Listening To Our Hearts: Frozen and Tangled

Warning: there will be spoilers about both Frozen and Tangled in this post.

Note: this entry has been  revised after a reader helpfully pointed out my complete misinterpretation of an article on The Gospel Coalition that I’d originally linked.

I can’t say enough good things about the movie “Tangled”. I think it’s a brilliant movie because it deals with something very close to my heart: leaving an emotionally abusive relationship. Anyone who has made that difficult journey will be moved by the scene where Rapunzel vacillates violently between joy and shame over defying her mother. Ultimately, the decision is vindicated and she gets her real family back, with a handsome rogue by her side to boot, but along the way it is not an easy journey.

“Frozen” is a little bit different. While the heroine’s decision turns out for the best in the end (these are Disney movies, after all),  she is not quite as inspired as Rapunzel: she gets engaged after only one day with a man. This leads to a blow up  that ultimately plunges the world into an eternal winter and causes her sister to fatally wound her.

Rapunzel and Anna have a lot in common. Both were isolated and weary with unhealthy, intimate family relationships. The difference is that in Rapunzel’s case the relationship is with an abusive, evil person, and in Anna’s case it is with a good, but equally unhealthy and hurting person. However, from either woman’s limited perspective it would be hard to know the difference. Both spent years with their emotions neglected and decided to deal with their pain when opportunity presented itself. That takes more strength than pretending the pain doesn’t exist, and that for me is the great takeaway from theses stories.

I like both movies because they are about unhealthy people wrestling with and overcoming years of abuse and neglect. Rapunzel learns how to take control and responsibility for her own life and become and adult, while Elsa and Anna find that they are stronger together and the value of sacrificial love (amazingly, not found in a romantic relationship, but a sisterly one). I’ve recently been reading the book Boundaries by Townsend and Cloud, and in it they discuss the important of being good stewards of ourselves. When we ignore or stifle our emotional pain, we are not tending well the gifts God has given us.

Sometimes when we give voice to our pain, we break free from people who hurt us like Rapunzel did. Sometimes, like Anna, we ultimately get to work things out and grow close again. Elsa was attempting the impossible by stifling her identity, and in the end she found acceptance and love in her sister that empowered her. Anna received the relationship she’d longed for with her beloved sister.

For better or worse, even when we get it wrong (like getting engaged in only a day), it is better to do the hard work of digging into our pain and discovering it is trying to tell us than it is to pretend it doesn’t exist. Perhaps our pain is telling us that our relationships are not what they should be. Perhaps it is telling us we are being abused. Or perhaps it is telling us that we are selfish people who are fighting against God’s will. But we will never know if we don’t engage and deal with them. We must be good stewards over our bodies, and that means dealing with anger, pain, and all of the other emotions God has given us. It takes strength to do that kind of work, the kind of strength that Rapunzel and Anna both show through these two delightful movies.

Marriage and Children: Idols?

Recently I was engaged in a discussion over on The Gospel Coalition about “child-free” marriages. The general thrust of the topic is that people who elect to be married but not have children are selfish and in sin (a pass is given if you are unable to have children). I realize this is a debatable topic among Christians, and I respect those who disagree with my position peacefully, but I believe that the decision to have children is a choice, like many others, in which we should seek the will of God. I laid out my reasoning many times in the comments if you dare dig through them, but essentially I believe this is another “bolted on to the Gospel” idea that is harmful to many people (especially when taken to the extreme view of “Quiverfull” that means you have as many children as nature/God allows).

But that’s not the thrust of what I’m writing about today. What concerns me is a comment from another person as we were discussing this topic. I’d specifically called out the plight of many singles in church who are treated like second class citizens because they are not married. This is related to the arguments regarding childless couples because I believe the church has turned marriage and children into an idol. Here is my original comment:

Every page of scripture drips with the truth of the Gospel, pointing toward or pointing back to the life of Jesus and what he did for us. By comparison, the scripture says very little about families and how they ought to be conducted, and even less about children’s place in them. The central person of our faith and the greatest evangelist/theologian in Christianity both remained unmarried and without children, further suggesting that marriage and child bearing are not central to what it means to be a Christian; yet those who are unmarried and/or without children find a difficult place in the church today.

The church needs to repent of this idolatry and re-focus back on the core mission: making disciples of all nations.

Here is her response:

. . . to suggest that those who urge married couples to keep to the procreative pattern that God created at the beginning of marriage are being idolatrous is kind of ludicrous, really.

This really bothers me. I completely understand that she and I are coming from different perspectives on what we believe is a “procreative pattern that God created”. She believes that marrying and having children is a prescriptive command from scripture and I do not. I can agree to disagree there. However, I think she goes too far by calling my position “kind of ludicrous”. By doing so, she’s declaring that family can never become an idol. The very idea is appalling in her mind.

So what about it? Can something like a family that is a sure blessing from the Lord become an idol? Can it become an idol to an entire evangelical subculture? I think it absolutely can. Not only can anything that is not God become an idol for us, I think Jesus DIRECTLY addresses this issue:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26, ESV)

Now just about everyone agrees that Jesus is not telling us to hate our spouses: if he meant that it would create a huge contradiction in scripture. What we generally understand him to mean is that he MUST come first. We must count the cost and be willing to put Jesus before absolutely everything, including our families. If we don’t, we are putting our families above Jesus; in other words, making them our idols.

But the second question is: have we done this? Are families idols in the evangelical world? This is a bit more debatable, especially since we’re talking about something as fuzzy as a trend. But I would come down on the side of “yes”.

In evangelical churches, talking about families is the norm, not singles. Events are structured around families, not those who are unmarried. If you are not married, it’s a little harder to fit in, and if you ARE married but don’t have kids, people are going to be asking when they are coming. The pressure is immense and intense. Is this true everywhere? No, and I can’t cite statistics, but I’d invite you to find the single adults in your church, or the adults without children, and ask them. Ask them if they feel included as a part of the community and welcome at church. If they are not, we are showing partiality, and that’s NOT a good place for the church to be.

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (James 2:1-9, ESV)

It’s true that in this passage James is talking about personal wealth, but clearly what is in view is not to set up divisions within the church. Single or married, children or not, we should feel welcome in the house of God. If we are not seeing singles over the age of 30 in our congregations, we are not doing a good enough job of “show no partiality”. All believers should feel welcome, without division and segregation.

I think in many cases, this segregation is not intentional. I believe many married Christians really do WANT singles to feel comfortable at church, but in many cases simply don’t know how to relate. I get it: people are busy, especially when there are children with sports, piano lessons, school, and a myriad of other things going on. It’s not an attack on singles, but mostly just a different world. But that’s the catch: if we are the body of Christ, our worlds should collide. We should be known by our love for one another. The single life and the married life may be very different, but we can find communion at the table of Christ. Yes, it takes being flexible and bending for people who aren’t quite like you. They are in a different place with different goals. You may not even like some of their choices. But the body of Christ isn’t about finding other people like us, but about finding other people who are brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.

I’ve heard that the church is a collection of families, but this simply isn’t true. The church is a collection of CHRISTIANS, brothers and sister of Jesus, adopted into the faith. Some of those believers are married, some are single. Some have children, others do not. But if they are in Jesus, they are beautiful in his sight. And that’s the key.

Folks, we can do better, and it starts by reaching out and tapping into lives of others, wherever they are in their journeys. And yes, the idea that we would place families above God should be “ludicrous”, but sadly it is the reality in many churches for many singles or childless couples. Please, let’s tear down those walls and realize that God is not only for the married with children, and that to truly come to him he must be first in our lives, above absolutely everything, even the greatest blessings he’s given us.