idea, because people get carried away by unchecked  power.

But the other model can be taken to excess too.  The inherent weakness of the Nurturant Parent model is that too much assistance without limits does not teach discipline.  With children, we call this “spoiling the child.”  On a societal level, a social program that gives “hand-outs” too freely runs the risk of rewarding people who are undisciplined. 

Let me illustrate how these two ways of seeing the world can actually balance each other in our country sometimes.  We see it in our country’s Social Security program, a program popular with nearly everyone, because it is such a good reflection of both ways of thinking.  On the one hand, Social Security satisfies the Nurturant Parent within us, because it was designed to protect people who worked hard but didn’t make enough money to save for old age, especially if they became ill or disabled.  It was also born out of the desire to nurture widows and orphans.  I know this firsthand, because both my parents died by the time I was 15, and I lived off of social security checks until I got through college.  But the Social Security program also appeals to the Strict Father thinker within us, because it rewards discipline and hard work, since the amount you pay in and get back is based on your earnings, which often, though not always, reflect how hard you worked.  This program balances Strict Father values and Nurturant Parent values.  Isn’t it interesting that both models, in a sense, can draw each other toward a middle ground that encourages both empathy and discipline. 

Now let’s go one step farther.  We’ve taken a very quick look at how these two ways of framing the world affect the family and social programs.    Let’s look at one of these frameworks in the context of our international relations. 

Think for a minute about how someone with a Strict Father morality thinks about foreign policy.  The United States is the most powerful “authority” in the world.  Why?  Recall that people with a Strict Father Frame tend to believe that people who are moral and disciplined will become prosperous, and that economic success is interpreted as a sign of God’s favor.  The fact that America is the richest and most powerful country in the world reinforces their belief that we have special moral authority, since it appears to them that God has blessed us beyond all others.  (Never mind that we were lucky enough to possess incredible natural resources.)

According to the Strict Father Frame, the U.S., like a father, has special “moral” authority.  Leaders who see society through this Strict Father model would tell you that this special moral authority means the rest of the world should listen to America.  After all, how does a moral authority deal with his children?  Does he ask them what they should do or what he should do?  No.  He tells them.  What the father says, the child does.  No back talk.  Communication is one-way.

Our current president reflects the Strict Father Frame.  He does not ask; he tells the rest of the world what America is going to do, with or without them.  Because if you are a moral authority you know what is right, you have power, and you use it. According to this way of thinking, You would be immoral yourself if you abandoned your moral authority.  Cultural linguist George Lakoff explains that this is why President Bush didn’t see a need to form a coalition before invading Iraq.  Because he believes in his heart of hearts that he, as America’s president, has the duty to act as the world’s moral authority.  Less powerful nations should be treated like children. 

This explains how our president can, with great conviction, label other nations as evil, since, in this model, America’s wealth implies God’s favor, which in turn implies “chosen-ness” that conveys moral authority.  This helps us understand why America now tortures prisoners.  The President does not feel bound by the Geneva Convention, even though it was developed through careful negotiation by the entire community of developed nations of the world.  If you believe you represent God and Goodness, and the enemy represents Evil, it is easy to condone lesser evil in one’s quest to defend a greater Good.  This framework also explains why much of the world fears that America is engaged in a holy war.  They rightly observe that our administration’s foreign policy is currently based on the idea that America is God’s instrument, and that makes them very nervous.

The lesson here is this:  theology matters.  As you can see, two models of family, both rooted in the Bible, have profound influence on the way Americans think and how many of its leaders act.  The Strict Father Frame has turned much of the world against America today.  They are resisting our self-appointed role as the Strict Father who will tell the rest of the world how to behave. 

What would our foreign policy be like if our president saw the world through the Nurturant Parent Frame?  This model is based on the sharing of power, that is, the equal, cooperative relationship between parents, or on the broader societal scale, between countries.  It takes a lot of listening, communication, and negotiation to work together in ways that nurture instead of enforce. 

If you see society through the Nurturant Parent Fame, your focus is on increasing empathy and shared responsibility, because no one person, or country, is the highest authority. You will tend to favor making opportunities widely available as a matter of fairness, because when all people feel fairly treated and somewhat protected, the community is made more peaceful for everyone.  There is, in this frame, emphasis on dialogue and relationship building, as well as a resistance to authority and strict definitions of right and wrong.    There is emphasis on treating others as you would like to be treated.

It is good to remind ourselves that God is God of the whole world and does not belong exclusively to our nation. I would encourage you to think about what kind of power you think America should exemplify.  The power that leads by punishment and coercion, or power that leads by example, cooperation, and negotiation? I’m not sure, depending on how you further define them.  But I hope understanding these two models better will make us wiser, and better equipped to participate in our families and our society, because as Christians we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that dear friends, is a call to speak up and be responsible citizens.  May God help us as we try to do so, with humility and mercy.  Amen.

Background material is from George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, Chelsea Green Publishing Co., White River Junction, VT: 2004, p. 7.