Family Structure

[Rhoni]

The Impact of Membership in a Rigid, Fundamentalist Religious Movement on Family Structure as it Relates to Bowen’s Family Systems Therapy

Rhonda R. Cyprus, Indiana Wesleyan University

__________________________________________________ _____________________

Abstract

I draw from existing literature to explore the effects of the influence of rigid, fundamentalist religious membership (RFRM) on family structure. It is my belief that when the authority of the family is entrusted to church leadership it can cause structural dysfunction within the family. This could include: enmeshment between church and family, the undermining of parental authority, and delayed individuation. Limited research has been done related to RFRM, therefore, using Bowen’s family systems therapy, existing research, and a biblical approach to healthy families I will explore how familiar fundamentalist practices may result in structural dysfunctions within families. The intent of this study is to create awareness of possible pitfalls related to practices within the RFRM, and to deter these in an effort to preserve healthy families within our society.


“Bowen’s Family Systems therapy has by far the most comprehensive view of human behavior and human problems of any approach to family treatment” (Nichols, M., & Schwartz, R. 1998. p. 141). Bowen’s family systems therapy is a theoretical-clinical model evolving from psychoanalytical principles and practices (p. 142). Although Bowenian theory has evolved and expanded, it has always centered on the counter-
balancing life forces of : togetherness and individuality (p. 144). The terms used to describe the unbalancing of the force of togetherness is; fusion, stuck-togetherness, and differentiation (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Differentiation is the capacity of an individual for autonomous functioning. Before one can mature into a healthy, mature personality, unresolved emotional attachment to one’s family must be resolved (Nichols, M. & Schwartz, R. 1998. P.144). Bowen is convinced that differentiation of autonomous personalities is necessary for normal/healthy development and a prescription for therapeutic improvement (P. 150). Bowen describes emotional oneness or fusion in families as “undifferentiated family ego mass” (P. 150).

Unresolved conflicts in families lead to a series of overlapping triangles (Andres, 1971). Instead of conflict being addressed by the two people involved, it is detoured when a third party becomes triangled in. The third party may be a friend, minister, colleague, or a therapist (Andres, 1971). This is not seen as a problem when the third party can remain neutral or objective. It is worth exploring to look at some possible repercussions if the third party comes from leadership within a RFRM. When personal, or familial boundaries are violated by religious leadership it may cause structural dysfunction within the family, and delay personal individuation by a member of such.
Bowen believes that change in any one triangle can change the entire family system.

Salvador Minuchin has provided invaluable research and clinical experience in the area of family structure. In the 1970’s his development of a theory of family structure created the opportunity for new structures to emerge, and structural family therapy emerged as perhaps the most influential in the field (Structural Family Therapy (1998) Pp. 241-242). Family Structure is defined as: “the organized pattern in which family members interact, is a deterministic concept, but it doesn’t prescribe or legislate behavior; it describes sequences that are predictable” (p. 244). When transactions within families are repeated they foster expectations as to what the pattern for the family will continue to be. The assignment of roles and responsibilities within a family are assigned early in the marriage

Within every family are the spoken and unspoken rules of engagement that identify the family patterns. Who will lead, who will follow, who will take care of the house, and who will take out the garbage are some of the patterns that are formed early on. If there are children involved then there may be the unspoken rule of which parent defers to whom in areas of responsibility or decision-making.

There is also a hierarchal structure of authority within families that give each member a different amount of authority. There are reciprocal and complementary functions within families by the different members also. This family structure is partly shaped by universal and partly idiosyncratic constraints (SFT (1998) p. 244).

Biblical patterns of hierarchy taught by most RFRM’s put Christ as the head of the man, man the head of the woman, and women take care of the children but are under the husband/father’s authority also (I Corinthians chapter 11, King James Version (KJV)).
When the headship or leadership of the family is given, by the man, to a person of leadership within a RFRM, or even a single parent female, then this opens the door for dysfunction to occur. It is here that the enmeshment of church with family begins.
The leaders of RFRM make decisions as to what is best for the church body, and can’t always be objective enough to help the family members decide what is in their best interest, nor is it their responsibility to do so. “Enmeshed subsystems offer a heightened sense of mutual support, but at the expense of independence and autonomy” (SFT (1998) P. 246). Enmeshment causes dependence when applied to families within the church. Many already dysfunctional family systems are attracted to the church to help them sustain themselves, such as; married women with alcoholic or abusive husbands with co-dependency issues needing support for their circumstances and help in raising their children, single parent families, through death, divorce, or children born out of wedlock, and mentally ill people looking for emotional and financial help. Most RFRM leaders are trained in the scripture as to the process of salvation through the redemptive process of sanctification but are ill prepared to meet the psychological needs of dysfunctional family systems. The dysfunctional family members are looking for a quick fix to their family patterns by letting someone else, leaders within RFRM, to make their decisions for them. This dependence also keeps the new convert from developing into a mature Christian “…and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” (Hebrews 5:12, KJV).

[Rhoni]

Family

What is a normal/healthy family? “Normal families modify their structure to accommodate to changed circumstances” (SFT (1998) p. 249). When two people marry there is progressive accommodation and boundary making. Accommodation begins as they compromise on: which end of the toothpaste to squeeze, when meals are to be eaten, or what is to be prepared and by whom. Each person tries to model their own family of origin traditions and interactions, and pressures the other to accommodate. Both come into the marriage with expectations of what their marriage is supposed to be, and things are easier if they agree on the major issues, such as; the number of children, which church they will go to, where to live, and parenting style. Healthy couples will each give a little and take a little until they reach a balance that is right for them. If they can’t agree or accommodate each other this is when troubles/dysfunctions begin. This is one of the reasons that RFRM teaches to “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers…” (II.Corinthians 6:14. KJV). If a RFRM member marries someone that does not share this belief system the marriage begins with a major hurdle.

Negotiating boundaries is one way of accommodating. The boundaries between the couple, and the outside world are an area of concern. Most RFRM teach “…For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife…” (Matthew 19:5. KJV). When a couple only see themselves as a unit, they are said to have diffuse boundaries. They most often do things together, have the same activities in common, same friends, and make joint decisions. They also have joint bank accounts and know where each other are at any given time, and speak often on the phone with each other while at work. Those couples with rigid boundaries maintain individual bank accounts, finances, have separate interests, separate friends, and even go as far as to have separate vacations. While neither of the two types defines enmeshment or disengagement it suggests a pattern that will develop. Spouses that come from families with differing degrees of enmeshment and disengagement feel more comfortable with the degree of proximity that exists from their particular family of origin (SFT, 1998).

The addition of children to the marriage transforms the spousal subsystem into a parental subsystem, and a sibling subsystem. “Even in normal (healthy) families, children bring great potential for stress and conflict (SFT, 1998. p.248). Looking at RFRM as a collectivist culture, a person is much more likely to be under the influence of group defined norms and roles, are attached to fewer outside groups, but it highly defines one’s identity (Hui, 1988). The role of a mother in RFRM is that of a caregiver to the children and as a homemaker. Because of this, traditionally the woman’s life undergoes the most radical changes when a child is born.

Cults

In The Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin, M.A., Ph.D., he describes the psychological structure of cults. It is worthwhile to note that many of these same characteristics may apply to RFRM as well. “First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by closed-mindedness”(p. 24). They are not interested in cognitive evaluation of facts but invoke the bible to prove their point and indoctrinate their members to believe that they are the only source of truth.

“Secondly, cultic belief systems are characterized by genuine antagonism on a personal level since the cultist almost always identifies his dislike of the messenger who holds opposing beliefs” (Martin, 1982. p. 25). Many RFRM openly forbid association with members of other churches in the same fellowship or other organizations that do not believe the way they do. If a member chooses not to obey or to disagree with the group teachings they are ‘disfellowshipped’ and in most cases shunned by church members that they have known and loved for years, some even their own family members. “Experience has shown me that when this is accomplished it is the first step in a systematic under-cutting of one of the basic problems all cultists face in inter-personal contact, the problem of hostility toward those who reject their interpretations” (P. 25).

“Thirdly, almost without exception cultic belief systems all manifest a type of institutional dogmatism and a pronounced intolerance for any position but their own” (Martin, 1982, p. 25). Martin did not mean to imply that all authoritarian dogmatism is negative. He agrees that dogmatism of the doctrine of Jesus Christ’s teachings are valid and true, but that cult systems “tend to invest with the authority of the supernatural whatever pronouncements are deemed necessary to condition and control the mind of the faithful” (P. 26). It is my personal experience that when ever I felt led to do something that the RFRM leaders did not approve of they would tell me that “God spoke to me” and it “wasn’t God’s will”.


The fourth has to do with the concept of isolationism, from: family, public schools, extra-curricular activities, and contemporary society as a whole. The RFRM use the scripture…

Elision & Sherkat (1993) examined the relationship between religious affiliation, parental values, and agreement with corporal punishment. They found that conservative protestants and, to a lesser extent, Catholics value obedience and support corporal punishment more than other Americans “He that spareth his rod hateth his son…” (Proverbs 13:24. KJV). More conservative denominations place emphasis on conformity and obedience to authority whereas liberal more on volunteer and individual choice (Hoge, 1979). Children are taught to “…obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves…” (Hebrews 13:17, KJV), and to “…obey your parents…” (Colossians 3:20, KJV). The RFRM also teaches that if a man desires to be a leader in the church he must “…rule well his own house, having his children in subjection…” (I Timothy 3:4. KJV).

[Cindy]

What is RFRM?

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

What is RFRM?

Rigid Fundamentalist Religious Movement. My computer was acting up yesterday and I see this was posted twice. It only needs once and one or both can be deleted. The discussion will not gain as much interst as the gossip going on.LOL

Blessings, Rhoni

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Rigid Fundamentalist Religious Movement. My computer was acting up yesterday and I see this was posted twice. It only needs once and one or both can be deleted. The discussion will not gain as much interst as the gossip going on.LOL

Blessings, Rhoni

Actually it is interesting. And much more informative than the gossip.

First read reaction I found myself offended that BFS seemingly was attacking my belief of God in the family. I have since reread and calmed down..lol.. I believe there is a balance a pastor has to maintain so as to be able to counsel in family matters while not injecting himself as a part of the structure. The man is also responsible in guarding for this. The chain of authority is Christ, man, woman, children. It did not include pastors, ministers or religious leaders. These positions are of counsel and teaching only, not authority. Even their authority comes from Christ. They should counsel the authority of the family without becoming the authority. A good pastor can maintain that balance.

The absence of man in the structure I believe is simply just that. The woman then answers directly to Christ and she can be counseled in her authority over the home by the pastor. Even in this scenerio the pastor still should not inject himself into the structure of the family.

I do believe there is a missing factor that can not be included into this study of influences. Prayer. This is the spiritual aspect of RFRM that cannot be studied or analyzed. However, if practiced biblically, will in itself act as a detering factor to the structure being comprimised.

I'm not particularly fond of being compared to a "cult" however that analogy is evidence of just how little the collegic world truly understands the difference in religion as a fundamental belief instead of a cutural principal.

[Rhoni]

Scotty,

Thank-you for your well thought out remarks.

Blessings, Rhoni

[OP_Carl]

When some people first come to Christ, their lives and family structures can be such a mess that those of the more established families appear to be ideal. It is small wonder that a dysfunctional new family would consider asking the man who helped them to become Christians to help them sort out their family life. They want to short-circuit the process to the stability that they see in the other families.

Another point I would toss out there is that a lot of today's psychology, whether analyzing family structures or one of the myriad childhood "disorders," has a very nebulous and often un-fixed notion of what is "normal." Most people have a concept that "normal" families are a lot like them, but without their negative traits and perhaps a little better at one or two group skills. I believe that the truth is that what is normal is for all families to have a little dysfunction here and there. If they didn't, the psychology types would all be looking for honest work!

These new breeds of disorders are diagnosed without so much as a urine sample. It is all subjective. Two different evaluators can get two completely different results when scoring a child for ADD, ODD, or one of the autism "spectrum disorders." (what's up with that? It used to be you either had autism, or you didn't!) And the different results can not only come from different personality or family types of the evaluators, but even such whimsical variables as what they had for lunch, or whether they'd had an argument with somebody in the previous 24 hours.

I just have a hard time accepting psychology's pursuit of a mystical, perhaps even mythological, "normalcy."

I wonder what prognosis psychologists would have assigned to the prophet Ezekiel, or king David? What would psychology have to say about the apostles, who literally dropped their livelihoods at their feet and followed Jesus on the basis of two spoken words? That has never been normal. Do you suppose that the families of some of Jesus' disciples and followers had no distress about their dear ones' new cultic behavior? What would have been normal for Simon Peter? What was right for him?

Thanks for posting this Rhoni; it's good to think about these things from time to time.

[True Believer]

Wow, that is a whole lot to read! I will have to come back to this when I have more time.

[Rhoni]

While some think this is open season on the study of psychology, it isn't. In my months of intense research I found that dysfunctional families gravitated to authoritarian [rigid fundamentalist religious groups] churches for a reason. They didn't know what normal was and it is easier to let other people tell you what to do than to find 'healthy' for yourself. Which just adds to the dysfunction.

Even the Bible, actually where many of the psychological theories are found, is all about transgenerational sins and 'issues' within the family. From Genesis to Revelation we see examples of healthy familes and examples of unhealthy families. Sexual impurity, interracial marriages, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, and even infanticide.

I think it strange that people would blame psychology for all the mess when it started back when Adam and Eve screwed up in the garden.

Blessings, Rhoni

[Cindy]

So to put it simply, sin causes dysfunction.