This person doesn't believe in the "deity", but thinks that UCC and Unitarian congregations are too squishy? Geez, you can't make anyone happy!

Morris Post

Another resource, Faith Inkubators

But passing on Christianity - Morris.

Wow. I mean, wow. I think this is fascinating, frankly, I love the way folks think they've got something new under the sun, but in reality Jews have been doing this since they've been Jews. Most everything we do at the Eucharist has some sort of parallel with what Jews do at the dinner table. Jesus would have said, well duh. Christianity lost a LOT, I think when both the Jewish AND Pagan primacy of worship at home was jettisoned. I'm not talking about little prayers you say before going to bed, I'm talking about deep rituals with clunky props, consumable goods and sacramentals that were expected to be done at home. Nothing lengthy or too time consuming - unless you were of a Brahmin family in India - but certainly more than family evening prayer. When worship at home got to be an imitation of worship properly done at Church, instead of the other way around, I think that becomes contrary to how humans really work. I think that now, a reversion to the older, more instinctive ways, are contributing to the "decline" of Christianity in the West, or at least, the decline of institutional Christianity. Those bad decisions - even if made in good faith under duress, and even if having led to amazing humanistic and artistic contributions later - are nonetheless going to have to be unraveled. And in the meantime we're going to have to find new ways of doing church and envisioning what it's supposed to look like. Why don't we ask our Jewish friends for advice?

Anyone remember that book "Prayers For the Domestic Church: A Handbook Of Worship For the Home"?

It appears that those that embrace this movement are more about moralism, and not about being a part of a Christian community. It seems to me that such situations are dangerous because they lack theological accountability and the accountability to one another that in a perfect world would exist in churches. Granted, many of our churches lack community. Instead many of our churches are simply buildings where people gather for individual worship, and then leave to go about their separate lives. But, this movement precludes even the possibility of Christian community from occurring.

Perhaps this is another example of the spiritual, but not religious? My clue came in the phrase "even though I don’t particularly believe in the deity. There’s something nice and traditional about it, and it really works for the kids."
Don't get me wrong, I think formation must start in the home and be reinforced there, but it can hardly be Christian without an appreciation of deity. What the quote indicates is good old fashioned "family time" with church overtones and does not address faith in community outside the family.

The extent of this family's formation in faith seems to be a mealtime grace said to a deity in which the parent doesn't particularly believe. A family meeting to talk about issues, trips, things to learn about, and family stuff, is rewarding and important family time, but it is not faith formation, even if it includes a song. I would not call this any kind of church, even "un-church." It is, of course, a lovely practice, but this family has clearly made the choice not to follow the Christian path, except nominally. They are missing the regular rhythms of worship, the opportunity to learn Christian points of view they might not have thought of themselves, and a community of faith that becomes a "village" of caring folks who help both adults and children grow in their discipleship. We do vital and valuable things in the church, and we should not discount ourselves.

Susan Snook

Well so far not too much offering to support this family in its quest to raise faithful children. Sounds like the very reason they may have started home-churching -- instead of accepting that this family is working from their own truth and offering more - criticism and snark abound. Just another version of dirty looks from congregations when one shows up with children.

Ann, I hope you're not including me in the company of snarks, I think this family has an excellent spiritual practice. In Judaism, the liturgy is first and foremost a liturgy to be said at home, sometimes even individually, and synagogue practice is an adaptation of these prayers for when others are around. Christianity went just the opposite route. I think the Jews were right. I think we need to learn from the Jews about a lot of things.

No Clint - what you say is exactly what I was thinking as a way for the church to support seeker families.

While my parents and older sister (and godmother) played an important part in nurturing my faith as a child, I knew I was also part of a wider family, made up of people of varying ethnic and class backgrounds, gathered around a wider table and loved by the same heavenly Father. As I grew towards adolescence I could mix with other young people, and get involved in actvities which further expanded my horizons. I believe I would have missed something important if I had missed that.

Thank you for posting this. I have been observing this trend also and I definitely think it has legs, given the ubiquity of internet-delivered formation resources. Home vs. church does not have to be an either/or; it can be a both/and. Some families, like the one described, will engage in home-churching instead of participating in a church community. Others, like ours, will engage in both. (Of course, the fact that mom is the priest in charge of faith formation at church probably helps with keeping both formation experiences aligned!) For an example of our practice, see http://plainsongfarm.com/lent-at-home/

Nurya Love Parish

Thanks Nurya -- great ideas.

I don't know that some of the well-reasoned questioning here necessarily qualifies as "criticism and snark." It sounds like the "unchurch" family is having some lovely quality time together, talking about trips and household problems and plans for the week, and that's a good thing -- it builds relationships and family togetherness, a good and much-needed thing. But is that worship? Doesn't worship focus on God and not ourselves, pulling us out of and beyond ourselves? It does seem rather odd to "say grace" when one doesn't "particularly believe" in the deity it is addressed to, "nice and traditional" though it may seem -- an expression that suggest perhaps sentimentality, nostalgia and traditionalism are more in the fore than faith and spirituality here.

As for Judaism, the Hebrew Scriptures show its worship was decidedly communal from the start, beginning in tent and temple, evolving into synagogue (still communal) and family-based household piety as Sabbath dinner and the Passover Seder (though both are also celebrated communally as well). Unless one was born into a family of at least ten males to form a minyan, it's hard to see how all -- or even most -- Jewish worship could be performed at home as a stricly family affair. That same *combination* (and that's a key word -- rejecting neither one nor the other) of communal worship and household piety isn't absent in Christianity; if it's not as common as it once was in the West, one still sees it other cultures, such as those of Eastern Europe.

In both "home schooling" and "home churching," one finds an unfortunate choice to withdraw from a broader community to go it alone and be by oneself. There is incalculable loss in doing so, for in community we encounter people, ideas and attitudes that differ from and challenge our own presuppositions, something we need to relate to the world around us and get through life in a healthy, humane manner. Savi hit the nail on the head: I too would have been incredibly impoverished had my parents not taken me to church, where I learned to relate to God and others by mixing with people outside of my age bracket, cultural background and life experience. The dimunition of a sense of community is one of the troublesome developments in American culture today, where now even paying taxes for schools, law enforcement, public health services and other features of "the common good" is called into question in some quarters, as though every man and woman is an island and none of us have to engage in mutual support anymore. But as John Bell sagely notes in "10 Things They Never Told Me About Jesus," in the gospels Jesus definitely seems to be calling people into a sense of "larger, broader family" that goes beyond blood and hearth and clan, one that supplies things that a self-contained biological family can't.

As an aside, whenever someone tells me they "home-school" their children to prevent their Christianity from being corrupted, I have to smile, though a bit sadly, for I remember that Saints Basil and Emily of Caesarea, committed Christians both with martyrs in the family tree, had no qualms about sending their son Basil to university in Athens, where Greek paganism was decidely part of the curriculum at the time -- and yet he became a great saint nonetheless, along with his siblings Macrina, Naucratius, Peter and Gregory! So much for mixing with non-Christians and going to college "ruining one's faith," as one politician in the news is claiming nowadays!

How can one say UCC and the Unitarians are too "squishy" when the parent quoted here admits not believing in a "deity" but says "grace?" This is not like Judaism, which emphasizes both the home and the house of worship. At some point a kid in Judaism has to learn to read the Torah out loud to a group of experts.

Jesus, remember, is said to have run from his parents and gone to the synagogue to speak with adults other than his parents.

Home churching reminds me of the story of an Episcopal priest who, when he was a kid living with his parents on an isolated island in Maine, had to gather with his family and do morning prayer with his family on Sundays because there was no church nearby.

Done well, as in the case of this particular Episcopal priest's childhood experience, it could be splendid, but it seems a lot to ask of parents that they be religious experts for their children. Why not home medicine?

It seems to me that with the nuclear family children already spend too much time with their parents. In an extended family they would have had many adult relatives they could visit.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Most you are making assumptions about this family without knowing anything of their lives or the spirituality of the children and the partner. btw - the parents are reading your remarks if that makes any difference.
But I can sure see with all this judgement floating around - I would run not walk to the nearest exit and never feel like going to church if this is what it is like.

From one of the parents:
I am very interested in all the comments.

I must say I feel thoroughly chastised for what I thought was a pretty benign and well-intentioned practice!

I do feel empowered enough to say that my spouse and I are from different religious backgrounds -- clearly my spouse was raised in the church and I was raised in front of the television.

Ironically, I think I am comfortable in my faith in a loving God and out-of-place in the pew while he has a scientific scepticism about a "deity" but is strongly drawn to the rhythms & rituals of the church.

Our attempts to un-church are born, in some part, from a longing to join our different spiritual bents.

We visited many churches and honestly, just never felt comfortable in any congregation. In part, I suppose because we are the parents to two rambunctious, bright boys ages 4 and almost 6.

Man, some of the looks we got when our guys got wiggly! They would turn a strong man to stone.

And honestly, parking the boys in a room with a couple of teen girls and some broken toys just wasn't fulfilling our longing for a family-inclusive spiritual practice.

I'm not sure we made a decision to un-church permanently. But while we waited for our boys to get a little bigger, we would do a few things to impart our beliefs, our ethics, our love of God.

It's sort of sad to me that we are being accused of turning our backs on our community. We are so strongly driven to connect with our neighbors, give back to charity, and be there for our friends and family.

I guess getting closer to God at home, at our kitchen table gives us the compassion & the commitment to remain open to our community.

In a perfect world, our friends would join us at the table & we could have a "movement" but sadly, most of our peers are atheists. So right now it's just us trying to bring God's love into our home in the best way we know how!

I wrote this essay to wonder how the church can be more supportive of families who are trying to give their kids something more. Did not think the honest comment in the quote about not being sure one believes would evoke such a storm - many in the pews feel the same way. Nor did I expect a "pile-on" reaction of negativity. (not everyone - but many)

Yow! We have inadvertently become the center of a mini-tempest! It's really funny to read people's responses to our private and rather pragmatic choices. We're really not part of a movement--don't worry, we're not even organized enough to make it to church on Sunday. We're people who are building a spiritual practice from spare parts as we have built everything else in your lives. Note that I am also a freelancer who works at home, I was a fringe theater director for years, and went to The Evergreen State College where there are no majors and no grades. I'm just not an institutional guy. I'm a DIY guy. We don't ask permission. We don't care whether what we do is approved of or not. We're punk rock. We do what works. It works for us.

We don't believe that we should put our children in public school to save the system. Too many of our friends have had to medicate their 5 and 6 year olds to help them fit in. We're just not going down that road. There is a huge and active homeschooling community here. We've chosen to be a part of that community instead of the community of public schoolers.

The reality of urban life is that you choose your community. You've chosen an Episcopalian community, which is hardly less choosy, statistically speaking, than homeschooling. I don't believe in a deity in any traditional sense, it's true. I just don't. However, saying grace has real effects in our lives and using the traditional form just works for us. Yes, the UCC church was too woo-woo for us. We are pretty rational people and the PC aspect of that experience was really over the top.

Finally, remember that we live in the least-churched major city in the country; most of our friends are unrepentant athiests or pagan types. It blows their minds that we say grace, and I consider that a ministry, albeit a tiny one. I bet there are plenty of people who go to church every week who think less about their faith than my five-year-old does. I think of it like exercise. It may look like an empty or silly gesture, but it wreaks spiritual changes in us that are palpable and real. Someday we might find a church. Until then, we will continue our subversive activities.

Our parish in the last ten years had to learn to accept the noise and clamor of children in our main Sunday service. When they did, the dustiness disappeared, because there was too much activity to let the dust settle!

We get families coming in from all kinds of backgrounds looking for a community that helps support them in building a life of values for their children. To that end, we try to uphold them in their spiritual lives the other six days of the week by offering resources and get-togethers, by being a community that comes alongside for support.

In this, I see a "both-and."

It's hard not to be somewhat critical of a decision to keep church "in-house" at home, because both our baptismal tradition and the gospels have a clear call to community that goes beyond the boundaries of the nuclear family – indeed, it could be said to transgress them!

That said, the family mentioned in this thread sounds to me as though they haven't found the community yet that offers them the support they feel they need. In a way, Matt's comments make it sounds as though they have almost taken on a missionary orientation in a part of the world where church-going and Christian practice is considered strange. Missionary families have been doing this for centuries, and Christians in many parts of the world practice this way – some under great duress. Surely God meets them there!

Again I say that in some cases home anything could be splendid but before I would recommend it for everybody I would need evidence that the children are not harmed by such close family bonding. Educated parents may be able to be teachers and religious experts for their children, but not every parent has the training. And I would wonder about whether it is not better to learn things from outsiders in whom the children have not invested psychically in the same way one would seek a therapist rather than a friend to discuss certain personal matters.

Interesting, Matt, how you link to this home schooling. Putting the kids in a public schools is not about saving the system but rather about educating the kids. I don't see how a parent can be an expert in every subject taught in school.

I think the issue about not believing in a "deity" but saying "grace" has to be read in the rejection of Unitarianism, a tradition which would have no problem with this attitude. It would be logical to affiliate with a group which matches one's beliefs the most accurately.

In any case, I admit I don't understand this movement, if it is to be a movement.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I started to write I response to this, but it ended up being longer than the original post, so I followed my own rule, and put the response at my own blog.

Mr Helmer, I really liked what you had to say and I hope that God does meet us at homes.

I'm a parent of two young spirited children. Too, my wife is a priest and so I have them by myself in the pew. And we're only occasionally at her parish so Sunday morning is is the solo daddy show from clothes to hair to proper church behavior. I know what it's like; it ain't easy.

But it's important.

Yes, some people in churches are jerks about kids. Frankly, some congregations are jerks about kids. And that's not right. As I see it, every congregation needs to be open to children in their midst--even when they aren't 100% perfect. However, the parents also have a responsibilty. They have a responsibility to the congregation to teach their children decorum in the service so that they're not disruptive. They also have a responsibility to teach--and more importantly to model-- what attendance and participation in the service look like because at the bottom line it's about commitment and therefore discipleship.

Getting kids read in the morning, getting them out to church can be a serious pain in the butt--but it's what we do. It's how we help the whole community embody the Body of Christ--they can't be it as fully without us.

And for all those who look to the Baptismal Covenant as the the ultimate arbiter of what we do, check the first affirmation after the creed: "Will you continue in the apostles' teaching, the breaking of bread and the prayers?"

I do understand some of the impulses for "home-churching", I really do, but at the end of the day, I just don't see it as a faithful part of the discipling process.

Lots of passion around this, which does not surprise me. We hold our beliefs dear and, sometimes want to hold onto our version of God. I do too. I also know that God is a mystery of minute fraction of which I think I understand. Emphasis on think. I can't be sure. So, given that position, I'm quite heartened to know that what I call God is alive and well, stirring the hearts of many--including those who are different than I. I don't think Sundays challenge me as some say worshipping in community does.

This family does so much we at church hope our congregants do --bring their lives to community. Imagine if more of us church goers discussed our coming week, hopes, family events, etc. and also bring our lives into community.

We might also celebrate that these folks draw on the very same resources we do at church--Helen Barron's Candlelight Press and Godlyplay. Wow. This family isn't put off by way we do things. Why are we put off by them, suggesting that their choices are "less than."

I believe in mystery. I believe in a God who is much greater than I can imagine. I applaud this family for taking in practices that allow that possibility too.

Matt and spouse (unnamed in the comments above): I think you have a lovely family practice going, and I applaud your parenting skills. Your comments have given a little more context than the original post, and it seems that there may be more spiritual content to what you are doing than was described originally.

For me, Christian formation ideally consists of two parts: grounding in the stories of the faith, the narratives of God's interactions with humans (especially in Jesus); and a family practice that reinforces those stories and brings them into daily life. What I suspect may be missing in your practice (though I don't have all the facts) is the first component. Are the children learning about the stories of God? I have several parents in my congregation who, like you, are not sure of their own beliefs and don't feel able to teach Christianity to their children. However, they think it is important for their children to learn about the faith so that they can make their own choices, so they are committed to bringing them to church and to Sunday school. This is where the children learn those important stories. I understand perfectly if you do not feel qualified to teach those stories to the children, but that is why we have the Body of Christ. We all have different gifts, and some people have the gift of teaching children. The great strength of the church is the ability to bring all those gifts together in a community that serves and empowers all.

That said, I am sorry that the congregations in your area have not offered what you needed, and I wouldn't take my children to a place where I had to shove them in a room with broken-down toys either. I hope that at some point you can find a congregation that works for you.

Ann, as you said above, people commenting don't know the family. They're responding to the information you gave, the text as it were, and reading in light of their own experience and ideas. In the background is the question, How far is one family's experience generalizable? The Kant test: Is it good for all?

Church lost its appeal to my wife and me in the mid 1970s and we began taking the kids to the university gym on Sundays. I remember fondly our youngest running laps with his mother -- he'd run beside her for a while, then run backward, then run rings around her as she plodded on. She went back to church later; it was too much part of her cultural background to give up.

As far as saying grace: There's a sharp cartoon showing a family saying, "Thank you, Jesus," and Jesús in the field, a farm worker, saying, "De nada." The things in life we are grateful for may come from God, but by way of corporations, industrial agriculture, etc. Family practice has its own value, like writing letters to Santa Claus. Does there come a point when kids see beyond the myth?

I, too, have been following this conversation and have been surprised at the turn it has taken. The initial article Ann posted offers some wonderful suggestions on how the Church can support families in growing in their faith at home - whether they attend a worshipping community regularly or not.

Let's face it - a large percentage of parents today have had a bad experience with a church tradition when they were children - if they went to church at all. They are seeking to do what is best for their children and want to be connected to the Holy. For those of us who are still active in a congregation, it behooves us to listen to their yearnings and support them with open arms (and perhaps some resources to use at home) and not judge them.

In the Shema, which I believe continues to guide our call to faith formation first and foremost in the home, parents are the main 'passers on of faith' to future generations. Through our baptism (and witnessing those of others), we are called to do all in our "power to support these persons in their life in Christ." ALL is a pretty strong word. This includes outside of the Church environment.

Helping parents learn the Biblical story so they can pass it on to their children is a good thing. So is helping them find prayer practices that work for them. Offering resources where they can practice their faith at home is essential. Even if they do attend worship weekly, that's only about 2 hours a week. What about the other 166 hours of the week? Shouldn't we be encouraging their commitment to 'keep the faith' at home? Hopefully each of us who has participated in this conversation practices their faith outside of Sunday worship.

Doing the 'examen' as a family at the end of each day is one such practice. (Which is what Faith Inkubators is really charging a ton of money for with an evangelical spin). If you're looking for a simple resource to learn how to bless you child, check out "To Bless a Child" by Roy Pollina (Church Publishing).

The point is, we want to encourage parents to find ways to bring up their children in faith. If we are a mission-minded church, we need to start listening to those who come to us seeking a place to nurture their faith and reach out to those who have been turned away or turned off.

Sharon Pearson

As one who has been for nearly 25 years a professional Christian educator, I want to thank this family for sharing what they do, and why. While I hope Matt and Kristen will one day find a community of faith where they and their children are fully welcomed and incorporated, I hope they would always continue their practice of "home churching". The church, however, isn't a building, it's people, and doing God's work in the world is hard enough-- to have others to join you on the journey is no small thing. That's really why I want them to have community. It doesn't even have to look like church--it might be finding a few other like-minded families to meet over a meal once or twice a month, with grace and stories and questions and prayer, and every so often going together to a soup kitchen or food pantry or animal shelter or retirement home or children's hospital and putting faith into action. And sometimes these families might get together for a hike or a trip to the beach and discover what gives them a sense of the Divine in nature. And when a holiday approaches, what if the families each shared with one another a tradition they love? Please let us know how your adventure unfolds, and please tell us how we can support you! Being church is so much more important than going to church.

My comment is not a criticism of the family in Mo. Fontaine's post, but directed at the "home" movement in general.

I don't think that opting for DIY religion or education is really beneficial for either the family or the larger community in the long run, except in a few special cases. Being a Christian, in great part, is being part of a community that transcends the family (and I think something of the same applies to being a broadly educated person). I think families need the Church - and that the Church needs the family.

There's one motivation in some people's decision on to substitute the family for the wider community in religious and educational matters that isn't mentioned in the original post: the desire to control and dominate one's children. Again, this is not directed towards the Fontaine family; I have no reason to suspect that they are control freaks. But I do think it's important not to kid ourselves that everyone who chooses home schooling or churching does it out of the laudable motivations Mo. Fontaine listed.

Full disclosure: I'm a childless secondary school teacher. And yes, I have known personally families that have home schooled and home churched.

I always thought that this was what was supposed to happen in conjunction with full church participation. Isn't it what parents and sponsors promise to do when they present a child for baptism? It is sad to see the excuses that people hide behind. I do not think that the church exists outside of the community and, fwiw, I find that those who homeschool are often the least qualified. There is a reason that we train people to help us with our faith development and education.

It's interesting to read these comments; I hear a good amount of (perhaps not inappropriate) anxiety in them.

It strikes me that listening to this reflection is an excellent opportunity to use that old seminary standard, the "non-anxious presence," and raise the question: "Okay, here is a testimonial from a family about what feels like spirituality to them; how shall I respond?"

My own suggestion is that curiosity is the appropriate stance. For example, I'm curious about what a "dusty" Episcopal church is (especially in the wake of Robert Putnam's vignette of Trinity Boston in "American Grace").

I'm curious whether the idea of family religious practice as an outgrowing of spiritual experience doesn't have its roots in experiences from the church. I'm curious what the possibilities of dialogue are.

I'm not sure there's anything particularly helpful (not that I've seen this suggested quite so explicitly) about politely-but-firmly explaining to families who talk about God, faith, ritual, ethics or metaphysics together that the real conversation is happening within some other four walls. On the contrary, I've found that conversations are more easily joined when I approach one willing to hear what it has to say than when I insist that if they'd only listen to my version, they'd understand that their ideas are already better-worked-out in the theological framework (however orthodox) that I've assembled.

Regards,

Ben Varnum

Our parish is stuck with the bad decision to associate Sunday school with the guitar service and all but designate it as the appointed service for families. As a choral person this is a non-starter for me, so I've basically had to home-school the kids about religion, which isn't as bad as it seems for us because my wife and I talk about religion all the time. And fortunately, all the talking seems to have taken on my kids. But Sunday comes, and there they are, a couple of isolated kids in a pew apart, with no connection with the rest of the kid community in the parish.

I think it might have been helpful for Ann to disclose that she is writing about her own children.

I'm not surprised at the passionate comments, nor at Ann's perceiving them as critical and snarky. As a parent myself, I know how strong the "mama bear" instinct is--and how difficult it can be to hear criticisms of your kids!

I believe that there are many ways of worshiping God--and that different ways appeal to each of us at different points in our lives. It sounds to me as if the Fontaine family is trying to be intentional about acknowledging the sacred in everyday life. That is not a bad place to be, in terms of spiritual development. I know some folks who are in church every time the door opens, but they seem to have missed that very important lesson about sacredness outside the church building.

At this stage in *my* life, I am sacramentally oriented, so I want to be in church to partake in the liturgy--but it wasn't always that way. And I may feel differently next week.

But while I AM inside the church, I consider it my responsibility to help make it a welcoming, inviting place for others who might decide to give us a try--and to try to live in such a way that people can see my belief in God reflected in the way I live my life. I figure that's really the best any of us can hope to do. Trying to "argue" people into church isn't going to get us anywhere--living what we say we believe might.

Paige --I am not sure why the fact that these are my kids would make a difference to the story. Matt is our son and his wife is Tamara, Kristin is our daughter. We have one more son who will probably weigh in too. They all can speak for themselves and have.
When I wrote the article I did not expect the reactions - mostly I thought it was great that the family has a spiritual practice and wondered how the church could be supportive. I also know they are not the only ones doing this.
As the comments developed I think it was clear this was our family. How would it be different if I had revealed the family?
I admit to a bit of mama bear early on but probably would have felt protective of anyone whose story I shared - at least I hope I would.

It is sad that they are missing out on the community part of worship, though. That is such a vital part of a spiritual life, in my opinion.

Trying to "argue" people into church isn't going to get us anywhere--living what we say we believe might.

Paige, I find this a powerful point. So much of our shared angst in the Church right now is rooted in forgetting that the primary mode of our community vocation in the Gospel (commonly known as evangelism) is invitation...Nothing more, nothing less.

Paige --I am not sure why the fact that these are my kids would make a difference to the story.

I think it makes a difference in your reaction to the comments--and since the Episcopal Cafe is so big on transparency from commenters, I think that EC's writers should be transparent too. YMMV, of course.

I'm sympathetic to both your point of view and that of your kids--but I DO think it would have given commenters here another important lens to view what you are saying. This is personal for you, in a way that it isn't for a lot of us. It's easy to opine about some generic family "somewhere"--but relationships make a difference.

It's sort of like how people stop opposing gay rights when someone they love comes out. Given how many people really admire and respect YOU, I think the conversation would have been enriched by your saying "These are my children. This is how they are navigating spirituality in the 21st century. What can we--as a community of faith--do to support them and others like them?" Maybe I'm the only one who finds personal stories compelling?

Richard--thanks. I am really struggling these days with what it means to be a Christian. I think the biggest threat to the faith is the fact that so few of us actually live it--and I start with myself as Exhibit #1.

I have not considered any of the comments or questions judgmental in tone. I admire everything about having a family day or days, and worshiping God certainly doesn't require a church setting. Ideally we should pray without ceasing, so making a sanctuary of one's home is a very sound policy from a Sabbath-keeping standpoint. However, I believe that we are called to corporate worship and I wonder about the veracity of Christian teachings that are not based in Scripture, and in the Episcopal tradition, on the prayers of the Book of Common Prayer. While the family's practice is lovely and wholesome and no doubt beneficial to the couple and the children, is it as valuable from a Christian education standpoint? In other words, are accuracy and tradition essential to spiritual formation?

Paige - I do think people might have been less forthcoming in their comments if they had known the relationship originally - but would still be thinking it. So I am glad it got out on the table. There is a lot to think about the assumptions being made by myself and others - thanks to all who commented. Though I am a priest I don''t the think the church has a corner on faith formation or community -- but maybe it is because I now live in the most unchurched part of the US and yet see people following Christ and being in community in amazing ways or maybe it is because I have seen experienced some of the most brutal abuse in church. I doubt God needs us (TEC) to find faithful people and bring God's reign on earth. Early (40 years ago) in my return to the church I wrote that though the Church was often called the "Bride of Christ" -- I felt that perhaps Jesus was divorcing us and looking for a new "bride". I still wonder. For all the beauty and wonderful community I have experienced along the way -- we have a lot of work to do align ourselves with Christ. YMMV

Kaze Gadaway on the subject as she experiences it with the Navajo at InFaith's Posterous

The difference between the Navajo youth group and "home-churching" is that the the Navajo teens aren't developing a spirituality derivative of their consumer choice; it's being developed and defined within a clear external source. Their relationship to their ethnicity, the Native spirituality, their Christian community, etc. is what's defining them, not their consumerism.

The best resource we can offer is page 136 of the Prayerbook and an authentic Christian community. We shouldn't offer resources for a self-defined spirituality devoid of external references. That's just a simulacrum of the Faith, and nothing of Faith-ful value is getting passed down.

Much has been said on this thread and I really don't care to rehash anything--but I will throw in a line or two from a rural perspective.

What if the family in question found that every church in their small community found gays abhorrent, and consigned all manners and sorts of people to hell on a regular basis for things that would seem piddly to the most conservative person in the "progressive church?" That would be reason enough for me to home church my hypothetical kids.

That said, my experience is that over time, "outcasts" learn to recognize their own, and find ways to coalesce. It just might not be in a form recognizable as "our grandparents' church." My gut feeling is this can be a form of mission just as wild as what Roland Allen sought to do in China.

Maria, the circumstances you posit put the family in the position of rejecting the local community not for reasons of convenience or preference, but because the local community is morally/religiously unacceptable. Under those circumstances I'd find home churching a moral obligation, I think. I might also think I had an parental obligation to get my family the hell out of Dodge, or maybe help plant a congregation I did find acceptable.

The "home church" movement is growing nationally -- we've just been rather unaware of it in our context. This is one incarnation; another is families/people who gather in homes for fellowship and worship. Mostly they are tired of the denominational politics, don't have the time and energy to help maintain our often elaborate systems (committees, events, things to do, etc.) and they long for something simpler, deeper, more exploring rather than proclaiming....and a place where their kids can be themselves. Another big factor in this is, I suspect, the growing phenomena of parents and children being inseparable -- that's a piece of what underlies the home schooling movement too. For many reasons, many parents are much more connected to their children (all the way through young adulthood) than previous generations.

So, what's a church to do?

It does occur to me that small churches might, in some cases, be a great place for families like this. Often they are more open to just letting kids be kids in the midst of things and there generally isn't any place for them to go so children are just part of the mix.

But I also think that we might offer things to support families without requiring them to come to church all of the time....or maybe at all. Our websites could let people "sign up" to get resources via email. I know we have congregations that share our "Live It" resource (table card with a weekly word, scripture passage, focus question) that way. CandlePress has several things that work in this context.....and we have churches who offer some of our materials in that manner.

Since we have the free Sunday School lessons on the TEC website, why don't churches just link to them and invite families to help themselves -- or better yet, invite them to sign up for something you email them occasionally (so you have a connection). That might both support families like this and open the door to their coming to church as their children grow older. Meanwhile, invite them to special events. One popular one is to promote a Christmas pageant that is open to all -- just show up, put on a costume and join the parade. My last church did that and was packed with kids from all over....and it was an entry point for families.

Maybe the growing movement towards Wednesday night church (meal, Christian Ed, choir, parents involved) is another response. That's a much more informal environment and might be more welcoming to and comfortable for families like this.

Finally, we really do need to do a better job of caring for our children. Shoving them off to a room with broken toys and a couple of teens isn't what any church should be doing. Let's clean up our act -- literally and figuratively!

I realize this is an older thread, but feel compelled to comment. Homeschooling is not the same thing as unschooling. Unschooling is one of many methods of homeschooling. Others include traditional/textbook, Montessori, Waldorf, literature- based, unit study, Charlotte Mason, and classical. This is not an exhaustive list. Also, those who choose to homeschool do not, by default, withdraw from community. There are homeschool groups galore which often serve as a core community. Homeschoolers, from my experience, tend to be more integrated with their communites because that is their world, whereas public- schooled counterparts have, as their world, their school. We began homeschooling when we took our daughter out of kindergarten three years ago. We thought it would be temporary. It isn't easy, but the rewards and benefits have astounded us. We infuse our faith into our daily lives by celebrating the liturgical year and having a routine of prayer. We also are members of a parish, but there have been seasons where attending a parish was not an option.

[Thanks Erin - please sign your name next time you comment. ~ed.]