Research Thesis Family & Church

Strong Churches build Strong Families and Strong Families build Strong Churches Relationship is a common need to all in the human race. Family is the primary source of relationship, however the idea and nature of what family actually is, has faced change in recent times due to factors such as divorce, choices of career over family life, the decline of both the marriage birth rates in Australia. The fact remains that there is a deep human need for each person to feel and be connected, to be in relationship in some way to other people. A person’s first encounter of this kind of connection is family. When a child first enters the world this family connection is vital to its development, if this connection or one like it is severed the effects can be devastating. A family is the key to physical, social and spiritual development. With the current trends of family breakdown in Australia and much of the western world the connections one finds in family relationships are under considerable threat. The role that family and community play on a person’s development is incredibly important. Universally the family is the most basic social context in which these influences begin and are sustained. In what manner and how well a given family does this, depends on a wide array of factors. Some of these factors are rooted directly in the specific family setting – from the number and age of children, parents and other adults in the family to the emotional climate the interactions these individuals create (Berger, Thompson, 1995:6) Other factors that influence family relationships include things such as: the values of the community, religious influences and past experiences of family members. “While universally the family is the basic setting for intimacy and growth the complexity of contexts and histories that affect each family makes the family one of the most varied institutions on earth” (Altergott, 1993). We find this to be true when we look at the statistics of family life in Australia and we know from our own experiences that every family is different. These other contexts, community, religion, past experiences etc., affect families and individuals greatly. The strength and quality of family and other relationships in a person’s life affects the community as a whole, whether that is the church community or the community at large. It is this concept that I will seek to research, the thesis that strong

families build a strong church and that in turn strong churches build strong families, which I will simply abbreviate to The Strong Family, Strong Church Thesis. The idea that family strength has an impact on the strength of a community is of growing interest in the Australia. In a document recently distributed to all Australian Households the Prime Minister of Australia John Howard stated; “Good Relationships make a great community. The Australian Government believes that families are the backbone of a strong and healthy community, and loving supportive relationships are the heart of happy well functioning families. Families are the best places for children to learn about love and respect, and how to build and maintain healthy and caring relationships.” The Australian Government has shown what seems to be an increased interest in families. The recent (October 2004) federal election showed this with each of the major parties highlighting their ‘family friendly’ polices, The Labour Party using the slogan ‘taking the pressure off families’ and the Coalition continuing in the same family focussed policies adding an increase in the baby bonus, more childcare places and continuing to work towards safer and more healthy communities. How then do we test the strength and health of a family or community? A recent field of research that is gaining momentum is in the arena of Social Capital. Social Capital is generally defined in this way: Social Capital can be understood as networks of social relations characterised by norms of trust and reciprocity. (Bourdieu 1993, Coleman 1988, Putnam 1993) Social Capital exists in both family and Community life. Social Capital also exists therefore in the church community. Social Capital has been researched in it’s effects for communities, economic outcomes, political outcomes, labour market outcomes and at an individual and at family level it has been found that Social Capital is related to a range of outcomes including health status, educational attainment and child wellbeing. In Australia much of the Social Capital Research has been undertaken by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), which is an independent statutory authority established by the Commonwealth Government in 1980. Part of their work has been to launch the Families, Social Capital and Citizens Project, which seeks to investigate Social Capital and the link between family and community. It also incorporates the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, which is a major Commonwealth initiative that helps families

and communities build strength and capacity. This is a strategy to which the Commonwealth Government allocated more than $225 million over four years. We will look at the research undertaken by AIFS and endeavour to see what value these findings have to the Strong Family and Strong Church Thesis as we research the strength of Social Capital in the church setting, within families and within church communities. We will first get a picture of family life in Australia by looking at statistics that relate to family characteristics and circumstances using figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We will also look at figures from the National Church Life Survey regarding family life in the church community, and their work on what makes a church strong and healthy. We will also investigate what makes a family strong by looking at the work of Mission Australia Policy and Research officer Anita Joinking and the Family Action Centre/University of Newcastle, Australian Strengths Research Project. The AIFS Family and Community Strength Survey will then give us important information with regard to the effects of Social Capital in families and communities, how family changes have an effect on community life. Some recommendations for the church on the basis of the findings of this research are then included before looking at a case study of Careforce Church for their work in these areas. We will then take a brief look at the role of the church in building the wider community. Picture of Australian Families - Australian Bureau of Statistics Australia has seen a shift in family trends over the last two decades. We will look what has changed in the areas of marriage, divorce, children and family types. These trends have formed the basis of much of the discussion on family life and in particular family strength in Australia. The underlying belief is that the decline in family strength is a major contributing factor to the decline of society as a whole. Using the most recent statistics available at the time of writing we can get an overall picture of Australian Families. - Marriage & Divorce The marriage rate has been in a long-term trend of decline while the divorce rate has seen a long-term upward trend. Marriage rates in 1976 were just above 60 marriages per 1,000 unmarried males/females (aged 15+) and by 1996 this rate had dropped to around 35 marriages per 1,000 unmarried males/females (aged 15+), and has seen little variation

on this over the last seven years (apart from a continuing slow decline). In Australia 110,600 marriages were registered in the year of 1998 with a total population of 20 Million. Over the last 20 years the divorce rate has fluctuated, generally showing a slight upwards trend. The rate of 2.8 per 1000 population in 1978 declined to 2.4 in 1987, rose to 2.9 in 1996, and declined over two years to be at 2.7 per 1000 population in 1998 and has stayed around this figure by 2001. As per the married population the figure stands at 14 divorces per 1000 married population, In 1998 51,400 divorces were granted in Australia. This calculates to 9885 Divorces every week in Australia (in 1998, and divorces would not have been evenly spread throughout the year). If we add separations into these statistics we then find that one in every ten adults are currently separated or divorced. Marriages (both first and remarriages) are now mostly being performed by civil celebrants rather than church ministers. In 1980 ministers of religion performed 64.5% of marriages and in 2000 it has dropped to only 46% percent. Over the same 10-year period the average age of first marriage rose by approximately 6 years, in 1980 women’s age at first marriage was around 21 and in 2000 is closer to 27, and men in 1980 the age was 23 and in 2000 is 29. In 1986, 6% of all people in couple relationships were de facto couples living together by 1996 this figure rose to 10%. And over a 10-year period (from 1980 to 2000) the percentage of marriages preceded by cohabitation rose by 50%. And compared with the past cohabitation is now more likely to end in separation and less likely to end in marriage. Men and Women are living together well before they are married and are getting married for the first time much later in life. Marriage rates are falling and age at first marriage is increasing. The trends are now new but the magnitude of swing is unprecedented, it is now more common than ever before to be much older, live together with your partner before marriage and then, if you do choose to be married, have your marriage performed by a civil celebrant rather than a church minister.

Families in Australia 4,936,828

Couple families 4,085,332

82.8%

One-parent families 762,632 15.4%

Other families 88,864 1.8%

With dependants

1,904,122 38.6%

Without dependants

2,181,210 44.2%

Without dependants

232,663 4.7%

With dependants

529,969 10.7%

- Children The total fertility rate1 in Australia has seen a decline, figures show that in 1960 the fertility rate was at 3.5 children and now it is closer to 1.5, Mothers are, on average, nearly 30 years old at the birth of their children. We now see 30% of all births in Australia being ex-nuptial, that is the father and mother of the child are not married; yet the father is being named on the birth certificate. The decline in fertility rate indicates that family size is falling and childlessness in increasing. Parenting roles are also changing with women’s participation in the labour force increasing dramatically from around 40% of the labour force being women in 1970 to a record 70% in 2000. Gender division of roles is beginning to weaken as a result and fathering is now becoming more important. In a wider sense the balance between work and family is an issue for more people now than ever before. The various types of families and numbers of each family type in Australia as shown in the 2001 census, is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Family Trends Census 2001. Source: ABS (2002) Census of Population and Housings,

Selected Social and Housing Characteristics. Cat. No. 2015.0

The number of children involved in divorce has increased over recent years. In 1988, 44,400 Children aged under 18 were involved in divorce, and by 1998, 10 years later, the number had risen to 51,600. And perhaps the most disturbing of the figures is that of the number of divorces granted in 1988 only 97 children per 10,000 aged under 18 years

1 Total fertility rate refers to the number of children a woman would bear during her lifetime if she experienced current age-specific fertility rates at each age of her reproductive life.

were involved in divorce, and by 1998 this proportion had increased to 109 children per 10,000.

National Church Life Survey We can see that Australia as a nation has faced the continued breakdown of families, but how does the church respond to this, and what is the picture of marriage and family within the church? The National Church Life Survey (NCLS Research) gives us information on the marital status of church attendees. Figure 2. Marital status of Australian church attendees NCLS Research Aust., 2001

Never Married 17% In first Marriage 62% Remarried after divorce 4% Remarried after death of spouse 2% Divorced/separated/de facto 6% Widowed 9%

If we add the percentages for divorced/separated/de facto and remarried after divorce together as a representation of those who have experienced relationship breakdown in the church the figure would stand at 10%. There are two ways of analysing this information. Firstly we could say that the low percentage of church attendees in divorced, separated and de facto relationships indicates that relationships within the church are less likely to be in breakdown than the secular population of Australia. Alternatively we could interpret the results that the low percentage of church attendees that have experienced divorce, separation or de facto relationships indicates that those that are divorced, remarried after divorce and living in de facto relationships are less likely to attend church at all. In their analysis of their results NCLS Research noted that: “those whose first marriage did not survive are often less comfortable within churches even when they do remarry, the most likely explanation for these patterns lies within the values of the churches and church attendees, where the sanctity of marriage is upheld and separation and divorce are discouraged”. It is important when considering the Strong Family, Strong Church Thesis that churches must be strengthening families by holding a firm position on

marriage and divorce issues yet importantly still work at strengthening families that are broken, providing support for those experiencing relationship breakdown. What makes a family strong? Anita Joinking, Mission Australia “The family is one of the basic building blocks of the community, and strong families can build strong communities. With changes to family structures and increasing pressures and stresses on families, the support they need in difficult times is also changing. Building resilience or the ability of a family to ‘bounce back’ from the various hurdles in life is, therefore, very valuable. Despite the changes in the make up of families, they do still matter very much, with people describing the collapse of their family as one of the most distressing events to have happened to them” – Anita Joinking Mission Australia Policy and Research officer. In the past research on family relationships has focussed on family problems. More recently, studies in Australia and overseas have realised the importance of reframing this. They now focus on instead on what makes strong, when we identify what contributes to family strength churches can see what areas they can work on to build strong families. In 1999 Family Action Centre and the University of Newcastle, initiated the first Australian Strengths Research Project. The Project’s aim was to determine which qualities Australians perceived as family strengths, and the language that Australians used to describe these qualities. They came up with the following eight strengths: Communication – Open, honest, positive and frequent communication between family members. Togetherness – The ‘invisible glue’ that helps bond a family and give members a sense of belonging. An important aspect is the sharing of similar values, beliefs and morals Sharing Activities – Strong families like sharing activities with each other. Affection – Showing love, care, concern and interest for each other on a regular basis. Support – Assisting, encouraging and reassuring each other. Families are seen as being strong when everyone feels equally comfortable in offering or asking for support. Acceptance – Showing respect, understanding and appreciation for one another’s individuality and uniqueness.

Commitment – Showing dedication and loyalty to the family as a whole. Family comes first. Resilience – This is the ability of a family to ‘bounce back’ after a period of crisis and adversity. Resilience is what keeps a family ‘together’ and includes the seven other traits. Taking these results Policy and Research officer Anita Joinking, surveyed the staff at Mission Australia to find out which of the eight indicators of family strength and resilience they work on with clients, all respondents indicated communication skills, with most programs run by staff incorporating four or more indicators. In order of the frequency of their use in programs by staff, the eight indicators and percentages were: Communication 100% Acceptance 90% Resilience 85% Support 70%

Sharing 65% Togetherness 45% Commitment 40% Affection 40%

These attributes, communication, acceptance, resilience, support, sharing, togetherness, commitment and affection, undoubtedly build strong families and churches and church leaders that encourage these elements in families would certainly be building the strength of these families. It is that the indicators of family strength here could very easily be indicators of church strength also. A church that has great communication, a culture of acceptance, togetherness, sharing, affection and support, a church that is resilient through hard times, and is committed to each other and the cause of Christ would be a strong church. Another analysis here for this information is not what is in this list of family strength indicators rather it is what is not on the list. The indicators in this research of family strength do not include in the list if the family is two parent, single parent, de facto relationships, remarriages or separated. A family could well show some or all of these indicators of strength even if it is not two parents together, and have high levels of family social capital. And being a family with no divorce and no separation doesn’t of necessarily mean that such a family is strong and has these factors, and may in fact have very little family social capital. The indicators of a strong family fit well into our definition of social capital each as one points to networks of social relations characterised by norms of trust and reciprocity. It is

important to recognise that divorce, separation and the breakdown of family relationships can affect the family in a significant way. When a parent leaves a family it can leave children and members of the family feeling and experiencing the opposite of the family strength indicators we have looked at. Communication can breakdown when a family experiences the trauma of divorce, feelings of acceptance are undermined when a parent leaves the family, many families are not resilient in the face of rough times, support systems are not always in place, sharing activities decreases in the face of separation, togetherness with the family is lost when a child’s world becomes very different without the presence of the father or mother, commitment to each other is no longer a value when that commitment is broken and affection with a deep concern for one another lessens when each member of the family must now deal with their own issues and feelings associated with the family change. It is important to keep in mind that divorce itself is not the cause of a lack of strength in families; rather a lack of strength in families is most likely the cause the of the divorce. Therefore churches need ensure that they are not just discouraging divorce without positively building strength into families in the first place. And in turn the churches strength will be built as people learn how to make their own families strong, building in the values of commitment, togetherness etc which are the same values that when brought into a church situation build its strength. Church Strength We have looked at what makes a family strong and how these factors can also be seen to build strength in churches, let’s take the opportunity to look at some more research by NCLS Research Australia in the area of church health and strength. The NCLS Connections for life framework is the result of the NCLS research groups examination of the experiences of thousands of congregations across Australia, discovering which characteristics tended present in congregations that were effective and healthy this now provides a framework for churches to strengthen connections with God, each other and the communities of which they are a part.

The 12 Qualities of Healthy Churches are each somewhat interrelated with each other and each comes under the banner of common purpose. They are shown in the Figure below:

Figure 3. Qualities of Healthy Churches. NCLS Research

These qualities would indeed positively build a strong church and many churches have these qualities. A church community that is strong in social capital would by definition have networks of social relations characterised by norms of trust and reciprocity and families that are strong, having high levels of family social capital, would have these same kind of relationships and this could certainly exist in the above framework. However the way that they have observed and compiled these results was by looking at churches that they deemed effective and healthy, although they have not provided information for what qualifies a church must have to be classed as effective and healthy in the first place. The results of the inquiry are almost now the qualifiers of what can be deemed an effective and healthy church. For the purposes of researching the Strong Family, Strong Church Thesis, we are focussing more on the kind of relationships that are within the church community and its families. The NCLS research, while it does have some merit for individual churches it is not of great value in this research yet is included as it is one of the widely used measures that churches in Australia use to gauge their health, effectiveness and strength. It would be of great benefit to intensively research the best method for this in the future. However to move ahead in investigating the Strong Family, Strong Church Thesis we will look next to the research undertaken by AIFS in exploring the links between family and community life.

Faith and Worship Alive Faith

Vital Worship

Life together Belonging and involvement

Concern for fringe Care for young people

Community Connections Focus beyond ourselves

Serving the wider community Discussing faith and inviting others

Integrating newcomers

Vision and Purpose Vision for the future

Openness to new possibilities Empowering Leadership

AIFS Families and Social Capital Exploring the Links – Research findings from the Families And Community Strength Survey The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) published a research paper in April of 2003 that was entitled “Family change and community life, exploring the links”. The purpose of the paper was to contribute an empirical study of the nature of the effects of family social capital on community social capital to the ongoing discussion study and research in the area of social capital. They sought to test a prevalent view that the decline and changes in family life leads to declining levels of community social capital, which is referred to as the Family Decline Thesis. The two main ideas explored in the paper about the nature of the family/community link are that the changes in family life have led to or resulted in a breakdown of family social capital – a breakdown of family ties and norms of trust and reciprocity within families themselves, and that this in turn leads to lower levels of community social capital. And secondly, that these changes in family life have had an impact on the other resources available to families such as human and financial capital, and that this in turn leads to lower levels of community social capital. Using a national random sample of 1500 Australians from the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) Families, Social Capital and Citizenship survey (2001), they looked at family status data including marital status, presence of children, female labour force participation, and individualism within family life. Levels of community social capital were then measured through the respondent’s levels of generalised trust and reciprocity in the community and their levels of community group membership. Interviews were conducted over the telephone using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system, and were on average 32 minutes long. The three areas that respondents were queried on are shown below in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Family/Community Social Capital Relationship Table. AIFS research paper no.32 Family change and community life, exploring the links.

The findings that were reached gave some overall support for the idea that changes in family life are related to low levels of social capital, and it was noted that these results were particularly attributed to the low levels of family social capital and connectedness for men as well as low levels of other resources for families, especially women and children. Evidence was found for some positive effects for social capital as a result of some family changes. There was no conclusive evidence to say that high levels of social capital within families always translates into high levels of community social capital, rather it was found that factors other than family life are significant in explaining levels of social capital in communities. The underlying conclusion that was found was that it was not necessarily the changes in family life that directly affect the level of community involvement but rather that other resources families rely upon can be reduced due to the change in family life, other resources including relationships outside the family, financial resources and time

resources. It seems to be that when these other resources of social capital are of incredible value to families and when these are lessened the general community social capital levels are affected. The findings do not conclusively prove the Strong Family, Strong Church Thesis though it does help us move forward in how we may further study its validity. The findings in the AIFS report actually does highlight for us patterns in the wider community that churches should be aware of in their work to build strong families. The key findings of the research that is relevant to the Strong Family, Strong Church Thesis are summarised below in italicised font with analyses and some recommendations for how churches can respond below each finding:

� Married men have higher levels of both community and family social capital than unmarried men. However for women high levels community social capital was not related to marital status.

Marital status and family circumstances is linked to men’s broader family and community connections, churches and church leaders must work to ensure that when the marital status and family circumstances of men change that they are well supported both through and after the changes take place, keeping these men actively involved with the church and church community. This is reflected in part in the NCLS research we looked at earlier that divorced and separated men and women are less likely to attend church regularly. The higher levels of unmarried women’s community social capital could be linked with the idea that women are generally better than men at fostering and maintaining social and family relationships.

� Working full-time is associated with low levels of generalised community trust and

reciprocity among women with dependant children. Long hours in full-time work are not favourable to community social capital when a woman also had the primary or in increasing cases the sole responsibility for the care of young children. The pressures of time constraints from work and parenting responsibilities are also a factor when looking at a family’s social capital and especially if they are also involved to a too high degree in community life. This is an issue that churches cannot ignore, time that families are spending together as a family unit is decreasing (this was also highlighted in the Mission Australia presentation by Anita Joinking, that staff are

noticing this in their work with families), and churches must take this into account when they are planning events and programs. It is of great value for a family to worship and experience God together, children seeing the example of their parents in worship and being in church. Churches and church leaders must take into account the value of family time together and build this into the way the build families as this will ultimately result in happier stronger families who will then input better into the strength of the church community itself.

� Strong family norms of trust and reciprocity do not always translate into broader

forms of trust and engagement in communities. While some forms of family social capital were positively associated with community social capital in some circumstances, in other circumstances family norms and obligations appeared to limit possibilities for community involvement.

These strong family connections in effect become detrimental to a person’s involvement and contribution to the community. This finding could be going against the Strong Family Strong Church Thesis, the main thing we can draw from this is that when a church is building strong families they must highlight that an attribute of a strong family is one that encourages community participation and particularly church attendance. The difference between any other community group and the church is that the church is for all people and families can attend and be involved together, rather than every member of the family being involved in different community groups. Families should still be spending time with extended family, taking holidays together and allowing their children to play sport but church must remain a priority in the life of a strong family.

Criticisms of the AIFS Family Change and Community Life, Exploring the Links research paper are only evident (apart from methodological criticisms which are outlined in the paper itself) when we are seeking to apply the findings to a purpose that the research was not purposed for. As for the Strong Family, Strong Church Thesis we hope to have not misused the research in this way but in applying the findings to the thesis we see some areas where the research has potentially not covered as extensively as we would have liked. The main criticism of this fashion is that in their data for what kind of community groups people are associated with or members of, church or religious groups did not

appear on the list. The link between social capital families and communities and also the social capital or strength and effectiveness of churches in the various communities would make for another interesting study and could add weight to the Strong Family and Strong Church Thesis. And lastly that the research aimed to test the family decline thesis which is the negative approach of family decline breakdown and community decline rather than the positive of looking at building strength into families and the positive results of this for communities. A Case Study – Careforce Church Melbourne Australia Senior Pastor of Careforce Church in Melbourne Australia, Allan Meyer shared a series of messages with his church around the topic of Marriage and Family. In these messages he highlighted people’s need for relationship and community. That it is essential to the health of the individual and essential to the health of the church and also the community at large. He recognises the positive effects that great families have to build a great church, and much of the culture and character of this church community centred around building strength into families and restore broken families, broken marriages and broken lives. He states, “A responsibility of a great church is to build great families”. This is becoming increasingly important when we consider the state of many families in Australia. The responsibility of the Australian church has now become much broader, maintaining and serving families has now turned to counselling families in need and brokenness, dealing with issues of divorce, remarriage, single parenting and children in despair. The ministries of many Australian churches now include divorce recovery programs, personal development courses such as Search for Intimacy, many of which are produced by Careforce Church itself. This case study shows us a church that is positively working towards a balance of working to build families (rather than simply maintaining them) and also working hard to rebuild families. Conclusion Strong churches build strong families and strong families in turn build strong churches. While this paper has not conclusively proved this thesis with empirical data and extensive surveying of churches and the families within it, it has highlighted the need for more work to be done in this area. To be aware of current trends and research being undertaken in the areas of family and community strength is of great benefit to churches and church

leaders. This information allows us to better minister to the families and individuals of our nation, giving us an insight into new ways of thinking about how families can be strengthened in then in turn so too can the church community be strengthened, and ultimately the community at large. People tend to forget that institutions of family, church and community provide the most effective social support and relationships that positively build families; governments and programs can only do so much to strengthen families and communities. This idea is echoed in the words of the Federal Treasurer of Australia, Peter Costello: “We need a return to faith and the values that have made our country strong. The people that go about their daily lives, the fact they want to keep their marriages together and their children to grow up and make a valuable contribution that gives a strength to our society, and those of us that are responsible for national management, we couldn’t do it without the commitment and the faith and the strength of those people. The editorial writers may not understand it, but I want to say to you that more lives have been transformed by faith in Christ than by editorial writers.” Federal Treasurer Peter Costello – Speech presented at Hillsong Conference 2004. Society is only beginning to see family dysfunction for what it is rather than the result of governmental policy, community decline or even the fault of previous generations. “Jesus rooted family conflict in the realm of the human heart Matt 5:21-28. This idea is especially profound in the light of current trends to see family problems as management problems, system dysfunction, role confusion, or political agenda items. Some say “if we can restore the family to its proper order or get more money for family problems then things will be better.” My response is simple “Not.” These superficial organisational solutions to complex issues are like re-arranging chairs on the Titanic. It may make some people feel better (for doing something), but the ship is still going down”, (R.M. Hicks, 2002). Churches are places where the human heart can be changed by God, then and only then is when families with truly be strengthened and the Kingdom of God can increase on the earth.

The Dalai Lama said, “Without the human community one single human being cannot survive” (sourced from M.I.L.K Families with love, 2003). When community and families

are under threat positive change is needed, the strong family strong church thesis may not be conclusively proved however working in its positive light and ideals can only bring positive results. These positive results of building family strength would be another area of research well worth conducting, as these results may go further than one may initially set out to achieve. When Mother Teresa was asked how we could establish World Peace, she humbly said, “Go home and love your family”. The ultimate goal of the strong family strong church thesis is its application to the building of God’s Kingdom. Upon being further studied and eventually concluded upon it may well encourage churches to change their approach to ministry, it may have wonderful results for individual families and the overall trends of divorce and family breakdown, it may even encourage governments and local communities to further resource the church in it’s work to build stronger families and communities for a stronger nation but this is not it’s ultimate intent. Christine Yount, writing for Children’s Ministry.com puts it in this way, “God is not calling the church to strengthen families for the sake of society or for the sake of simply building church attendance, or even for the sake of the family itself. God is calling the church to strengthen families so the Kingdom of God is strengthened”.

Bibliography: Altergott, Karen. One world, many families. Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations. 1993 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Marriage rates and Divorce rates, Media Release 3310.0, Posted 24/08/1999, 11:30 am. Cited 12/9/2004, 2pm. www.ausstats.com.au Australian Institute of Family Studies, Research Update, Families and Society Program, http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/research/progC.html cited: 14/7/2004 Barna.G, Transforming Children into Spiritual Champions, why children should be your churches #1 Priority, Regal Books, California, 2003 Berger.K.S, Thompson.R.A, The Developing Person Through Childhood and Adolescence, Fourth Edition, Worth Publishers, NY, 1995 Black. A, Hughes .P, Social Capital and Family Life: Evidence from the Australian Community Survey, Australian Institute of Family Studies. www.aifs.org.au cited: 14/7/2004 Bourdieu, P. The Forms of Capital. In J Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research in the Sociology of Education. New York, Greenwood Press, 1986 Carroll. D., Hess, R, Family in the Bible, Exploring customs culture and context, Baker Academic, USA, 2003 Coleman, J.S, Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard Uni Press. 1990 Commonwealth of Australia, Violence Against Women Australia Says No, information for young people, parents and the community on identifying and avoiding abusive relationships and where to find help, distributed to all Australian Households mid 2004. Costello, P. Speech to Hillsong Conference 2004, 5-9 July 2004 http://news.ninemsn.com.au/srticle.aspx?id =11862, Cited 14/7/2004 Covey, S.R, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families, Golden Books Publishing co. New York, 1997 Creating a Family Friendly Church, MSSS Crafts Article posted: 28 March 2004, Cited: 7/5/04. http://www.mssscrafts.com/teachingresources/familyfriendlychurch.htm Elkind.D, Postmodern Families and the Church, Children’s Ministry.com, Group Publishing, 1996; Cited 13/8/2004. http://www.childrensministry.com/family_ministry/philosophy/post.asp

Families, with love, M.I.L.K Publishing Limited, Sydney, 2003. Gray M, et.al, Social Capital at work. How family friends and civic ties relate to labour market outcomes, Research Paper no.31 April 2003, Australian Institute of Family Studies Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne, 2003

Hicks, R.M, The Christian Family in changing times, the myths, models and mystery of family life, Baker Books, Grand Rapids Michigan, 2002 Hughes, J. Stone, W. Social Capital: The Link between family and Community Presentation to 8th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne Feb 2003 Hughes, J. Stone, W. Families, Social Capital and Citizens Project Fieldwork Report, May 2002¸ Australian Institute of Family Studies, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne, 2002 Hughes, J. Stone, W. Social Capital Empirical Meaning and Measurement Validity, Research Paper No.27, June 2002¸ Australian Institute of Family Studies, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne, 2002 Hughes, J. Stone, W. Family Change and community life Exploring the Links, Research Paper No.32, April 2003¸ Australian Institute of Family Studies, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne, 2003

Joinking, A. Building Resilient Families, Australian Institute of Family Services Conference, 12 – 14 February 2003 Meyer, A. ‘Great Churches build Great Families’ Careforce Communications, VIC, Message Presented 1st February, 2004 Myers, D.G. Psychology Second Edition, Worth Publishers, NY, 1989 National Church Life Survey, NCLS Research. Profiling Australians 2003, & Connections for Life Kit:2001 NCLS Australia Website www.ncls.org.au Patulny, R. Social Capital – Values and Time Use. Paper presented at the 8th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne Feb 2003 Powell, L. The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy – Building Capacity and Strength in Australian Families and Communities, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 1999

Putnam, R.D The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public life. The American Prospect, 4. 1993 Salwak, D. Faith in the Family, Honouring and Strengthening Home and Spirit, New World Library, California, 2001 Stanton.D., Weston.R, The Australian Family: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, What the Statistics Suggest, Paper Presented at the Family Services Australia National Conference, Darwin, 8-11 October, 2002 Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS) 2004 – 2008, Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services. http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/sfsc-sfcs.htm Stone.W, Measuring Social Capital Towards a theoretically informed measurement framework for researching social capital in family and community life, Research Paper No. 24, February 2001, Australian Institute of Family Studies – Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne, 2001 Stone.W, Families in Society, An overview of contemporary family life, Presentation to VCE Health and Human Development Conference, 15 July 2000, Melbourne Theobald, R, We DO have Future Choices Strategies for fundamentally changing the 21st Century, Southern Cross University Press, NSW, 1999 Tomison. Dr. A, Are we meeting family needs in Australia?, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, keynote address, Family Services Australia Annual Conference, 8-11 October Darwin, 2002 Yount, C., Blueprint for Family Ministry, Children’s Ministry.com, Group Publishing, 1996 http://www.childrensministry.com/family_ministry/philosophy/blueprint.asp Yount, C., Is your church stressing out families? Children’s Ministry.com, Group Publishing, 20004 http://www.childrensministry.com/family_ministry/philosophy/stress.asp Wallerstein. J, Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: a 25 year Landmark Study, Hyperion Publishing, USA, 2001 World Bank, How is Social Capital for Development, http://worldbank.org/poverty/scapital

Cited: 5/8/2004