The Standard

A few years ago, twelve of the largest and most influential churches in America met. They were there to discuss an alarming statistic, that 80% of the youth raised in an evangelical church give up on their faith in their first year of college.* However, the conference accomplished little. Three-quarters of the churches represented couldn't agree to the most basic standard. They refused to accept the concept that the ideal family is a man and a woman raising their kids together. Think of the enormity of that statement. There were many excuses given. The most common was that they didn't want to make people like single-parents feel bad. And they said things like, who are we to judge?

The bottom line is that they refused to accept a standard. Therefore, the problem could not be identified. They were willing to lower the bar, or abolish it altogether, rather than risk offending someone. Forget God's design, it's more important that we don't cause boo-boos on someone's feelings. Take this approach to other areas of life. What if people were offended that they are told they have to drive on one side of the street, so the rule is disposed of and we could drive on whichever side of the road we felt like? The streets would be chaos and carnage. Head-on collisions would go from breaking news to something that occurs so many times a day it's not worth mentioning. What about pay? What if your boss could arbitrarily decide not to pay you because his profits were low, or he wanted to spend the money elsewhere? If everyone could do it, businesses would fail because people didn't have money to buy their product or service in the chaos this would create. In TV and radio, if anyone could broadcast on any channel they wanted, you would get a screen and speaker full of static and interference. How about library materials. What if you didn't have to return them, or could keep them as long as you like? There wouldn't be much left in the library to checkout. In the quest to avoid boo-boos on people's feelings, we would create a disaster and real world boo-boos.

Just because someone drifts out of their lane once in awhile is no reason to abolish the lanes. Just because one businessman was corrupt doesn't mean you get rid of commerce. Just because a pirate station pops up once in awhile doesn't mean we should eliminate the licensing system. Just because some people are late returning their books doesn't mean you get rid of the due dates and late fees. And you don't solve a family crisis in the church by pretending that any situation is ideal.

The idea that defining a standard shouldn't be done because it will make those who fall short feel bad is absurd. They are in essence saying that we shouldn't teach Christianity. After all, "for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". Every single one of us are less than ideal. To say otherwise is to contradict the Bible, and common sense.

In this instance, why would stating that the ideal for a family is a man and a woman raising their kids make someone feel bad, unless it was their own sin that broke that up? If a man or woman is raising their kids on their own because their spouse left them, then the fact that they are raising kids in a less than ideal situation shouldn't make them feel bad. It should give that single parent pride that they are doing it when it's harder for them for others.

A church that refuses to acknowledge that there is a disadvantage in being a single parent can't provide the extra support that family needs. You can't fix a problem when you deny that one exists. How much better it would be if they could be supported by a family that is closer to the ideal. In this way, the kids would have the resource of a person of the opposite sex of their single parent. (As to whether there are any families willing to do such a thing is a topic for another discussion.)

I drive car with a standard transmission, commonly known as a stick-shift. I do not shift perfectly. Only a handful of people in the world can make the claim they do. And I bet even they could improve. But what would happen if I take offense when the owner's manual or an instructor point out the fact that I'm not perfect when I shift. What if I decide I shouldn't feel bad about it, and there shouldn't be any standard. I should be able to shift anyway I want. It's my car! Of course, that attitude would result in a blackened lump of metal in my rearview mirror that used to be the transmission on my car. And I would end up on the side of the road waiting for a tow truck. I shouldn't get discouraged that I didn't do it perfect. I should instead resolve to do it better the next time I need to shift and strive to get better. And I can take heart that I'm doing it great in other areas, like hitting the apex of a turn perfectly.

We shouldn't be discouraged because we fall short of the ideal. And we certainly shouldn't try to abolish the ideal to make us or others feel better. Even if it does make people feel bad, that's no reason to change or eliminate the standard. We should instead encourage those in less than ideal situations, even when it's because of their poor decisions in the past. We should help when we can, and teach others not to go down that path in the first place. By saying there is no standard we don't help people not to feel bad anyway. Abolishing the standard is to help people make a mess of their lives. And that hurts much worse.