Some people would like to imagine that the best churches would be those that are self-consciously "Family-Friendly." The question before us is this: Should the church be "Family-Friendly"?
The answer to this question is, it depends. It depends on what "Family-Friendly" means. If it is asked if the church should be friendly to human beings with immortal souls, the answer is, "yes." If these people come to the church in natural blocs, called "families"--then the church is to be very friendly to them.
But, if "Family-Friendly" means that the church is to bend its own purposes specifically to the needs, desires, wants, and whims of the family, then this is an undesirable goal. If it means that the church is to design itself particularly around the family, then this is also a mistaken ideal.
The problem with the "Let-the-church-be-'Family-Friendly'"-mentality, is that it assumes some very unwise things. It imagines that the family comes into the church *without* previously already needing the church's redemptive virtue. It presupposes that somehow the family is already "OK," on its own.
But these are all clearly wrong-headed notions--as anyone who would objectively reflect upon them for even a little while, would understand.
Should the church be "Family-Friendly"? "Yes," in the sense that people are involved. But, "no," if this means cow-towing to it, to the hurt of both the church and the family.
PS: The only people the church should not be friendly to are the practicing wolves, that would seek to destroy her.
The Forum for Ecclesiocentricity is designed to educate Christians and non-Christians alike to understand the Biblical teaching concerning the Church (the "Puritan" church in particular), with regard to its principal role on the earth. When this is achieved, it is hoped that the Church would then be in a better position to convey Christ's redemptive virtues to the civil government (state), and the family. (You may email me at: markjhenninger@gmail.com)
