by

Every time I hear someone climb on the “family values” soap box and advocate for “pro-family” actions or attitudes, I get very nervous because I start wondering “if you are pro-family, who are you against”?

Single people?

Single people who want to be single?

Single people who you want to think want to be single?

Childless divorced people?

Divorced parents with children?

Divorced people who got divorced for a valid reason?

Divorced people who you want to think got divorced for reasons that aren’t valid?

Children of divorced people who you want to think got divorced for reasons that aren’t valid?

Orphans?

Unwed parents?

Non-humble and unrepentant unwed parents?

Children of unwed parents?

Children of non-humble and unrepentant unwed parents?

Married parents with children who disagree with you about what the phrase “family values” means?

Polygamists on earth?

Polygamists in heaven?

Adopted children?

People who give up children for adoption?

People who don’t give up children for adoption, but you think they should have?

Childless couples?

Couples who are childless because they are selfish?

Couples who you want to think are childless because they are selfish but you really don’t know because you aren’t their doctor?

People who don’t like their families?

People who don’t like their families some of the time?

People who don’t like some people in their immediate or extended family?

Parents who have gay children?

Parents who have gay children and are tolerant of them?

Gay people who are married?

Gay people who are not married?

Gay married people who adopt children?

Gay people who are not married who adopt children?

Celibate gay people who don’t like their families?

Non-celibate gay people who do like their families?

Promiscuous single people who use birth control?

Married people who use birth control?

Married people who you think should have used birth control a couple kids ago?

Old singles ladies who prefer cats to people?

Gay people who like old single ladies who prefer cats to people?

You know I’m going somewhere with this, right? Maybe we should be moving away from teaching a gospel that we think is solely focused on personal behavioral control, and move more towards living one oriented towards loving outreach. Let’s stop creating fragile glass castles of performance, and rather build sturdy homes of forgiving love–homes that are able to withstand the threat of difference and are shored up against cracking from a fear of loving inclusiveness. We should build homes that embrace change and otherness–that may have a few shingles missing, and a few unmade beds, but are safe havens for those who need to be loved. We should build homes that can withstand the tragedies of human life: divorce, sin, disbelief, depression, and pain. Because really, no home or family is immune to tragedy. Children who come from these homes are resilient. They are children who rather than pointing fingers directed by finely tuned instincts to notice difference, instead open their arms to those in need. These children are unconstrained by worry of living up to expectations of outward conformity. With their crooked grins and smiling eyes, they put an arm around the shoulder of their Muslim, gay, illegal immigrant, Jewish, short, fat, immodest, awkward, Catholic, insecure or shy classmates and invite them home for a snack, a game, and the beginnings of friendship. Even if it risks their own social status. These children are from homes that are transformed by brave and tenacious love. They want to live in communities more concerned with identifying and helping the needy than casting blame. They will be taught by their mothers, or fathers, or teachers to first learn to forgive and then to resist the satisfying whispers of judgment. In our classrooms, can we lean away from “teaching to the ideal” knowing that that picture of “family” may break the hearts of the “non-traditional” families in the congregation? Instead, can we teach to this ideal: As I have loved you, love one another?