Love Doesn’t Make a Family

on January 7, 2014

– by James Tonkowich

The Sunday after Christmas I walked out of church furious—not part of my original plan. The theme was family as in the Holy Family—Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. In his welcome, the pastor told the congregation, “Love, not biology makes a family.” That made me sit up and take notice. His sermon elaborated. “What is a normal family any more?” he asked jovially repeating his mantra that “Love, not biology makes a family.”

It just slides off the tongue: “Love makes a family.” Who could possibly disagree? After all, as he said, there are lots of blended families where husbands and wives are raising their spouse’s children. These families have come together because of love, not biology ergo “Love, not biology makes a family.”

I can’t help wondering how many other Christians including readers of this column believe this sentimental twaddle or at least think they believe it because they’ve never thought it through.

“Love, not biology makes a family,” is among the vilest and most pernicious lies floating infecting culture today. And it’s a particularly good lie since it contains more than a grain of truth. Marriage begins in love and that’s a good thing. Children should be conceived, welcomed, and reared in love. Lack of love indicates a failing family and children cared for out of duty rather than love don’t thrive. The lovingly sacrificing for a spouse’s biological children should be applauded, not condemned.

But consider the cultural and legal outcomes of “Love, not biology makes a family.”

Take opening marriage up to same-sex couples. Who cares about biology (though they must be called “reproductive organs” for some reason) as long as two people love each other? In fact, “Love makes a family” is a focus-group-tested vote-getter for gay marriage.

“Every child a wanted child,” has been a rallying cry among the pro-abortion crowd for years. If love, not biology makes a family and an unborn child is not loved or wanted, while that child may be biologically connected, but is by definition not part of the family. Thus the unwanted child becomes a dead child.

If love, not biology makes a family, when one spouse decides he or she is no longer in love, he or she is entitled to tear apart the marriage and family. No-fault divorce laws across the country allow the no-longer-in-love spouse to end the marriage even the other spouse’s against the objections. The couple may have promised, “as long as we both shall live,” but we know that means, “as long as we both shall love.”

Finally if love, not biology makes a family, no one can object to polygamy (one man with multiple wives), polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands), or polyamory (multiple “spouses”—male, female, or any combination). Logically, if love, not biology makes a family, anything goes as long as the people involved love each other. (Demands for polyamorist rights are on the way. Expect them.)

The other great error and irritant at church Sunday was confusing “normal” with “normative.” “Normal,” the word he used, describes what is typical. “Normative” describes what ought to be. Thus, it is “normal” to overeat during the holidays—most of us do it. But because it’s unhealthy overeating is not “normative”—that is, no one should do it.

A “normal” family in America today is a question of demographics. Families comprising a married man and woman and their biological or adopted children are a shrinking segment of the population. Single moms with one or more children from one or more men are a growing segment as are blended families. Count them, crunch the numbers, and solve for “normal.”

But to go on with a kind of fuzzyheaded “whatever is is right” to treat the normal as normative and even celebrate it isn’t even an intelligent form of relativism. It’s just dumb.

You may hate your mom, but she’s still family. You may not be speaking to your brother, but he’s still family. You may have a friend who is closer than a sister, but she’s not family. You may be cohabitating with someone you love very much, but you’re not family. Sorry.

What is normative? A family is still a group of people related by marriage, blood, or adoption as it has been pretty much since Genesis 1 and healthy families are marked by love. Remember that the next time someone tries to sucker you in with what amounts to little more than a shabby little advertising slogan.

Originally published at ReligionToday.com 

  1. Comment by Chris Ellis on January 7, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Great points. I love the righteous indignation. Speak it!

  2. Comment by Kari on January 7, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    I think our ability to be human can have its consequences when we try to understand and practice love. We are all on a journey to be as loving as Jesus, I’m afraid that human weakness hinders our abilities. We need to keep His will as our focus and live will be more understandable, especially in our actions.

  3. Comment by John S on January 9, 2014 at 9:17 am

    I almost got trapped into proof texting a response. Never works in posts. Let’s keep it simple. We don’t have an ability to be human; we are human. To love like Jesus means to obey like Jesus. If we do not obey; we do not love. Obediance is not necessarily from love, it can be duty, fear, hope of gain, etc. But love of God cannot be divorced from obediance.

  4. Comment by Donnie on January 7, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    James,

    This is an excellent post. You summed up a lot of what I feel.

    If more pastors in mainline denominations were like you, we wouldn’t have the problem of apostasy that is currently destroying our culture and churches.

  5. Comment by Dennis Di Mauro on January 7, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    James, you have a church problem. I can fix it.
    http://www.trinitylutheranva.org I will expect you this Sunday.

    Pastor Dennis

  6. Comment by Philip on January 7, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    “You may have a friend who is closer than a sister, but she’s not family….A family is still a group of people related by marriage, blood, or adoption as it has been pretty much since Genesis 1 and healthy families are marked by love.”

    This is where you left the Gospel behind, because what you’re attacking here is exactly what Jesus preached. “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” Sound “family”ar? I get that you’re afraid of LGBT persons getting married and apparently raising children, but for God’s sakes is this battle so important to you that you’re willing to throw away Gospel truth just to win it?

  7. Comment by Greg Paley on January 7, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Some things are so predictable from the LGBT side… “you’re afraid of LGBT persons getting married.” Always, ALWAYS the accusation of fear, as if we pro-marriage people are in the grip of psychotic fear. No, we aren’t. We don’t “fear” gays or their so-called “marriages.” We just know that their lifestyle is wrong and their “marriages” are a joke. That isn’t fear.

    The other predictable thing: the accusation that if Christians oppose LGBT “marriage” we are not Christians. As you put it, we are “throwing away the Gospel truth” in opposing gay “marriage.” The opposite is true. Atheists and “spirituals” can toss aside the Bible and 2000 years of Christian ethical teachings and not blink an eye, but Christians cannot. Sticking to what you call “the Gospel truth” requires us to withhold our blessing or approval of a destructive lifestyle that harms all people connected with it. the religious left long ago caved in to the feminists and gay activists, the true Christians are still fighting the good fight. We’ll take our marching orders from Christ and the apostles, thank you.

  8. Comment by Marco Bell on January 7, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    To, Greg Paley,

    You said: “…We don’t “fear” gays or their so-called “marriages.”
    We just know that their lifestyle is wrong and their “marriages” are a joke. That isn’t fear.”

    I get it! That you, as a Christian, honor your creed. That’s admirable, and expected.
    But for the sake of understanding the diversity in the world, is it necessary to presume that all people are Christians?! (Notwithstanding this being a Christian based site).

    Most religions are against, and are grappling with, the issue of sexual orientation, and the vagaries of it’s existence, and how to deal it in our current culture and Time.

    Almost every argument for “Marriage” equality, seems to offend somebody’s religion, or sense of propriety as they know, or believe it to be.

    Obviously, those who don’t care at all about Life, represent a small percentage of the culture…(BTW, I don’t belong to that small percent). But I don’t fear that “those” people, whose lives are different than mine should be denied the same qualities of life and civil liberty as you and I enjoy. That seems prejudicially bias, with the intent to deny Constitutional equality!

    God forbid that Caesar, over rule God! (Emphasis not necessary there!)

    It is my prayer, that someday, we, of all faiths, can see our brothers and sisters, as equals in heart and soul. Not mattering whether they are constructed from a Family of two parents (any combination), one parent, or no parent. The fact that we all need to survive here together, demands that we not deny equality for a good thing like Marriage! Let’s support Family with no fear of how they are structured!!

    Respectfully,
    Marco

  9. Comment by Greg Paley on January 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm

    It’s hard to explain to an unbeliever… I worship God, who is the supreme Person. God told us not to worship anyone else, no idols, that includes abstractions like “diversity.” I don’t worship diversity, I worship God.

    Yours is a political faith. Mine isn’t. Live and let live. I refuse to be part of anything that calls itself a Christian church but has its agenda set by people who have no religion at all.

  10. Comment by Marco Bell on January 7, 2014 at 10:13 pm

    Namaste.

  11. Comment by Philip on January 8, 2014 at 9:39 am

    When did I say if you oppose gay marriage you’re not Christian? Nowhere. I’m not the one who’s making this all about gay marriage, you are. What I pointed out is that the restricting of familiar language and bonds to a strictly nuclear or legal definition that the author seemed to be implying in this piece ran counter to the way Jesus uses familiar terms in the Gospel. When Jesus uses terms like “brother” or “father” or “mother” he does so in one of two ways. Either he is critiquing what he sees as the exclusivities of these relationships or he’s co-opting the terms and applying them more broadly to his followers and Christian communities. It puzzled me to see the author doing the opposite and claiming it was Biblical.

    I guess “fear” was the wrong word to use. Sorry. How about “concerned”? My point is that I believe in this instance even the author thinks he’s right in opposing gay marriage, he’s doing so here in such a way that throws the baby out with the bath water. My home church growing up (which was pretty conservative) was pretty clear in telling us to see each other as members of one family. His statements at the end just ran so counter to everything I had learned in the church, I felt I need to say something.

    And when he presents a traditional nuclear family with one mom, one dad, and children as normative he doesn’t just leave behind gay couples, he leaves behind a lot of other family situations. The nuclear family as we understand today as a household of two immediate generations is relatively modern occurrence. I’m not sure if you can really call it Biblical, since most families (probably including Jesus’) consisted of multiple generations and immediate families living together under shared relation to a single patriarch.

  12. Comment by Marco Bell on January 7, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Thank you Philip for some sanity.
    Can’t we all just learn to love one another?
    After all there is nothing greater, or more powerful than LOVE!
    That’s what Jesus and other ambassadors of faith preach.

  13. Comment by John S on January 9, 2014 at 9:25 am

    And here I thought this is what Jesus taught:

    “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment.

    As for the “Can’t we all just learn to love one another?” canard. Loosely translated it means Can’t you all just agree with me? otherwise you must love, support and defend those whom you have been disagreeing and we all know that disagreeing with someone’s position is hateful, mean spirited, denying their worth as human beings, etc.

  14. Comment by Marco Bell on January 11, 2014 at 11:10 pm

    John S,
    I know my tone may have made that statement: “Can’t we all just learn to love one another” sound a little too Kumbaya-like. I meant to quote the late great Rodney King, who said: “Can’t we all just get along?”

    You may be surprised to know that I support and defend YOU! Despite the possibility that I don’t agree with you.
    That’s the American way!
    Maybe that’s not the Christian way? But I’d bet it is!
    I follow that
    commandment. To love God. With all my heart, soul and mind. So I’m not sure how I’d ever be considered as someone who doesn’t love God.

    I do appreciate what you said in your earlier post: “But love of God cannot be divorced from obedience.”
    You’ve provided words to greatly ponder.
    Thank you!

  15. Comment by John S on January 13, 2014 at 8:00 am

    Ah the joys of text. I do not think you would prevent me from speaking nor I you. You are actually engaging the topic but many of those who call for “tolerance” and “can’t we all just get along” mean “Agree with me or shut up you __________ (your preferred expletives here) and in any event do as I say. I have found there are none so intolerant as the tolerant.
    It has been my observation that those who wish to shut down the opposition have no good arguements or lack the ability to properly frame those arguements.

    As for the arguement that nothing is more powerful than love; I would say that anyone who makes love, god, has impoverished both themselves and God.

  16. Comment by Ron Baglien on January 7, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    The argument falls apart in one simple sentence: “A family is still a group of people related by marriage, blood, or adoption… ” What is adoption other than a family made by love? You can’t argue that blood is what truly makes a family and then simply throw adoption into your closing paragraph as the only allowable exception! Where is the rationale to support this over a same sex marriage? Or adoption of children by gay couples?

  17. Comment by chuck white on January 7, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Jim pays the pastor the ultimate compliment: he listens carefully to what is said and takes it seriously. Then he shows the dangerous implications of the slogan. He’s doing exactly what Lewis calls the well-educated to do in “Learning in War Time”: he’s using his trained intellect to help others who have less time, ability, or inclination to see the truth. Well done, brother.

  18. Comment by Rev. Bob Fulton on January 7, 2014 at 8:58 pm

    thanks , you brought out some truths that are easily overlooked.

  19. Comment by Dave Gingrich on January 8, 2014 at 7:50 am

    I can no longer give any money to the foul UMC. We are now attending a Wesleyan church and loving it.

  20. Comment by Donnie on January 8, 2014 at 9:08 am

    I’m not sure if my new church is Wesleyan or not (never did learn what that means after seven years at my former UMC church). But it is a non-denominational Evangelical church. One that helps the community AND is dedicated to soul winning. Especially dedicated to soul winning.

    It’s a real blessing to know that young pastors are trying to make a real difference in the world, rather than the same mindless, feelgood “social justice” fluff and mush that comes out of most UMC pulpits.

  21. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on January 8, 2014 at 9:30 am

    Jim makes some excellent points that are clearly misunderstood and mischaracterized by pro marriage-redefinitionists like Marco.

    Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples (and whatever else will inevitably follow)–against not just Christianity but ALL major faith traditions, natural law, biology and 99+ percent of recorded human history–will undoubtedly have negative long term consequences, just like the sexual revolution of the 60’s has had. But, even as liberals are in denial about the consequences of the sexual revolution (interestingly, they are the ones who told us marriage was an outdated social institution) liberals will also deny the negative cultural consequences of marriage redefinition. They will say that there appears to, so far, be no negative consequences, but that ignores 2 facts: 1) they aren’t looking for negative consequences and 2) it will take time to see them (just like with the 60’s sexual revolution).

    When the negative consequences are apparent for most to see–liberals, of course, will continue to deny them and any culpability for them–it will essentially be too late.

  22. Comment by Donnie on January 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    As Mark Shea once put it, and I paraphrase, “social progressives are the first to say ‘what harm could this possibly cause’ and the first to say ‘who could have possibly foreseen this tragic outcome?'”

  23. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on January 8, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Most modern progressives assume no responsibility for the cultural carnage they have caused. I know some older liberals who live in total denial about the negative consequences of the drugs/sex/do-your-own-thing ethos of the 60’s. It will take shock treatment to get them out of their stupor. But that’s coming. Reality can only be denied so long.

  24. Comment by Randy Kanipe on January 8, 2014 at 10:59 am

    Funny – the LTGBT community….or whatever it is….has to stand on its head and claim the moon is made of cheese, to make their arguments seem logical etc. Isn’t it funny – you don’t see the LGBT community petitioning the Muslim faith for full acceptance, yet, they have a God and a prophet. Islam is as much of a religion as is Judaism or Christianity. Why not petition Islam for acceptance, since it is not going to happen in the Judeo/Christian world? Hmmmmm….THEN, if you can get acceptance in THAT faith, perhaps that will work well in helping convince OTHER faith traditions to join with you? Go ahead – give Islam a try.

  25. Comment by Marco Bell on January 11, 2014 at 11:25 pm

    Who’s petitioning any Religion to accept LGBT lifestyle. The demand is for equal civil rights and covenants.

    We all know that there are other faiths that have just as regressive dogma and restrictions, as the Christian faith. But the basis of the original article by Jim Tonkowich, was that LOVE is not sufficient enough by itself to justify being familial.

    Seriously, a Family doesn’t have to fit any of Man’s descriptions, since Man is not in charge!

  26. Comment by John S on January 13, 2014 at 8:05 am

    The LGBTQ is pushing many for full acceptance of their lifestyle. If you read IRD on a regular basis you know that since it chronicles the efforts within the UMC, PCA, Episcopalian, etc. I think Randy’s point is those pushing claim to be courageous champions of civil rights and the oppressed but they are very careful to campaign where there is no risk to self and great acclaimation from their fellow travellers.

  27. Comment by Speechless on January 20, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    No risk to self? Tell that to Matthew Shepard’s family.

    I’ve been a member of the UMC my entire life. I was baptized as an infant, confirmed as a youth, and have served faithfully with my prayers, presence, gifts, and service throughout my adult life. My family consists of: me (female), my WIFE, our son (my biological son whom we conceived through IUI and was adopted by my wife shortly after his birth to protect our legal interests), our parents, our best friend (also our son’s godmother), and a dog. Nothing you can say will make me believe that we are not a family. And while the UMC is very important to me, I have never once asked that the church recognize our union. We seek equality under the laws of government – not the church.

    Our son was baptized in the UMC after his birth, and I love my church home very much. But we have been so saddened by this division in the UMC that we will likely withdraw membership. Just like Jesus taught, right? Welcome only those who fit the mold into the church doors, and receive them with love. Wait…no…that wasn’t it at all, was it?

    I will pray that you all know God’s true love without boundaries. Because THAT is what I learned in the church.

  28. Comment by Daniel on January 8, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    Did any of you all see the AIDS Healthcare Foundation float in the Rose Parade? They carefully saved it for the last 5 minutes so I still saw it, even though I was just tuning in to catch the show following the parade. What on earth a gay marriage has to do with AIDS health is beyond me, but I was totally mystified, and offended, by the float’s theme – “Love is the best prevention.”

    I don’t know who made this quote, but it is one of the best I have heard – “God is love, but love is not God.”

    I can hear Satan in the arguments for redefining marriage – “Did God really say that … You are supposed to love your neighbor as yourself. How can you do that and deny a loving committed couple the right to celebrate their love with marriage?” Even Jesus said a man and a woman shall be joined in marriage. Marriage is an earthly symbol of the marriage between Jesus and his bride, the church. It should not be profaned by altering it to suit the lusts of totally depraved humanity.

  29. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on January 8, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity may have first coined that phrase. He stated that many who say “God is love” really mean “love is God.”

  30. Comment by Kay Glines on January 8, 2014 at 9:05 pm

    In all this fuss over gay “marriage,” one point that is seldom ever mentioned but ought to be painfully obvious: in growing up in a home with a male parent and female parent, a child learns how the two sexes operate, how they differ, how they complement and complete each other. There is no way two men or two women can accomplish this, even if the two people have very different personalities. Men and women are equal in the eyes of God, indeed, but “equal” is not “same,” and nothing can change that. I don’t judge any single parent, because I don’t know what led to that situation, but as a whole single-parent households are also damaging to children, because, again, the child is deprived of that education in seeing male and female relate. When extended families were the norm, the odds were that a single parent could surround the child with a mix of aunts, uncles, and grandparents so that the child could see married couples interact on a regular basis.

    Whether the gay activists like it or not, we all live in a world where heterosexual couples are the norm and will be for the foreseeable future. A child needs to grow up in a home where male and female interact, compromise, negotiate, even quarrel (and reconcile). This cannot happen except in the male-female couple, as God designed.

  31. Comment by Speechless on January 20, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    This naive point of view contemplates that every gay couple surrounds themselves only with those of the same gender. My son, who has 2 moms, is exposed to women and men of all ages and sexual orientations. He has grandparents, aunts and uncles (biological and chosen), cousins, and a whole community of people who love him and will guide him as he grows up. JUST LIKE CHILDREN OF STRAIGHT PARENTS.

  32. Comment by Michael Camp on January 9, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    Stereotypes abound in many of the comments here. Why do you assume progressives approve of the irresponsible elements of the 60s sexual and drug revolution? Few do. Biology makes a family as a set-in-stone principle makes no sense. As someone pointed out, that would circumvent adoption. A couple made up of each sex also as a principle makes no sense. That would circumvent singles that adopt (I know Christian singles who have adopted) and single parents by circumstances. Should you declare their families illegitimate? Finally, the argument that the Bible teaches “one man, one woman” as the only legitimate marriage or family relationship flies in the face of the biblical evidence. The Bible recognizes and affirms polygamy and concubinage (Leviticus allows for men with more than one wife as long as they treat them equally; and need I mention David, Gideon, Abraham, etc? Their multiple-partner marriages can’t be explained away with platitudes. Serious biblical scholars recognize the Bible’s mixed message on marriage), and as someone pointed out, Jesus regularly uses biological familiar terms in ways that actually reinforce the saying the author is trying to dispute, that “love [and commitment] make a family.”

  33. Comment by Brad Jones on January 21, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    A big part of the problem comes from not understanding what the true definition of love is. If we want to say something that simplistic, at the very least the true meaning of the words should be made clear.

  34. Comment by Cessid on January 23, 2014 at 10:49 am

    Great post. Also, I often think of the way we treat our elderly. An old friend announced that she wasn’t attending the funeral of her grandmother who suffered from dementia for 10 yrs. because she “said goodbye a long time ago”!!! So I guess when the symptoms started Grandma ceased being a human being and it was okay to walk away.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.