Gone are the days when family estrangement was a desperate, last resort of children who suffered through years of abuse and neglect under volatile, violent caregivers. In increasing numbers, adult children are disowning their parents, cutting off all communication and refusing any attempt at reconciliation, over nothing more serious than differences in political opinions.
In No Contact: How a Seductive Ideology Broke Families and Friendships and How We Can Repair Them, Noelle Mering, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, analyzes the rising trend of intentionally severed families and the consequences of this separation. She writes, “The pain is staggering—and there’s no closure. When someone dies . . . it’s over, you grieve, and eventually you move forward. But this isn’t like that” (214). It’s a wound that never really heals.
When young adults break off contact with their families, it often imposes a huge emotional toll on the basis of seemingly minor infractions. One man cut his mother off because he suspected she voted for the wrong candidate. Another woman stopped communicating with her father because he was insufficiently enthusiastic about her sister’s gender transition. These testimonies are the best and the worst part of the book—illuminating, heart-rending, and appalling all at once.
Christians need to understand what the “no contact” movement is, where it came from, and how we can resist it.
No Contact: How a Seductive Ideology Broke Families and Friendships and How We Can Repair Them
Noelle Mering
No Contact: How a Seductive Ideology Broke Families and Friendships and How We Can Repair Them
Noelle Mering
In No Contact, author Noelle Mering weaves together interviews with historical research to identify five major factors that have given rise to the no-contact movement: identity politics, demythologization of the family, therapeutic culture, infallibility of victimhood, and cultural narcissism alongside spiritual decline. By laying bare the forces behind this destabilizing movement—and how they affect us on personal, familial, and social levels—Mering helps readers see clearly what is happening, confront it, and work with their families to heal, repair, and strengthen relationships.
‘No Contact’ Wildfire
According to Mering, the “no contact” movement is spreading like a wildfire among young adults. It’s the confluence of many factors, including the rise of therapy culture, the dominance of expressive individualism, and the intentional deconstruction of the family.
Historically, “trauma” referred to serious psychological injury resulting from “extraordinary, catastrophic events like combat or surviving a train crash.” People now use the term to describe the discomfort experienced due to “political differences or unmet emotional needs” (18–19). Unpleasant but normal childhood experiences are now being labeled “trauma” and used to justify disowning parents.
Though claims of trauma may seem exaggerated, they’re deemed indisputable because they’re validated as a person’s lived experience. “No contact” gurus like Patrick Teahan assure children that their instincts and impressions are correct and unchallengeable. If parents believe that the adult child is being “wrongfully influenced by a therapist [or] by TikTok,” they’re merely demonstrating their own toxicity. Teahan even suggests that siblings who don’t “fully support” your “no contact” decision may need to be cut off as well (22). This is expressive individualism on steroids.
The cultural deconstruction of the family also plays a role in people’s willingness to sever connections. The family isn’t seen as a source of identity, growth, and stability but as a site of constraint, conformity, and oppression. Amid a culture seeking unbridled autonomy and individual self-expression, the family is a scandalous affront to one’s absolute sovereignty.
Bigger Picture
Mering generally reports on situations involving left-leaning children with parents who are right of center and religious. She acknowledges that this skew could be the result of selection bias and repeatedly warns that conservatives are susceptible to some of the same pathologies.
Amid a culture seeking unbridled autonomy and individual self-expression, the family is a scandalous affront to one’s absolute sovereignty.
However, a 2021 Cato Institute survey found that “strong liberals” were almost twice as likely to “block/unfriend” and more than twice as likely to report someone over a social media post than “strong conservatives.” Likewise, a 2024 PRRI survey found that 23 percent of Democrats versus 5 percent of Republicans reported they would spend “less time with certain family members over their political views.” It tends to be political progressives who separate themselves from family members who don’t agree.
This asymmetry makes sense given how the underlying ideas of the “no contact” movement are drawn from the leftist critical tradition of Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and Wilhelm Reich. From this perspective, the natural family is “a product of capitalist, patriarchal, and colonial systems that reinforce inequality and oppression” (82). Parents are an oppressor class who impose their values and norms on children.
Crucially, Mering recognizes that many contemporary political differences are a product of divergent worldviews: “In the past, political disputes were usually arguments about how best to achieve a shared goal. . . . Today, [disputes] are not merely about means but about ends—dealing with questions that go directly to the heart of what it means to be human” (14). Consequently, prevention is key. Christian parents must train their children to recognize and reject ideologies fundamentally incompatible with the Bible’s vision of human identity, justice, and sin.
Douse the Flames
Apart from worldview considerations, parents can strengthen their relationship with their children in other ways. Mering urges families to “create a storehouse of positive memories,” to “parent for the world [the] children live in, not the one [the parents] grew up in,” to beware social media, and to listen to understand rather than to critique (229).
Christian parents must train their children to recognize and reject ideologies fundamentally incompatible with the Bible’s vision of human identity, justice, and sin.
These are wise suggestions, but they raise an important question: What if some political commitments really do reflect on your character? We already recognize this in obvious cases. A neighbor who sincerely supports Nazism because he believes it’s good has revealed something significant about himself. Politics and morality can’t be kept in separate, hermetically sealed boxes when political injustices like slavery, abortion, or genital mutilation are in play.
Instead of naively insisting that our political views don’t reflect on our character, the Bible suggests a different approach, reflected in Mering’s paraphrase of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s famous observation: “The line between good and evil doesn’t run along tribal or political divisions but exists in the heart of every person” (234). The very moral law that rightly undergirds our politics as Christians also condemns us as lawbreakers. The person who gets politics right and the person who gets politics wrong are both sinners who stand in need of the gospel.
This recognition should produce a profound gentleness and humility, both in our private relationships and in the public square. Our common need for God’s grace is what allows us to love those with whom we disagree on important issues. In No Contact, Mering reminds us that our hope isn’t in getting our parenting right but in the renewal of all things through the cross and resurrection.