Menu

53 Sermon Illustrations on Family Values

53 illustrations Page 1 of 2

Family values in Christian preaching emphasize nurturing faith, responsibility, and godly character within the household. Illustrations often portray parental roles as vital spiritual leadership, using images like passing a baton, fishing together, or the forgiving father in the prodigal son's story to highlight influence, discipline, and grace (Luke 15; Ephesians 6:4). The family is seen as a training ground for faithfulness and maturity.

Overboard With Praise

Overpraising children can harm their emotional and physical health despite good intentions.

It's possible. Dr. Ralph Minear, of the pediatrics department at Harvard Medical School, thinks we modern parents have gone overboard with most everything else. In his book Kids Who Have Too Much, he warns, "A social epidemic is endangering the physical and emotional health of our country's children. 'Affluenza,'the Rich Kids Syndrome, attacks not only the children of the wealthy but also those of middle-class and low-income families. Parents are pressuring their children into becoming over-achievers, while giving them excessive amounts of freedom, money, food, information and protection." But is there a way to affirm our children without overdosing them on overblown accolades? Here are five "don'ts" to guide us: Don't praise the kids for routinely taking care of the everyday necessities of life. Don't praise the kids in extravagant terms for average achievements. You don't have to provide opportunities for your kids to do everything. Don't console the kids when what they need is challenge. Don't take responsibility for things that aren't a parent's responsibility.

Turning Over Responsibilities

Parents should gradually give children responsibilities to prepare them for adulthood.

When our children are small, we carry enormous responsibility for them. But as they grow, we must turn over to them, one by one, responsibilities that are rightly theirs. They may not carry them as well as we did, and they may even fail sometimes. But if they are to be our heirs, they're going to inherit adult responsibilities as well as adult privileges. How much more acceptable it is for them if we allow them to inherit those responsibilities a little at a time, not dumping them on them all at once when they are out of our house for good! And how comforting if we strengthen them to carry those responsibilities, cheering them on with encouragement that's based in reality.

Passing the Baton

Teaching children hard work and money sense equips them for future challenges.

A thought that strikes deeply is this: Many times a relay race is lost in passing the baton. We don't want to fail to pass the baton of hard work and money-sense to our children simply because our life circumstances aren't forcing us to do so. Our children may well see a day when money doesn't come as easily as it does now. Their ability to sweat and scrimp may make the difference between surviving or sinking. And even if that doesn't happen, we believe knowing the joy of working hard and living simply will free them to live a happier and more God-honoring life.

What Kind of Father Are You?

Fathers must prioritize presence over presents to lead and influence their children well.

Some people say any man can be a father; it is a job that takes little talent. However, the rate for failure in fatherhood is actually higher than in any other occupation. Fathers have a colossal full-time job that most people underestimate. It is the most important task a man can tackle. Despite vast changes in America's social fabric in recent years, one thread of tradition shows no sign of unraveling: sons and daughters who follow in their father's footsteps. A nationwide survey was taken recently to determine how much time fathers were spending with their children. The results were astounding. Fathers with children between the ages of 2 and 12 were spending 12 minutes a day with their children. Twelve-minute dads contribute greatly to 12-year-old delinquents. But not all dads are 12-minute dads. A busload of dads and sons left a church parking lot for an overnight camping trip. The dads represented various vocations, but they all had one thing in common: they did not want to be 12-minute dads. You cannot substitute a popsicle for Pop himself, though both may have their places. Whether it be a car or a candy bar, a fishing rod or a hot rod, you cannot substitute these "presents" for the "presence." America is standing at a crossroads of history; our very survival as a nation may depend on the presence or absence of masculine leadership in millions of homes; leadership in the form of loving authority; leadership in the form of financial management; leadership in the form of spiritual training and leadership in maintaining good marital relationships.

Two Views of Fishing

A father's influence is often unseen but profoundly shapes a child's life and faith.

Sometimes there are effects of our influence that we may never know. G. Brook Adams kept a diary from his boyhood. One special day when he was eight years old, he wrote in his diary, "Went fishing with my father; the most glorious day of my life." Throughout the next 40 years of his life he never forgot that day he went fishing with his father, he made repeated references to it in his diary, commenting on the influence of that day on his life. Brook's father was an important man; he was Charles Francis Adams, the U.S. ambassador to Great Britain under the Lincoln administration. Interestingly, he too made a note in his diary about the fishing trip. He wrote simply, "Went fishing with my son; a day wasted." Of course the day was not wasted; its value may well have proved to make it one of the most well-spent days in his life. No one can measure the influence of a man on his children, and that is all the more reason to take the job and its responsibilities seriously. Someone has written, "last night my little boy confessed to me some childish wrong; and kneeling at my knee, he prayed with tears, 'O Lord, make me a man like Daddy-wise and strong. I know you can.'Then while he slept, I knelt beside his bed, confessed my sins and prayed with low-bowed head, 'O God, make me a child like my child here; pure, guileless, trusting thee with faith sincere.'" What kind of a father are you?

Too Many Orphanages

Busy fathers neglecting spiritual leadership create 'spiritual orphanages' in their homes.

One family has opened its heart and its home to a number of Cambodian refugees, taking them right in with their natural sons and daughters and sharing all they have. It makes a crowded house, yet these orphans from a distant land are happy. But there are many other orphans around these days. Some homes have become "orphanages," not because the father is dead, but because he is too busy pursuing his own dreams and providing physical and material needs. This group of "spiritual" orphans is growing by leaps and bounds. No one wants children to grow up and follow a bad example. There is no greater tragedy than to lose the respect of one's own children. It will haunt one in a lonely old age. Good fathers are wanted-and needed.

Father's Day

Children learn faith and values by observing their father's authentic example.

Fathers and mothers have the greatest opportunity as teachers of anyone in the world. You see, that boy or girl in the home has the chance to see if Father and Mother really believe and practice what they teach. A father who says he believes in Sunday school, and then does not go himself, is teaching by his actions that he really does not feel it very important. A father who teaches love and tolerance to all and yet maintains a critical attitude in the home toward his brothers and sisters in the church is doing a wrong to his children which never in this world can be undone. It is pure poison to the mind of the child, and will most certainly be a stumbling block in the way of the child becoming a Christian. A father who says he believes the Bible to be the greatest Book, to be God's Word to us, but leaves it on the shelf to gather dust while he spends hours with the newspaper, magazines, radio and television is in reality saying, "Children, the Bible is not too important. You should read it if you have any extra time." Which one of you had not heard a little boy step proudly forward among his playmates and declare, "I KNOW that's so because my Daddy said so!" He has confidence in you, dear Dad, and the things which he sees you put first in your life are going to stand out as mighty important to him, too. Is your prayer: "Lord, fit me to be loved and imitated by my children"? A Preoccupied Father One day a small boy was taking a walk with his father. When they passed an unusual looking truck, he said, "What is that, Daddy?" "I don't know," his father said. Then they came to a large, old-fashioned warehouse, "What's in there, Daddy?" the little boy asked. "I don't know," his father replied. After they had walked on a short way in silence, the little boy turned to his father and said, "Daddy, do you mind my asking you so many questions?" "Of course not," commented his father proudly. "How else are you going to learn anything?"

Parents Blunder When...

Overindulgent parenting harms children by removing responsibility and consequences.

They give a child everything he wants. They laugh at a child when he does or says something wrong. They avoid the words "no" and "wrong." They pick up after their children instead of giving them the responsibility of doing it. They take the side of their children against neighbors, teachers, and other responsible adults. They make every decision for their children. They bail them out of every situation instead of letting them face the consequences of their mistakes. They are over-protective, and do not allow their children to do normal and healthy things. They let their children talk back to them. They criticize others openly in front of their children.

Parents Provoke Their Children When...

Harsh or unfair parenting provokes children and damages their spiritual and emotional health.

They are over-protective. They show favoritism toward one of their children. They compare the accomplishments or abilities of their children. They push achievement, aims, and goals, and in so doing, put un-due pressure on their children. They do not reward or encourage their children. They fail to allow childishness; that is, they do not understand that a child is a child, and not an adult. They neglect their children's needs: spiritually, socially, intellectually and physically. They nag their children. They abuse them with hateful, ugly, and bitter words. They punish them cruelly, or when the punishment is too harsh or severe for the mistake that was made.

Quality Time

Quality time with children requires investing a large quantity of time, not just brief moments.

I cringe every time I hear parents say that their schedules are really full, so they make a great effort to spend "quality time" with their children. Think what this idea would look like if transferred to another area of life. What if a great basketball player decided, "I am pretty good now. I think I will just spend 15 minutes practicing my shooting today. It may not be very long, but it will be quality time." That approach would soon have him warming a bench. There is no quality time without investing a large quantity of time.

Poverty of Riches

Riches can rob family time and foster pride, unlike humble, loving relationships.

Once there were rich parents who left their children constantly in the care of servants. But, like the flower of the grass, riches passed by. The parents could not afford servants which necessitated their taking care of the children. One evening when the father had returned home after a busy and frustrating day at work, his little girl climbed upon his knee and twining her arms around his neck said: "Daddy, don't get rich again. You did not come into the nursery when you were rich, but now we can be with you and get on your knee and kiss you. Don't get rich again, Daddy." The Pride of Riches The moth looks like such a harmless creature. In its pearly white color it hovers about without sound at twilight, or in our dark rooms and especially in our closets where our woolen clothes are kept. It is not impertinent like the robust flies of the summer. It does not have the sting of a mosquito. It does not sound in our ears the shrill notes of the cricket. It does not nibble and gnaw like the mouse and rat, nor, as roaches do, indecently overrun our food. It is most fair, silent, and apparently harmless. Yet every housewife springs after it with electric haste. It is a dreaded pest, not for what it is but for what it does. Once a garment is moth-eaten, it is almost impossible to repair it. How true this is in the case of the proud rich. Once one begins to suffer the sickness of pride of riches, the cure is very difficult. Let us beware, for, once the moths have done their work upon us, there is hardly any hope. Let us remember, also, that the moth does its work secretly, without our realizing it; so does the pride of riches. We may be proud of the things we wear and possess without ever realizing it. How stealthily the moths work; pride of the soul even more so.

A Mother's Mistake

A mother's worldly ambitions for her son conflicted with his spiritual growth and true influence.

While I was attending a meeting in a certain city sometime ago a lady came to me and said: "I want you to go home with me; I have something to say to you." When we reached her home, there were some friends there; After they had retired, she put her arms on the table, and tears began to come into her eyes, but with an effort she repressed her emotion. After a struggle she went on to say that she was going to tell me something which she had never told any other living person. I should not tell it now; but she has gone to another world. She said she had a son in Chicago, and she was very anxious about him. When he was young he got interested in religion at the rooms of the young Men's Christian Association. He used to go out in the street and circulate tracts. He was her only son, and she was very ambitious that he should make a name in the world, and wanted him to get into the very highest circles. Oh, what a mistake people make about these highest circles. Society is false; it is a sham. She was deceived like a good many more votaries of fashion and hunters after wealth at the present time. She thought it was beneath her son to go down and associate with those young men who hadn't much money. She tried to get him away from them, but they had more influence than she had, and, finally, to break his whole association, she packed him off to a boarding-school. He went soon to Yale College, and she supposed he got into one of those miserable secret societies there that have ruined so many young men; and the next thing she heard was that the boy had gone astray.

She began to write letters urging him to come into the Kingdom of God, but she heard that he tore the letters up without reading them. She went to him to try and regain whatever influence she possessed over him, but her efforts were useless, and she came home with a broken heart. He left New Haven, and for two years they heard nothing of him. At last they heard he was in Chicago, and his father found him and gave him $30,000 to start in business. They thought it would change him, but it didn't. They asked me when I went back to Chicago to try and use my influence with him. I got a friend to invite him to his house one night, where I intended to meet him, but he heard I was to be there, and did not come near, like a good many other young men, who seem to be afraid of me. I tried many times to reach him, but could not. While I was traveling one day on the New Haven Railroad, I bought a New York paper, and in it I saw a dispatch saying he had been drowned in Lake Michigan. His father came on to find his body, and, after considerable searching, they discovered it. All his clothes and his body were covered with sand. The body was taken home to that broken-hearted mother. She said "If I thought he was in heaven I would have peace." Her disobedience of God's law came back upon her.

So, my friends, if you have a boy impressed with the gospel, help him to come to Christ. Bring him in the arms of your faith, and He will unite you closer to him.

Affection, Want of Paternal

A youth is sold by his own parents, showing the tragedy of broken family values.

A mulatto youth one day called on a respectable gentleman of Baltimore, and, with tears in his eyes, begged for assistance. — "My father and mother," says he, "are about to sell me to Georgia." — "Your father and mother!" replied the gentlemen with surprise: "what right have they to sell you?" — "My father," answered the boy, "is a white man, Mr. —, a merchant in this place. My mother is a yellow woman. She has had several children by him, all of whom have been sold to Georgia but myself. He is this moment bargaining with a slave-trader for me." The gentleman promised his assistance, but too late; the bargain was already made. The unfortunate youth was immediately borne off, in spite of tears, execrations, and entreaties, handcuffed and chained, and driven like a brute to a distant market!

Children, Value of

A mother values her children as her true jewels over worldly riches.

A Campanian lady, who was very rich, and fond of pomp and show, being on a visit to Cornelia, the illustrious mother of the Gracchi, displayed her diamonds and jewels somewhat ostentatiously, and requested that Cornelia would let her see her jewels also. Cornelia turned the conversation to another subject, to wait the return of her sons, who were gone to the public schools. When they returned, and had entered their mother's apartment, she, pointing to them, said to the lady, "These are my jewels, the only ornaments I admire."

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster christian love

Courtship, False Notions of

Pure affection is founded on esteem and worthy qualities, not fleeting youthful passion.

Many young ladies indulge in very nonsensical notions concerning love. They fancy themselves bound to be "smitten" with almost every silly idler who wears a fashionable coat, is tolerably good-looking, and pays them particular attention. Reason, judgment, deliberation, according to their fancies, have nothing to do with love. Hence they yield to their feelings, and give their company to young men, regardless of warning, advice, or entreaty. A father's sadness, a mother's tears, are treated with contempt, and often with bitter retorts. Their lovers use flattering words; and, like silly moths flattering round the fatal lamp, they allow themselves to be charmed into certain misery. Learn that your affections are under your own control; that pure affection is founded upon esteem; that estimable qualities in a man can alone secure the continuance of connubial love; that, if these are not in him, your love has no foundation, and will fall, a wilted flower, as soon as the excitement of youthful passion is overpast. Dr. Wise.

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster love

Courtship, Interrupted

True character is revealed by behavior when love's excitement is absent.

A young man, paying special attention to a young lady, was invited into the parlor to await her appearance. A little girl about five years old slipped in, and said, "I can always tell when you are coming to our house. When you are going to be here, sister begins to sing and be good: she gives me cake and pie, and any thing I want; and she sings so sweetly when you are here! and, when I speak to her, she smiles so pleasantly! I wish you would stay here all the while; then I would have a good time. But, when you go off, sister is not good. She gets mad; and, if I ask her for any thing, she slaps and bangs me about." — "Fools and children tell the truth," quoth he; and, taking his hat, he left, and returned no more.

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster love

Courtship, Mistakes in

Caution in courtship prevents misery from marrying someone unfit intellectually or morally.

If ever caution is needed, it is here. Mistake is so easy; undesigned duplicity is so natural! The lady, wreathed in smiles, and moving with cautious effort to conceal defects of temper and intellect, acquires almost irresistible influence. The still small voice of the better judgment whispers, "Beware!" It suggests the lack of one adornment, the excess of a particular defect, the absence of certain desirable qualities and attainments in vain. The heart silences the cooler dictates of the mind; the question is put, the engagement made, the vows exchanged, the marriage celebrated; and the wretched parties learn, when too late, their unfitness for each other: and too often their subsequent life is miserable beyond description. Be careful, therefore, young man, at the very beginning. When a slight fondness for any lady arises, hold it in check till you have time to discover what, she is. If manifestly unfit, intellectually, morally, or socially, to be your future wife, stifle your affection, seek other society. The pain of such a resolution will bear no comparison with the agony consequent upon an imprudent marriage. Dr. Wise.

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster love

Courtship, Nature of

Courtship is a time to discern fitness and build genuine affection for marriage.

What is it in its beginning but an opportunity to ascertain their fitness for each other? what in its progress but a means of forming and strengthening that genuine affection, which is the true basis of marriage? With every young lady the paramount question concerning him who offers her particular attentions ought to be, "Is he worthy of my love?" Her first aim should be to decide it. She should observe him well and thoughtfully; study his character as it may be expressed in his countenance, his words, spirit, and actions. Through her parents she should inquire into his previous history. Dr. Wise.

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster love

Drunkard

A young man's drunkenness began with his mother's enabling at the family table.

DRUNKENNESS, Beginning of "Tell me," said a gentleman to a poor drunkard, when urging him to give up the intoxicating cup, "where it was you took your first steps in this intemperate course."—"At my father's table," replied the unhappy young man. "Before I left home to become a clerk, I had learned to love the drink that has ruined me. The first drop I ever tasted was handed me by my now heart-broken mother."

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster

Father, Example

A father's choices deeply influence his child's future behavior and character.

A father and his son were in company, when, to the question "What will you take to drink?" the son replied, "I'll take what father takes." The thought of his responsibility flashed upon the father, who answered, "I'll take water." Another choice might have sent his son into a drunkard's grave.

Name, Heritage of a

A good name is a valuable heritage that positively influences families and society.

There is no better heritage than a good name that a father can bequeath to his children, and there are few influences on society more wholesome than the fame of its worthies. The names of Luther, and Knox, of Hampden and Washington, of Schwartz and Eliot, are still doing good in the world. Nor is there in a family any richer heir-loom than the memory of a noble ancestor.

— Dr. J. Hamilton

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster

Selfishness, Cultivating

Over-sacrificing for a child can unintentionally foster selfishness by inflating their sense of importance.

The mother who is so unselfish that she surrenders all her time and pleasure to her child fills that child's mind with an exaggerated idea of its own importance, and makes it selfish, though that is the last thing the unselfish mother would desire. Bowes.

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster

Woman, Degradation of

In the Alps, women bear heavy labor burdens, even yoked to ploughs alongside animals.

The farmers of the Upper Alps, though by no means wealthy, live like lords in their houses; while the heaviest portion of agricultural labor devolves on the wife. It is no uncommon thing to see a woman yoked to the plough along with an ass, while the husband guides it. A farmer of the Upper Alps accounts it an act of politeness to lend his wife to a neighbor who is too much oppressed with work; and the neighbor, in his turn, lends his wife for a few days' work whenever the favor is requested.

— Percy

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster

Women

Women have great influence and should be wisely educated and kept virtuous.

Power of When women know the power of their sex, and exercise it, the consequences have been very surprising. The hero, the magistrate, the philosopher, and the prince think no more of their grandeur or their power; all restraint, all reserve, are laid aside for a time, and puerile freedom of speech succeeds to studied harangues and the most grave and solemn looks; the man of business and of retirement, the young and the old, drop their characters before women. The studious man leaves his closet, the merchant his negotiations, and sometimes the general quits the field, and the judge descends from the bench to enjoy the company of their favorite females. But, further still, notwithstanding only men take the lead, and appear as public characters, yet there is reason to believe that all of them are in some degree influenced by women in what they do. Since, therefore, women have such power, either directly or indirectly, it is of the greatest importance that they should have ood education, and all possible means made use of to make them wise, and to keep them strictly virtuous. Serags.

from New Cyclopaedia of Prose Illustrations · Elon Foster godly humility

The Child'S Inquiry

A child's innocent question leads a selfish son to repent and restore honor to his aging father.

A certain farmer in Connecticut, possessing a small estate, was persuaded by his only son, (who was married and lived with his father,) to give him a deed of the property. It was accordingly executed. Soon the father began to find himself neglected; next removed from the common table, to a block in the chimney corner, to take the morsel of food reluctantly given him. At last the unnatural son resolved one day, to try to break the afflicted heart of his sire. He procured a block and began to hollow it. While at work, he was questioned by one of his own children, what he was doing. "I am making a trough for your grandfather to eat out of," was the reply. "Ah," says the child, "and when you are as old as grandfather, shall I have to make a trough for you to eat out of?" The instrument he was using fell from his hand. The block was cast on the fire; the old man's forgiveness asked, and he was restored to the situation to which his age and worth entitled him.

The Unkind Son Rebuked

A son's unkindness to his father is rebuked by a child's words, leading to repentance and restored kindness.

There was once a man who had an only son, to whom he was very kind, and gave every thing that he had. When his son grew up and got a house, he was very unkind to his poor old father, whom he refused to support, and turned out of the house. The old man said to his grandson, "Go and fetch the covering from my bed, that I may go and sit by the way-side and beg." The child burst into tears, and ran for the covering. He met his father, to whom

# d. AGENTS OF BENF

Infidelity Prevented

A mother preserved her children’s faith despite an unbelieving father by honoring God's authority.

A mother of a family was married to an infidel who made jest of religion in the presence of his own children; yet she succeeded in bringing them all up in the fear of the Lord. She was one day asked how she had preserved them from the influence of a father, whose sentiments were so openly opposed to her own. This was her answer. Because, to the authority of a father I did not oppose the authority of a mother, but of God. From their earliest years, my children have always seen my Bi-

# 73. BLAS

from Cyclopaedia of Moral and Religious Anecdotes · Kazlitt Arvine faithfulness

No Scotch Woman There

The absence of a skilled Scotch cook at Millbank illustrates the value of education and skill.

The Rev. Dr. Waugh was enlarging one evening, at a public Sabbath school meeting, on the blessings of education; and, turning to his native country, Scotland, for proof, told his auditors the following anecdote:—"At board-day at the Penitentiary at Millbank, the food of the prisoners was discussed, and it was proposed to give Scotch broth thrice a week. Some of the governors were not aware what sort of broth the barley made, and desired to taste some before they sanctioned the measure. One of the officers was accordingly directed to go to the wards and bring a Scotch woman, competent to the culinary task, to perform it in the kitchen. After long delay, the board supposing the broth was preparing all the while, the officer returned, and told their honors that there was no Scotch woman in the house." ### 153. ELOQUE!

from Cyclopaedia of Moral and Religious Anecdotes · Kazlitt Arvine

Four Sons Ruined

Infidel teachings ruined a family of promising boys, leading to moral decay.

There was a place in New York, called the "Hall of Science," which was opened on Sundays for public lectures: in the day-time lectures were given on some of the sciences, and in the evening a lecture was given in opposition to the Christian or any other religion, and in support of the doctrines of infidelity. In order to show the effect of this institution on the young mind, the N. Y. Evening Journal gives an extract from the register of the House of Refuge, of the progress of a boy in that institution. He was about 16 years of age, and had been a clerk for a merchant in New York, who, on declining business, expressed his great satisfaction at the conduct of the boy. An elder brother had been in the habit of attending the lectures at the Hall of Science, and by degrees became an infidel, and he instilled his notions into the mind of this boy; the consequence of which was that he threw off all restraint and united with loose young men and boys in rioting, &c.; neglected all business; wandered about the streets and slept often in stables, till finally his parents were obliged to send him to the House of Refuge, fearful that he would take to stealing to support himself. The father said that the influence of the doctrines taught at the Hall of Science had ruined his whole family of promising boys, (four in number,) and that hearts almost broken, and much mental misery, had been entailed upon the other portions of his family and relatives.

An Infidel Family

A father's infidelity led all his sons into vice and ruin.

"Mr. J. H.," says a writer in the Christian Mirror, "was an inhabitant of my native town, and with whom and his family I was well acquainted. He was a man of good common sense, and was blessed with more than a common share of intellectual powers. His acquired abilities were considerable, being a great reader, and possessing a tenacious memory. But he was a thorough-going infidel! He early embraced the sentiments of Thomas Paine, whose writings were his oracle. He was often heard to make the most vulgar and blasphemous expressions concerning our blessed Savior, and to revile his religion! He was consistent with his sentiments in all things; and early educated his children to believe and embrace his own opinions, and imitate his practices. The old man lived and died without any thing remarkable befalling him personally. But not so with his family—particularly his sons, of whom he had five, all of whom lived to become men and Infidels. The history of four of them will illustrate the influence of parental instruction and example, and show that infidelity leads to vice and ruin. They were all, without exception, dissipated and given to worldly pleasures in their youth. The eldest son soon became very intemperate. He had a wife, and a large family of little children, dependent on his labor for their support. He removed to Boston, where he soon became a son and vagabond. The city was obliged to support his family; and after a long fit of drunkenness, he was found dead one morning in the street!

The next son never married. He was a drunkard, a gambler and a spend-thrift from his youth. He removed into Vermont, and after a drunken and gambling frolic, he arose one morning and plunged himself from the second story of his boarding-house, which stood upon the bank of the Onion river, into the water and was drowned!

The third son was equally dissipated, and having destroyed his constitution, and squandered his earnings, he took a rope and went and hanged himself! The fourth, being unable to obtain the means to support his dissipation by labor, commenced with purchasing and passing counterfeit money; was soon apprehended, examined and bound for his appearance at court. He obtained bonds which he forfeited, by fleeing his country. What will be the end of the youngest, who is now left in possession of his father's property, time will determine.

# INFIDELITY AT VARIANCE WITH THE REASON AND CONSCIENCE OF ITS VOTARIES.

216. Shown by their own Confessions of the Moral Tendency of Infidel Doctrines.

Daughters Estimated

Cultural prejudice can undervalue daughters, though they are precious and irreplaceable.

The woman’s place in Korea is, first as daughter, one of contempt. A missionary’s little six-year-old once came to him with tears in her eyes and said: “Papa, I have a question.” “Yes, what is it?” “Are you sorry that I wasn’t a boy?” “Well, I should say not; I wouldn’t trade you for a dozen boys. But why do you ask?”

She said, “The Koreans were talking just now, and they pointed at me and said, ‘What a pity that she wasn’t a boy!’”--JAMES S. GALE, “Korea in Transition.”

from Cyclopedia of Illustrations for Public Speakers · Robert Scott and William C. Stiles culture

Duty, Sense Of

Dynastic names symbolize duty and legacy, reflecting family and historical responsibility.

See FAITHFULNESS.

DYNASTIC NAMES

Most royal families have a given name they employ as a sort of distinctive dynastic hallmark. George and Frederick are distinctively Hanoverian, as Edward is distinctively English. The late king selected Edward rather than Albert from motives at once filial and politic. He desired that his father should stand alone in his glory as Albert in English history, and Edward was associated with old and stately traditions of the Plantagenets and Tudors. Similarly the French Bourbons usually have a Louis or a Charles among their string of names, and the Bonapartes never forget Napoleon at the baptismal font. The most striking instance of reverence for a dynastic name is found in the princely family of Reuss, in Germany. There are two principalities of Reuss, respectively representing the elder and the younger lines. Every reigning prince must bear the name of Henry. Henry XXIV reigns over one principality, and Henry XIV over the other. All the heads of the houses for nine hundred years have been Henrys, and in a grand family council early in the eighteenth century it was decreed that the figures should not exceed one hundred, after which a new series should begin with Henry I. As both branches clung to Henry a working arrangement was patched up by which the younger line begins a new group-numbering with each century. The first Henry born in the twentieth century who shall mount the tiny throne must revert to Henry I, and similarly his descendant senior among the Henrys of the twenty-first century is foreordained to be I, too.--Boston _Transcript_.

from Cyclopedia of Illustrations for Public Speakers · Robert Scott and William C. Stiles character of a believer

Home, The Old And New

Modern family life often lacks time together, weakening parental influence.

The old home, with its family-room, evening-lamp, regular life, and community of interests, has given place to a home in which the family are all together for the first time in the day at the evening meal, and then only for a brief hour, after which they scatter to their several engagements. A little boy was asked by a neighbor, as his father was leaving the house one morning, who that gentleman was, and he replied: “Oh, I don’t know; he’s the man who stays here nights.” This might well be a leaf from the actual home life in our cities. In some cases fathers and mothers too seldom see their children. Business claims their daylight hours; committee, board, or lodge meetings claim their evenings; and so the fathers are unavoidably, as it would seem, away from home. The church and sundry organizations for social service or self-improvement leave the mothers little time for their own needy but uncomplaining households. The children have their own friends and social life, in which the parents have all too small a place and influence.--GEORGE B. STEWART, “Journal of the Religious Education Association,” 1903.

from Cyclopedia of Illustrations for Public Speakers · Robert Scott and William C. Stiles family

Intemperance In Sons

Sons of abstaining mill founders returned from college with drinking habits, harming business and religion.

Rev. W. F. Crafts says:

Recently, in a New England manufacturing city, we noted a change that bodes no good for business or politics or religion. We found that the old men who founded and developed the mills were all total abstainers and had been from youth, but their sons, who were succeeding to these great responsibilities, had nearly all of them come back from college with drinking habits.

from Cyclopedia of Illustrations for Public Speakers · Robert Scott and William C. Stiles consequences of sin

Reverence For Parents

Jonathan Edwards' children showed deep respect by standing until parents were seated.

The family of Jonathan Edwards consisted of three sons and eight daughters. It is said that when Mr. Edwards and his wife entered the room the children rose and remained standing until father and mother were seated. (Text.)

Temperance

John B. Gough urged protecting children from alcohol to preserve body, mind, and heart.

* * * * *

John B. Gough, the temperance orator and reformer, asked that on his monument the following sentiment should be cut:

I can desire nothing better for this great country than that a barrier, high as heaven, should be raised between the unpolluted lips of the children and the intoxicating cup; that everywhere men and women should raise strong and determined hands against whatever will defile the body, pollute the mind, or harden the heart against God and His truth.

from Cyclopedia of Illustrations for Public Speakers · Robert Scott and William C. Stiles

Worshiper, A Mother

A mother's stern love inspired her son to live a purposeful, honorable life.

One of the first Christian novels of Japan tells of a widow, whose only son was a careless, aimless boy. His mother tried to inspire him with the lofty purpose of reestablishing their house, then in danger of becoming extinct. Her efforts were all in vain, until one day she took him to his father’s grave and kneeling there with him, sternly rebuked him in the face of the dead for his thoughtless life. Then drawing a dirk she handed it to him with this startling order: “Die, coward! Die with this dirk here and now! Then I will follow you!” In this way this Spartan-like mother aroused her boy so that he became a great and successful man. He never could cease to love and reverence her. He said: “The fire of my mother’s face burned into my soul and gave me the supreme decision of my life. Therefore, I am a worshiper of my mother.” This represents some of the best traditions of Japanese family life, and with such a basis, it is easy to see how welcome with many is the Christian truth, which emphasizes the duties of parents and recognizes the rights even of children.--JOHN H. DE FOREST, “Sunrise in the Sunrise Kingdom.”

How Churches Can Be Truly Pro-family

Mark 5:19

In the last decade, evangelical Christians have become more politically savvy, writing letters to congressmen and newspaper editors, blasting the politicians and media for their attacks on “traditional family values.” But as Christians call for others to clean up their acts, what are churches and Christian organizations doing to help families?

Many churches have no strategy to help families except referring them to self-help books, says Dan Simpson of the Charles E. Fuller Institute of Church Growth. “Seminaries focus on academic studies and preparing sermons,” he says, “but pastors have little training in helping families.”

Walt Mueller, director of the Center for Parent/Youth Understanding, agrees. “There’s too much rhetoric about what’s wrong with the family and not enough action,” he contends. “It seems as if the church is interested only in telling families to turn back the clock 40 years to become 1950s suburban families. That’s not realistic.”

Some individuals, churches, and parachurch organizations are pioneering efforts to help families. Out of these efforts has come a strategic emphasis in the areas of marriage enrichment, remarriage and stepfamily support programs, premarital preparation, and classes and support groups for parents.

ENRICHING MARRIAGES

Parachurch organizations in particular have worked hard to build marriages. For example, groups like Marriage Enrichment and Marriage Encounter (ME) provide weekend growth retreats for married couples. Studies on ME find that 90 percent of couples returning from its retreats report they fall back in love. Since 1962, over 1.5 million couples have gone to ME weekends, and various branches of ME now span ten denominations.

Although many couples who go to ME already have good relationships, David and Sherrill Lott of Salem, Indiana, attended one of the retreats after having been separated twice and having met with a marriage counselor who advised them to hire divorce lawyers. “I’m not good at expressing myself verbally,” says David. “So periodically Sherrill would break down crying because we weren’t communicating on an intimate level. I wondered why she couldn’t be self-sufficient like me. The truth was, like many men, I didn’t know how to express my feelings. On the Marriage Encounter weekend, the leaders gave us communication tools, and Sherrill and I practiced them all weekend. On Saturday night, we cried and held each other for the first time in a long time.”

This tremendous leap in communication skills was made easier for the Lotts by the example and encouragement of Gary and Sherry Hendricks, their ME leaders. Sherry describes the ME weekend as on-the-job training: “You don’t take a notebookful of notes. You just practice the same principles and skills all weekend until it wears you out. But then you’re prepared to go on with life.”

A major part of ME’s success is found in its use of experienced married couples like the Hendrickses to conduct its sessions. And the couples being counseled are not the only beneficiaries; ME’s marital enrichment works both ways. “I come away from me weekends feeling like a missionary,” says Sherry. “I see a greater purpose for my own marriage. Together, Gary and I can touch others by being a better picture of Christ.”

Fr. Dick McGinnis of Saint David’s Episcopal Church in Jacksonville, Florida, has learned the value of experienced married couples serving as mentors to struggling couples. A few years ago, McGinnis began to feel overwhelmed with the number of couples in his church who were approaching him for counsel in solving their marital problems. As he prayed for his church’s troubled couples, he sensed God nudging him to look at what worked. So he stood up in church and asked couples whose marriages had been on the rocks and now were healed to meet with him after church. McGinnis recorded their stories -- drug addiction, alcoholism, bisexuality -- looking for common elements.

As a result, McGinnis and the couples developed 17 basic principles, and each “couple in recovery” met weekly with a troubled couple, sharing stories, explaining the principles, and listening without judgment. Those original seven couples in recovery have worked with 33 couples at Saint David’s, and, says McGinnis, there has not been a divorce in the church since 1987.

McGinnis believes his church’s program is practical for most busy pastors, because “even though pastors organize the program, they essentially put the troubled couples in the hands of the ‘experts.’”

But can couples who have nearly divorced be legitimate experts? Ted and Jean Fields, who met with a couple in recovery, believe so. “What we found most helpful was not new information, but that these people spent time with us and accepted us,” says Jean. “When we told our story, no one walked away in disgust. They understood what we were going through.”

Discipling laypeople for family ministry holds enormous promise, says syndicated columnist Michael McManus, author of the book “Marriage Savers: Helping Your Friends and Family Stay Married” (Zondervan), who, with his wife, mentors couples at Fourth Presbyterian Church outside Washington, D.C. “In every church there are couples sitting in the pew that have been married 20, 30, or 40 years. They’ve survived all kinds of problems, and they’re still in love. Many of these couples would mentor other couples if they were asked.”

(Information on other groups is given.)

________

Jan Johnson is a freelance writer living in Simi, California.

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

Books: Refocusing the Family

Luke 9:61

"Family values" are the subject of intense debate in contemporary American society. Many commentators believe that if we hope to make any headway against some of our most acute social problems, families must be strengthened. Others, however, dismiss the call for family values as rhetoric that masks a narrowly conservative agenda.

Evangelicals have played a significant part in bringing this issue to national attention, having been the forerunners of family promotion. Nevertheless, author Rodney Clapp says in "Families at the Crossroads," evangelicals need to rethink their concept of family. To assist the process, he presents readable, thought-provoking challenges to current widely accepted views.

Clapp claims that evangelicals often defend a nineteenth-century concept of family rather than a biblical one. The idea of "home" as a mother-made preserve of intimacy in a cruel world of economic competition bears little resemblance to the extended households of the Bible, he argues.

Instead, a Christian's "first family," according to Scripture, is meant to be the church, taking priority even over the biological family. This "runs counter to the interpretation of many evangelical traditionalists" who regard the family as the main building block of the kingdom of God. Clapp's perspective is that families were meant to be "launching pads for mission" through outward-focused attitudes of hospitality.

Even though this is a book about families, Clapp includes a chapter on singleness. He reminds readers that the Bible honors singleness as much as marriage: "A defective interpretation of Christian family is [one] that...denigrates and dishonors singleness."

Another novel concept that Clapp presents is that the church needs to be wary of falling prey to a market-driven way of thinking. " 'The family that prays together, stays together' is not such an innocent statement," Clapp writes. "If we worship and pray to God because that will strengthen our family, then we make worship and prayer (and God) into investment techniques that serve our ends."

Unlike other analysts, Clapp does not make rampant secularism the main culprit for the modern family's problems; instead, he points to capitalism. The mindset of the market, Clapp suggests, is the real reason why families are weak. Spouses treat marriage as a business deal, not as an everlasting covenant. Similarly, parents find it difficult to sacrifice on behalf of children. After all, what will they get out of it?

His indictment of capitalism, though insightful, makes capitalism too important. If the market mindset were so potent, why did 150 years go by before it invaded and destroyed the home? Other factors must have been involved. Capitalism only became the universal solvent, dissolving all values into what's in it for me? after a deeper revolution occurred -- the revolution against God. Thus, the church can be a powerful countervailing "first family" on one condition: that it fears God.

Moreover, while Clapp's analysis of the excesses of evangelical attitudes toward the family is persuasive, he doesn't adequately place those attitudes in the context of a society so lacking in moral consensus that the very definition of what constitutes a family is a matter for acrimonious controversy. It is not without reason that many evangelicals feel that the family is under siege.

Clapp is at his best when dealing with biblical material. Christians will find solid arguments here to help them move past the current trend to glorify family for family's sake. Clapp is right that appealing to "traditional values" will change nothing, for these are not traditional times.

Neither will indicting capitalism's values stop people from pursuing anything that makes them feel bigger, unless they truly believe that, one day, they must answer to Someone before whom they are really very small. And in today's society, this is a value worth promoting.

-----------------------

"Families At The Crossroads: Beyond Traditional And Modern Options," by Rodney Clapp (InterVarsity, 240 pp.; $10.99, paper). Reviewed by Tim Stafford. Copyright (c) 1994 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY magazine

from Online Christianity Today (America Online) · Tim Stafford via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database home

Hollywood Can Remind of Us Heroes

“I can promise you one thing. I’ll do nothing to disgrace the office ....” Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.” [review of movies at end]

As the U.S. Senate opened its impeachment trial of President Clinton Jan. 7 [1999], and the words perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power and sexual misconduct continue to headline most daily periodicals and news channels, perhaps a bit of Hollywood -- yes, Hollywood -- can help combat the attitudes of “I don’t care anymore” or that morality no longer has any place in our lives.

Help also can come from your pastor to the question, Are there still men and women who live by steadfast principles derived from biblical teachings? Indeed, there are real-life people who serve or have served in their chosen occupations while maintaining a regard for God’s commands.

As for movie heroes, here are some videos depicting politicians, religious leaders, educators and everyday “common” men and women who personify responsibility. They live the credo “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” rather than “Do unto others -- just don’t get caught.”

• MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON. (1939). Jimmy Stewart reminds us what American politicians should aspire to. Freshman Sen. Jefferson Smith finds himself fighting for the ordinary guy against corruption and the powers that be. A very moving and perceptive Frank Capra film. Mr. Stewart’s Jefferson Smith embodies qualities we not only seek in a politician, but in a friend as well.

• MOTHER TERESA. (1987). In a time when the media is focusing on the follies of some TV evangelists, here’s a documentary about a group of women putting Christ’s teachings into practice. A life-changing film about an order of nuns who serve mankind. Petrie Productions.

• And we Protestants have our heroes as well: DIETRICH BONHOFFER: MEMORIES AND PERSPECTIVES. This 90-minute documentary features friends, family and students of the martyred theologian in World War II Germany. A vivid look at a remarkable man. Gateway Films/Vision Video.

• ONE FOOT IN HEAVEN. (1941). A devout minister (Fredric March) and family deal with the community and church life during changing early 1900s America. This film family reminds us that a sacrificial spirit is needed to carry out God’s plan for our lives. A fun scene has the skeptical Reverend attending his first movie.

• THE FOURTH WISEMAN. (1985). Based on the Henry Van Dyke tale of a good magi (Martin Sheen) seeking the birthplace of Jesus, but, because of his duty to others, is delayed in the desert for 33 years, only to see (from afar) the Savior as he is being crucified. He spent his life searching for the Messiah in order to give valuable treasures, but one by one he sells his priceless gifts to help others in need. This TV-made movie is full of compassion and illustrations of how our Lord would have us treat our fellow man. Alan Arkin serves well as comic relief in his role as the magi/doctor’s self-serving slave. A selfish man, the slave is finally moved by his master’s constant self-sacrifices. The end features the dying doctor looking up at Jesus, who commends him for his offerings. Christ assures the magi that when he did these things for others, he did them for the Son of Man as well.

• THE SCARLET AND THE BLACK. (1983). True story of a priest (Gregory Peck) who harbored allied POW escapees and the Nazi official (Christopher Plummer) who tries to catch him. The film is a bit long (155 min.) but the epilogue should not be missed. The lead’s mirroring of Christ’s compassion will help remind each of us to love our enemies.

• LILIES OF THE FIELD. (1963). Sidney Poitier won a Best Actor Oscar as a handyman who helps build a chapel for a sect of nuns. A gentle, sweet film, kept believable by Poitier’s solid performance.

• 1953’s THE ROBE has a Roman centurion (Richard Burton) haunted by his participation in the execution of Christ. One significant scene has the Roman giving a donkey to a Hebrew boy. It is probably the finest gift, if not the only one the child has ever received; yet the next day he bestows it to another peasant boy. This visual signifies, “It is better to give than to receive,” and startles the soldier into an awareness that there is something to this new religion.

• In 1935, LES MISERABLES provided a profound sampling of Christ’s teaching. Early on, a scene features a priest confronting French police with their prisoner, a thief who has stolen the only finery the monseigneur possesses, some expensive dinnerware. Rather than accusing the man of robbery, the clergyman announces that the thief was given the utensils. Furthermore, the priest scolds him for forgetting to take the silver candlesticks, which he then gives to the bewildered convict. Due to the man of faith’s compassion, our story’s protagonist turns his life around, serving God and man, including his long-time enemy.

• In Charles Laughton’s 1939 version of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, Esmeralda, a lowly gypsy girl, enters a cathedral to pray. She is surrounded by finely dressed, haughty aristocracy, each praying for their individual desires. We are taken aback, moved, enlightened and perhaps convicted by this girl’s selfless entreaties. She exemplifies Christ’s instruction to pray for others. It is a noble prayer, one that undoubtedly caught the attention of the addressee.

• THE CIVIL WAR. (1989). Ken Burns’ eloquent look at the struggle between the North and the South should be required viewing, especially for teens. This quintessential documentary on the War Between the States is a moving, learning experience about the foibles and nobility of the human spirit. Indeed, it defines the American spirit.

• MR. HOLLAND’S OPUS. (1995). Richard Dreyfuss, Glenne Headly, Jay Thomas. PG (1 profanity; several mild expletives). A struggling composer takes a job as a high school teacher. Soon it becomes his 30-year occupation, giving students a compass to life. A feel-good movie in the tradition of Stand and Deliver. It is a pleasure to view a film about a principled man, loyal in profession and marriage.

• FRIENDLY PERSUASION. (1956). Unforgettable Gary Cooper tour de force. But then, everything about this picture is unforgettable. A charming portrayal of a Quaker family’s convictions being tested while caught in the Civil War conflict. President Reagan gave a copy to Mikhail Gorbachev.

• TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. (1962). Horton Foote’s Oscar-winning screenplay of the Harper Lee novel about rural life, justice, honor and bigotry as seen through the eyes of a 9-year-old girl. The ideals illustrated in the father figure (Gregory Peck) give each husband, father or neighbor something to strive to become. Other Horton Foote screenplays paying tribute to old- fashioned ethics: Tender Mercies and The Trip To Bountiful.

• PLACES IN THE HEART. (1984). A literate script presents a determined widow (Sally Field) bent on saving her farm during the ‘30s Depression. Contains perhaps the greatest ending to a film this buff has ever seen. A repentant adulterer is finally forgiven when his wife, moved by the pastor’s sermon, takes her husband’s hand during the service, signifying the restoring of a relationship through Christ’s love. Just as we are about to put our hankies away, another symbolic healing occurs. I won’t give that one away. Trust me, it’s powerful!

• BABETTE’S FEAST. This 1987 Best Foreign Film Oscar-winner is based on a short story by Isak Dinesen about two sisters in a small Danish town who take in a homeless woman as their servant. A beautiful story of devotion and sacrifice urging us not to hide behind our religion, but to put it into action. Like viewing a fine old painting or enjoying a sumptuous meal, it is a remarkable example that many American filmmakers could take a lesson from. Easy-to-read subtitles.

• And last -- perhaps the most significant film of all time -- IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946). Jimmy Stewart’s George Bailey is given the opportunity to see what his community would have been like if he had never been born. He reminds us that we touch so many lives and can have a real influence on those souls. Mr. Stewart’s character personifies a caring and responsible spirit, and his example is eventually rewarded.

Europeans Opting Against Marriage

Luke 20:34

OSLO - Bjorn Lindahl and Nina Kjolaas do not feel inclined to declare their love in front of some anonymous official in a municipal building, or in a church. So they have never married - not when they moved in together, not when they bought their first house, not when they had their son, now 16.

"We said that if our child were to be harassed at school, we'd think of doing it," said Mr. Lindahl, 45, who has lived with Ms. Kjolaas for 23 years. "But statistics showed that something like half the kids in Norway had parents who were single or living together."

Not just Norway. In a profound shift that has changed the notion of what constitutes a family in many countries, more and more European children are being born out of wedlock into a new social order in which, it seems, few of the old stigmas apply. The trend is far more pronounced in the Nordic countries, in France and in Britain, and less so in southern countries like Italy and Switzerland, but the figures as a whole are startling, particularly because they tend to hold up across all social classes.

In Norway, for instance, 49 percent of all the births in 1999 were to unwed parents. In Iceland, the figure was 62 percent. In Britain, it was 38 percent, and in France, 41 percent, in 1998, the last year figures were available. Even in Ireland, a deeply Catholic country where divorce became legal a mere seven years ago, about 31 percent of the births in 1999 took place outside of marriage, a figure on par with that in the United States.

Marriage in Europe is by no means obsolete; most Europeans still marry at some point in their lives, and after a precipitous drop in marriage rates throughout the 1990's, some countries have actually experienced incremental increases of late. But with changing attitudes toward religion and toward the role of the individual and the state, the questions of when - and whether - to marry are increasingly seen as deeply personal choices free from the traditional moral judgments of community, family or church.

Even as governments set new policies to cope with the altered arrangements, public figures in a number of countries are serving as examples themselves.

In Britain, where the cabinet is split over whether the government should be in the business of promoting marriage, Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief spokesman, Alastair Campbell, has three children with his companion, Fiona Millar, who happens to be the chief aide to Mr. Blair's wife, Cherie. (Ms. Millar is in Mr. Campbell's "Who's Who" entry, listed as his partner.)

In Norway, Marit Arnstad, an unmarried member of Parliament, became pregnant while she served as the country's oil minister, and is now raising her son on her own. The country's own crown prince, Haakon, lived with his girlfriend, a single mother with a toddler, before marrying her last year.

"The most important thing, it seems to me, is the quality of the relationship between the members of the couple, not whether they are married or not," said Claude Martin, a sociologist who is a professor at the Institute of Political Science in Rennes, France. "Here in France there is very little difference between being married and cohabitating, and very little difference between children born out of wedlock and those that are born within marriage."

The attitude in Europe is substantially different from that in the United States, where the government recently announced that it was actively committed to promoting marriage. The British government has all but abandoned that position, acknowledging in a recent position paper that there were many alternatives to the classic family structure.

At the same time, groups representing single parents - generally far better off economically than their counterparts in the United States - have become a potent political force across Europe.

Welfare policies in many countries are specifically intended to ensure that all children are given the same financial benefits and treated equally in the eyes of the law, whether their parents are married, living together, separated, divorced or single.

"They've taken the marital status out of it and focused on the children," said Kathleen Kiernan, a professor of social policy and demography at the London School of Economics.

Policies enacted in the last two decades by many European governments include legislation ensuring that children born out of wedlock have the same inheritance rights as other children; financial grants to the children of single parents; and the removal, in Britain, of a special tax break for married couples and an increase in cash allowances for families with children.

In Scandinavia, highly complicated living and custodial arrangements between partners, children and former couples, are common.

"We have little commitment to the institution of marriage, that's true, but we do have a commitment to parenthood," said Kari Moxnes, a 57-year-old professor of sociology at the University of Trondheim. "It's not socially acceptable any more in Scandinavia to break the parental relationship."

Most of the cohabiting couples she knows marry for only one reason, she said. "If you have a sabbatical in the United States, you better get married," she said, "because that's the only way your wife or husband is going to go with you for free."

In deeply religious countries like Italy, few children are born to unwed parents - just 9 percent in 1998. But even in Italy, the old rules are breaking down. Most couples live together before marriage, and in a country where children, and fecundity, are adored, it is no longer unusual or embarrassing to see a heavily pregnant bride strolling down the aisle.

The new arrangements have thrown up all sorts of tiny awkwardnesses. "We usually say husband and wife," said Amadeo Conde, a 37-year-old graphic designer in Madrid who has been with his companion, Dawn Broadbridge, for 14 years; their son, Maximilian, is 17 months old. "We don't mind explaining, but it gets rather long to say to the doorman, 'the mother of my child.'"

Ms. Broadbridge, also 37, is an American who has found the relaxed attitudes in Madrid, where most of the couples she knows are unmarried parents, something of an eye-opener. "You would think that in a good Roman Catholic country like Spain, people would get married when they have children," she said. Meanwhile, back home in Sacramento, all her close friends went the traditional route: they married, they had children, and some divorced.

"Most people assumed that we would get married before we had children," Ms. Broadbridge said. "My mom has probably lied to some of her friends - well, not lied, but not told the complete truth."

Eric Larrayadieu, a photographer in France, has not married his girlfriend, Olivia, after more than three years of living together and the birth of Marius, their 6-month-old son.

"Just as it's not possible to make wine without the ground and the grapevines, the two of us are together and we made a very good wine, and it's called Marius," Mr. Larrayadieu said. "Probably the child is the best wedding we could have together."

But the two are now considering marrying, purely for practical reasons - they want to ensure legal and financial protection for the family if one of them dies or falls ill. In France, as in most countries, a surviving live-in partner has no automatic inheritance rights.

Many of the couples decide to split up, of course, and the result has been a significant rise in single parents, most of them mothers.

In the Scandinavian countries, in particular, such women tend to be educated and employed. Buoyed in part by policies that allow them substantial financial grants even when they return to work, single mothers in many European countries are considerably better off than in the United States, where some 45 percent to 50 percent of single mothers live beneath the poverty line.

"As a single mother, you don't have to be ashamed anymore," said Kathrine Lorenz, 35, a child psychologist in Oslo. She is rearing her 3-year-old daughter alone; her former partner, who already had three children by two other women, left her when she became pregnant. (By law, he is obligated to pay 28 percent of his income to the four children.)

Ms. Lorenz was reared by a single mother, too, after her parents divorced when she was 5. Her mother, she said, was ashamed and could not work; Ms. Lorenz was taunted at school. "But our children don't hear this. It's much more normal now."

*

from America Online Health News · Sarah Lyall via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database family values

No Mother's Day For You: Shielding Kids From Our Choices

To send your kids to Rodeph Sholom, a prestigious day school on Manhattan's Upper West Side, you'll need an extra $20,000 a year and a high tolerance for politically correct nonsense.

In a letter that arrived just in time for Mother's Day, parents were told that "after much thought and discussion," Rodeph Sholom "will not be celebrating Mother's Day and Father's Day." Why not? As a school director explained, "these holidays are not needed to enhance our writing and arts programs."

Well, by that standard, no holiday is needed. But if you think something's missing here, you're right. The letter goes on to say, "families are changing ... there may be two fathers, two mothers, the mother may not have custody, it could be a grandmother."

Thus, "[our school has] many different family makeups." And that requires "[recognizing] the emotional well-being of all the children." Celebrating Mother and Father's Day "may not be a positive experience for all children."

In other words, a kid with two mommies or two daddies might feel bad if other kids are drawing their mom a picture or making their dad a pen holder.

Well, as you might expect, the decision didn't go down well with every parent. One mother called the decision "politically correct" and "inappropriate." She wondered whether "there are ways of showing sensitivity to the needs of children in unusual situations that don't require undermining traditional family structures."

Well of course there are, but the problem is that, for the people making this policy, there's nothing "unusual" about the situations she's referring to. What happened at Rodeph Sholom is only the most recent expression of what our culture seems to believe about the family: that no arrangement should be considered normative, and families can take on an infinite number of forms to suit the needs and desires of the parties involved.

It's not just a matter of recognizing that some children will be raised in single-parent homes or by grandparents. The authors of this policy are saying, in effect, that no one arrangement is better than any other for children.

This is utter nonsense. As Jennifer Roback Morse reminds us in her new book, Love and Economics, by every reasonable measure, living in an intact two- parent home is best for children.

So why pretend otherwise? Because, as Morse says, this pretense fits so nicely with our culture's exaltation of personal autonomy as the value that shapes every decision we make. Dropping the pretense would put us in danger of acknowledging an unpleasant truth: that we don't love our children as much as we say we do -- certainly not enough to let them get in the way of our personal desires.

If we really valued the "emotional well-being" of our kids, we would be working to strengthen intact two- parent families, instead of banning Mother's Day. We'd worry less about providing "positive experiences" and more about putting our kids' needs first.

But we don't. Instead, some people will go to any length to keep the subject from coming up. Anything to keep them and us from realizing that it's their bad choices, not our holidays, that are the reasons they feel so bad.

For further reference:

Morse, Jennifer Roback. Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work. Dallas, TX: Spence Publishing, 2001.

________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Family Values on HBO? - Truth From Unexpected Sources

I don't watch the HBO series SEX AND THE CITY — that graphic television show depicting the supposedly glamorous sexual escapades of four single women in New York. But enough people have told me about it that I'm glad I don't watch it.

Recently, in the excellent English magazine THE SPECTATOR, writer Mary Kenny made an unusual observation: “SEX AND THE CITY means family values” read the title of her article. You've got to be kidding, right? Explicit sex, graphic language, glamorized promiscuity — where do “family values” fit in there?

Well, the truth we can't not know, to use the title of J. Budziszewski's recent book, can pop up in unexpected places — particularly the truth about human nature. We're made for one another, and men and women were created with certain roles. And when we flout them, the way we're made will always come back to haunt us.

For example, the fact that homosexuals desire marriage actually betrays the “lifestyle” they extol. Of course they want to marry and have children — they're human, and that's the way God made us. But two homosexuals “married” can't do that, which is why marriage and homosexuality can never go together. Gay “marriage” has always got to be a counterfeit, and gays know it.

“The 'forces of conservatism' always win in the end,” writes Mary Kenny, “because it is the natural order.” Though moral Darwinists would say otherwise, humans weren't meant to jump from mate to mate, or juggle multiple partners at once, because sex is not a recreational act. It is not, says Kenny, that “brash, competitive, and indeed consumerist” activity depicted on SEX AND THE CITY. Rather, she goes on to say, it's one that “evokes in human beings something both animal and transcendental.”

Exactly. Sex is a procreational act, carrying the weight of life-bearing potential. And it works to promote spousal unity — it's not meant to fulfill selfish desires, and if used for that end, it's ultimately unsatisfying.

And so when we see Samantha on the screen, the most uninhibited character in the show, hopping from one sexual partner's bed to the next, writes Kenny, we cringe. Nobody applauds such self-deprecation. Then there's Miranda, the lawyer and now a single mother, finding fulfillment in motherhood and wanting to cut back on her work to be with her child. She yearns for her child's father and for the stability and commitment of marriage.

Charlotte, the erstwhile WASP who always wanted marriage, converts to Judaism for her husband. And finally, Carrie, the center of the show, sums up the futility of the sexually “liberated” single life when she remarked to a friend, “I'm lonely. I'm really lonely.” Later, at Charlotte's wedding, Carrie tells her, “I wish I had a man strong enough to catch me when I stumble.”

Two ARE better than one, as Ecclesiastes says. We weren't meant to be alone, nor to give ourselves away to anyone and everyone. The way SEX AND THE CITY is ending up illustrates this truth. It tried to portray the glamour of the sexual libertine lifestyle, but it doesn't work — even on TV.

Sooner or later human nature — as created by God — kicks in. And apparently the writers of SEX AND THE CITY found that out.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

Mary Kenny, “SEX AND THE CITY MEANS FAMILY VALUES,” THE SPECTATOR (London), 16 August 2003. Note: some profanity.

Gina Dalfonzo, “COMPLICATING THE ISSUE,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 30 June 2003. (Also see “THE ICK FACTOR.”)

Marcia Segelstein, “UNFORBIDDEN FRUIT,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 10 June 2003.

Lee Siegel, “RELATIONSHIPISM,” THE NEW REPUBLIC, 11 November 2002. (You must be a subscriber to access this article, or sign up for a free four-week trial.) Note: some profanity.

J. Budziszewski, WHAT WE CAN'T NOT KNOW (Spence, 2003).

Thomas Hibbs, SHOWS ABOUT NOTHING (Spence, 1999).

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

The Marital Enemy Few Speak Of

Genesis 2:24

My mailbox is deluged weekly with fundraising letters from pro-family organizations that invoke the threat of same-sex “marriage” being legalized by liberal judges in various states. As important as it is to stand for the truth, these groups are tilting at windmills as long as American Christians continue to have a less-than-biblical respect for opposite-sex marriage.

That point was brought home to me recently with astounding clarity. A young lady who my wife grew up with decided to divorce her husband of two years, with a young daughter relegated to being tossed back and forth in a joint custody arrangement. There was no abuse or adultery, but since marriage is hard when two people are young and broke, she decided they made, in her words, “better friends than marriage partners.”

As far as I know, the young lady has never made a profession of faith, does not attend church and does not claim to know Jesus Christ, so to no one's surprise she sees no problem with a quickie divorce when things have not worked out the way she wanted.

It's time we quit being “huffy” when a pagan acts like a pagan -- what else do you expect?

What disgusted me was the response of the young lady's mother and grandmother, which is symptomatic of how lightly modern American Christians esteem marriage. Both the mother and the grandmother claim to be Christians and attend church regularly. The mother said very little except to offer her daughter a place to stay. The grandmother, however, was bolder. “I don't believe in divorce,” she said, “but sometimes it can't be avoided.”

Well, in this case we'll never know if it could have been avoided. No one tried to counsel the young lady or her husband or share with them what God has to say about marriage.

As a quick review for the sake of convenience, God said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, NASB). Expounding on the theme, Jesus added, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6, NASB). Jesus went on to add that Moses gave the exception allowing divorce because of the hardness of people's hearts. Therefore, the exception is not absolute and does not have to be followed.

God's opinion on divorce of any kind is quite clear: Malachi 2:16 says that God hates divorce.

As God's children, should we not also hate divorce? Of course we should, and we should seek to avoid it wherever and whenever possible. But the simple fact of the matter is that corporately we do not hate divorce, nor do American Christians avoid it any better than our non-believing fellow Americans. A 2001 survey by George Barna showed that the divorce rate among evangelical Christians is “statistically identical” as the divorce rate among the general population.

When marriage means that little to the people of God, why should the broader culture care what we think about the subject?

The pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd is the one making all the noise and actually having the courage to stick up for what they believe, as perverted as it is. They understand that the first rule of getting what you want from the government in a democracy is to make more noise than the other guy.

There is really only one way for Christians to respond to this nightmare and silence the critics of traditional marriage and proponents of homosexual “marriage.” It's not easy. It's not always fun. It takes everything a person can give all the time.

It's called staying married, even when times are tough and you want out more than you want another breath. Beyond that, Christians should seek to glorify not themselves but God with their marriages.

If the broader culture should see the divorce rate among Christians go through the floor, they would know that there really was something different about us. Who knows what kind of opportunities this radical strategy would bring about for evangelism and national revival?

Right now, roughly a third of Americans say they support homosexual “marriage.” But in another few years, homosexual “marriage” will be the law of the land if Christians –- too many of whom see no problem with easy, no-fault heterosexual divorce -- have not recovered a respect for marriage beyond sending the occasional check to a pro-family organization.

*

Gotta Say Something Meaningful

Comedian Steve Harvey will be the first to admit he's no saint (his use of language in a few past film and stage presentations are, depending on your view, colorful, earthy or just downright objectionable), nevertheless he is a man who is becoming aware of the kind of material he needs to leave behind for his children and to honor his Creator.

A native of Cleveland, Ohio, Steve makes his home with his wife and five children in Dallas, where they are committed to furthering opportunities in local schools through their generous contributions to the Steve and Mary L. Harvey Foundation. In RACING STRIPES, a family film about a zebra who tries to be a race horse, Steve gives voice to an animated horsefly, of all things. Coupled with comedian David Spade, the duo further the story by injecting sometimes wise, oftentimes wiseacre witticisms. Most of their fellow cast mates agree with audience members –- big and small –- that their scenes are the funniest in the film.

Here are a few moments from my time with Mr. Harvey. It uplifted me and reminded me that there are artists in Tinseltown who raise up the Most Holy God and use their God-given talent to bring joy to the world.

Phil Boatwright: Steve, did you ever think you'd be playing an insect?

Steve Harvey: My biggest movie and I'm a fly. It's all over, baby.

P.B.: I would never have pictured you as a horsefly.

S.H.: I did a sitcom for six years and always wore custom suits. That's been my image. Now, I'm a fly! ...

P.B.: I've heard that you used to sing in a church choir.

S.H.: My mama raised me in the church. I was not allowed to stay home on Sundays. There was no option. My father didn't go, but he gave us a haircut and made sure we went. I sang in the choir until I went off to college.

P.B.: Still go?

S.H.: Yes. I've always had God as a part of my life. It's important out here too, because it gives you a base, you dig? 'Cause out here it's like Sodom and Gomorrah. This is Sin City. And if you don't have a spiritual base, you'll get caught up in it. It's inevitable.

P.B.: It's not a town known for honoring God, is it?

S.H.: I saw a guy accept an award and he said, “I want to thank my lucky stars.” That confused me. 'Cause what's your lucky stars, man? These are blessings from God. God endows you with blessings so you'll become a blessing. You can't get up in front of people and be ashamed to tell them about God. Everybody out here wants to make it look like something they did. Like you [are] that funny. Or you, that great an actor. There's always somebody who is funnier or can act better than you. It's just that God thought that He could trust you. That if you got there, you'd do the right thing with it. He trusted that [to] you, that you'd give Him honor and credit.

P.B.: That's not something I hear often during a press junket.

S.H.: This is a true story: A friend of mine was connected in business to a very wealthy man. He had a $4 million yacht, but he never thought about God. He stood out on the tip of his boat out in the Gulf of Mexico and said, “I am God.” And a bolt of lightning killed him just like that. He died on the bow of his boat. [see also #28927]

P.B.: Wow.

S.H.: For them it's about money. Their God is money.

P.B.: Did “The Passion of The Christ” affect Hollywood?

S.H.: Most of the people out here who sit up in executive offices don't go to church, so they had no idea that people would go see a film about Christ. But Christ is pretty big. In fact, He's the biggest. So now they do a movie about Him and they discover that He's the biggest of all time. You dig? There has never been a movie with an R rating that did that kind of money -– ever. And they tried to kill that movie with an R rating. “There's too much violence in it.” Well, what'd you think happened during a crucifixion?

P.B.: Do you think we'll see more films with biblical truths?

S.H.: People out here don't like to hear the truth 'cause the truth makes them think.

P.B.: You mentioned before that you cussed a lot on HBO specials and other projects. What's changed you?

S.H.: As you get older, you start looking at your mortality and start thinking, “I won't be here too long.” And you want to leave something behind for your kids. Eddie Murphy has. You know, “Daddy Day Care,” “Shrek” 1 and 2, he's doing movies for his kids. He did “Pluto Nash” just for his kids. It did horrible at the box office so people were saying, “Eddie, get back to where you come from.” But you can't go back to where you come from. You gotta develop. I can't cuss and tell jokes the rest of my life. I gotta say something meaningful. I gotta give something back to the Creator who's given me so much.

For the past four years Steve has been doing a radio show. He fought to open up each episode with a gospel song, taking a lot of heat over that because the show airs on a hip-hop station.

S.H.: Now, even when I open up a special, I begin with giving credit to God, 'cause I know how I got here. And I kinda figured that He trusted that I would do that.

________

Phil Boatwright is a film reviewer and editor of The Movie Reporter, on the Web at www.moviereporter.com

When Ecology Replaces Theology

Is saving the earth what remains when liberal churches are no longer concerned for the salvation of souls? Have these churches replaced theology with ecology?

Frank Furedi is a British sociologist who teaches at the University of Kent. He is also a controversialist and a public intellectual. In a recent article published at Spike, Furedi suggests that some religious institutions are “busy reinventing themselves by promoting ecological virtues and preaching against the eco-sins of polluters.” He offers a most interesting argument.

Furedi contends that a crisis of authority has shaken many churches, and that modern societies the have largely given up on saving traditional morality. In his words:

Sometime back in the 1980s, Western societies gave up on the

project of rescuing ‘traditional values’ and morality. From time

to time, conservative politicians and moral entrepreneurs have

attempted to launch back-to-basics crusades promoting ‘family

values’. However, their lack of popular appeal has only exposed

society’s estrangement from these traditions. Indeed by the

Eighties, even religious institutions found it difficult to

uphold their own authority with conviction. Instead of

influencing society many churches began to internalise the

attitudes associated with the lifestyles of their increasingly

individualised consumerist flock. The last quarter-century has

seen a steady diminishing of religious authority in Western

societies. Debates about the role of women priests,

homosexuality and marriage indicated that religious institutions

have become confused about their own relationship to traditional

values.

Furedi suggests that these churches are now seeking to find a new platform in order to assert a new claim to authority within the culture. This new platform appears to be ecology and the goal of saving the earth.

His argument is compelling:

In recent years, some in the church have sought to gain the

public’s ear through the greening of traditional doctrines, and

Christ the Saviour is fast becoming Christ the environmental

activist. Western society is continually in search of rituals

and symbols through which moral probity can be affirmed. It

appears that, for many church leaders, the project of saving the

planet offers more opportunities for reconstituting rituals and

symbols than the saving of souls.

It is not just the odd priest offering absolution through the

ritual of eco-confession. Church leaders have embraced the

rituals of eco-morality to demonstrate their commitment to a

higher good. Absolution through carbon offsets appears to be the

way forward.

An observer of church life today, especially within the shrinking domain of liberal Protestantism, will find plenty of evidence for Furedi’s hypothesis. Ecological concerns appear to serve as a replacement for abandoned doctrines and outdated concerns -- such as evangelism.

Furedi finds plenty of support for his argument within contemporary Roman Catholicism, but here is his analysis of the situation within the Church of England:

In 2006, the Church of England launched an eco-crusade entitled

‘Shrinking the Footprint’. The Archbishop of Canterbury

complained that ‘early modern religion contributed to the idea

that the fate of nature is for it to be bossed around by a

detached sovereign will, whether divine or human’. It seems

possible that those misguided early modern religionists received

that idea from the Book of Genesis, where God gives Man dominion

‘over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth

upon the earth’. Now the head of the Anglican church protests

about nature being ‘bossed around’ not only by Man, but by God.

This year, the Church of England launched a booklet of green tips

for the faithful entitled How Many Christians Does it Take to

Change a Lightbulb? Its eco-commandments include: share cars on

the road to church, use virtuous low-energy lightbulbs but cast

out junk mail, and do not flush the loo at night.

So is Christ the Savior is fast becoming Christ the environmental activist? Furedi’s argument is both insightful and troubling. There can be no doubt that his argument is true with respect to many churches and denominations. And there is a clear warning here. When churches abandon or marginalize the central doctrines of the Christian faith, another religion soon takes its place. That religion might be a religion of therapy, social action, or ecology -- or any number of other substitutes for the Gospel.

As Furedi explains, this particular temptation can be traced to “the powerful influence that environmentalism exercises over contemporary culture.” When churches lose confidence that they can speak to other issues in terms of right and wrong (sex, personal behavior, etc), environmentalism remains. In effect, it is the only socially acceptable form of moralism.

Nevertheless, Furedi believes that this is a losing strategy for the church in terms of social and cultural influence. As he explains, “eco-spirituality cannot really compensate for the loss of traditional moral authority.”

Furthermore, once a church embraces environmentalism as its central mission, its authority suffers and even greater loss because the society considers the true authorities for ecology to be scientists, not church leaders. “The shift away from God towards nature inevitably leads to a world where the pronouncements of environmentalist experts trump those of the priesthood,” he explains. “It will be interesting to see what will remain of traditional religion as prophecy and revelation is displaced by computerised climate models.”

Christians do bear a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth. This is not an easy responsibility to bear in the confusing context of modern ecological debates. But the church of Jesus Christ bears the responsibility to be the steward of the Gospel above all other concerns. The temptation to turn to this-worldly concerns at the expense of spiritual concerns is very strong. Beyond this, human beings will worship either the Creator or the creation. When the authority of the Bible is undermined and confidence that we can know the Creator is compromised, the creation itself looms larger and larger as a central passion.

When a passion for seeing sinners converted to faith in Christ declines, a passion for converting people into environmentalists can appear as a replacement purpose and a culturally-attractive mission.

We should take note when a sociologist like Frank Furedi sees the picture so clearly. Why does he see what so many others miss? When a church forfeits its God-given mission, no other mission matters.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #21502]

Mind the Gap: Class and Marriage

In an oft-quoted, albeit apocryphal, exchange between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, Fitzgerald says that “the rich are very different from you and me,” to which Hemingway replies, “Yes, they have more money.”

Well, there is one way in which well-off Americans are increasingly different from other Americans: family structure.

Today, married couples with children are less than one-quarter of all households; that’s down from one-half in 1960. But this decline is not spread evenly among socio-economic classes. As a recent WASHINGTON POST article noted, the decline has been “far less among couples who make the most money and have the best education.”

What’s more, “these couples are also less likely to divorce.” As a result, their children have a tremendous “leg up” in the competition for higher incomes and the status it brings.

In contrast, “the poor aren’t entering into marriage very much at all,” according to Pamela Smock, a sociologist at the University of Michigan. She told the Post that arguments about the economic benefits of marriage “do not seem to change their attitudes.”

So, while the well-off are getting better-off thanks to marriage and family formation, those at the bottom are falling further behind for the opposite reason.

Given the well-documented economic and personal benefits, both to adults and children, of getting and staying married, why aren’t those most in need of those benefits getting married?

Placing the blame, as the POST does, on “the erosion ... of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II” is off target. Economic distress alone cannot explain why the poor are less likely to marry these days. After all, poor people throughout history have gotten married just like everyone else.

One reason has to be cultural. The 1960s assault on traditional authority and values has resulted in what political scientist James Q. Wilson calls the “subversion for the popular support of marriage.”

Unfortunately, as my colleague Anne Morse writes at our BreakPoint website, the WASHINGTON POST article does not explore the influence of “wealthy Hollywood moms who make out-of-wedlock child-bearing look chic and glamorous.” Poor, young women emulate celebrities. Nor does the article “mention the destructive impact of Great Society policies that essentially promised young women regular government checks” so long as they “have a baby out of wedlock and avoid marriage ever after.”

In the end, the POST does not give a satisfactory answer as to why the poor are marrying less often than the wealthy. But the article does set off alarm bells for the future of American society — and for the future of the poor.

As Anne Morse writes on our website, married couples are highly motivated to work hard and pool their savings for the future. Why? Because they believe they’ll HAVE a future together. This is a big part of why married people have more money than those who do not marry.

If the poor truly believe that they cannot afford marriage — or don’t need it — we, the Christian Church, have to find way to help them understand that, for many reasons, including the well-being of their children, they cannot afford NOT to marry. For their future and for ours.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database family valuespoverty

The Prime Minister's Christian Foundation

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once described her understanding of how the Christian faith should influence political philosophy and public policy. Speaking to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in May of 1988, Mrs. Thatcher argued that Christians “must not profess the Christian faith and go to church simply because we want social reforms and benefits for a better standard of behaviour; but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ.”

In explaining how the Christian faith should impact politics, she suggested that the Bible does not tell us “exactly what kind of political and social institutions we should have.” As she explained, “On this point, Christians will very often genuinely disagree; though it is a mark of Christian manners that they will do so with courtesy and mutual respect. What is certain, however, is that any set of social and economic arrangements which is not founded on the acceptance of individual responsibility will do nothing but harm.”

In her address, she affirmed “the basic ties of the family, which are at the heart of our society and are the very nursery of civic virtue.” She insisted that the government must respect the family and build its policies on a foundation of family rights and family responsibilities.

“We must recognize that modern society is infinitely more complex than that of Biblical time, and of course new occasions teach new duties.” She was right, of course, and her mature and thoughtful reflections on Christian responsibility should call out the very best of our own thinking and reflection in these times.

We should pause to reflect on Margaret Thatcher’s legacy of leadership and the lessons that simply must not be missed. Standing at the center of her leadership and her legacy is the belief that the integrity of leadership is inevitably tied to the character of the leader and to the power of the leader’s ideas. This is how she lived, and this is how she led -– and this is why we all stand in her debt.

Europeans Opting Against Marriage

Luke 20:34

OSLO - Bjorn Lindahl and Nina Kjolaas do not feel inclined to declare their love in front of some anonymous official in a municipal building, or in a church. So they have never married - not when they moved in together, not when they bought their first house, not when they had their son, now 16.

"We said that if our child were to be harassed at school, we'd think of doing it," said Mr. Lindahl, 45, who has lived with Ms. Kjolaas for 23 years. "But statistics showed that something like half the kids in Norway had parents who were single or living together."

Not just Norway. In a profound shift that has changed the notion of what constitutes a family in many countries, more and more European children are being born out of wedlock into a new social order in which, it seems, few of the old stigmas apply. The trend is far more pronounced in the Nordic countries, in France and in Britain, and less so in southern countries like Italy and Switzerland, but the figures as a whole are startling, particularly because they tend to hold up across all social classes.

In Norway, for instance, 49 percent of all the births in 1999 were to unwed parents. In Iceland, the figure was 62 percent. In Britain, it was 38 percent, and in France, 41 percent, in 1998, the last year figures were available. Even in Ireland, a deeply Catholic country where divorce became legal a mere seven years ago, about 31 percent of the births in 1999 took place outside of marriage, a figure on par with that in the United States.

Marriage in Europe is by no means obsolete; most Europeans still marry at some point in their lives, and after a precipitous drop in marriage rates throughout the 1990's, some countries have actually experienced incremental increases of late. But with changing attitudes toward religion and toward the role of the individual and the state, the questions of when - and whether - to marry are increasingly seen as deeply personal choices free from the traditional moral judgments of community, family or church.

Even as governments set new policies to cope with the altered arrangements, public figures in a number of countries are serving as examples themselves.

In Britain, where the cabinet is split over whether the government should be in the business of promoting marriage, Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief spokesman, Alastair Campbell, has three children with his companion, Fiona Millar, who happens to be the chief aide to Mr. Blair's wife, Cherie. (Ms. Millar is in Mr. Campbell's "Who's Who" entry, listed as his partner.)

In Norway, Marit Arnstad, an unmarried member of Parliament, became pregnant while she served as the country's oil minister, and is now raising her son on her own. The country's own crown prince, Haakon, lived with his girlfriend, a single mother with a toddler, before marrying her last year.

"The most important thing, it seems to me, is the quality of the relationship between the members of the couple, not whether they are married or not," said Claude Martin, a sociologist who is a professor at the Institute of Political Science in Rennes, France. "Here in France there is very little difference between being married and cohabitating, and very little difference between children born out of wedlock and those that are born within marriage."

The attitude in Europe is substantially different from that in the United States, where the government recently announced that it was actively committed to promoting marriage. The British government has all but abandoned that position, acknowledging in a recent position paper that there were many alternatives to the classic family structure.

At the same time, groups representing single parents - generally far better off economically than their counterparts in the United States - have become a potent political force across Europe.

Welfare policies in many countries are specifically intended to ensure that all children are given the same financial benefits and treated equally in the eyes of the law, whether their parents are married, living together, separated, divorced or single.

"They've taken the marital status out of it and focused on the children," said Kathleen Kiernan, a professor of social policy and demography at the London School of Economics.

Policies enacted in the last two decades by many European governments include legislation ensuring that children born out of wedlock have the same inheritance rights as other children; financial grants to the children of single parents; and the removal, in Britain, of a special tax break for married couples and an increase in cash allowances for families with children.

In Scandinavia, highly complicated living and custodial arrangements between partners, children and former couples, are common.

"We have little commitment to the institution of marriage, that's true, but we do have a commitment to parenthood," said Kari Moxnes, a 57-year-old professor of sociology at the University of Trondheim. "It's not socially acceptable any more in Scandinavia to break the parental relationship."

Most of the cohabiting couples she knows marry for only one reason, she said. "If you have a sabbatical in the United States, you better get married," she said, "because that's the only way your wife or husband is going to go with you for free."

In deeply religious countries like Italy, few children are born to unwed parents - just 9 percent in 1998. But even in Italy, the old rules are breaking down. Most couples live together before marriage, and in a country where children, and fecundity, are adored, it is no longer unusual or embarrassing to see a heavily pregnant bride strolling down the aisle.

The new arrangements have thrown up all sorts of tiny awkwardnesses. "We usually say husband and wife," said Amadeo Conde, a 37-year-old graphic designer in Madrid who has been with his companion, Dawn Broadbridge, for 14 years; their son, Maximilian, is 17 months old. "We don't mind explaining, but it gets rather long to say to the doorman, 'the mother of my child.'"

Ms. Broadbridge, also 37, is an American who has found the relaxed attitudes in Madrid, where most of the couples she knows are unmarried parents, something of an eye-opener. "You would think that in a good Roman Catholic country like Spain, people would get married when they have children," she said. Meanwhile, back home in Sacramento, all her close friends went the traditional route: they married, they had children, and some divorced.

"Most people assumed that we would get married before we had children," Ms. Broadbridge said. "My mom has probably lied to some of her friends - well, not lied, but not told the complete truth."

Eric Larrayadieu, a photographer in France, has not married his girlfriend, Olivia, after more than three years of living together and the birth of Marius, their 6-month-old son.

"Just as it's not possible to make wine without the ground and the grapevines, the two of us are together and we made a very good wine, and it's called Marius," Mr. Larrayadieu said. "Probably the child is the best wedding we could have together."

But the two are now considering marrying, purely for practical reasons - they want to ensure legal and financial protection for the family if one of them dies or falls ill. In France, as in most countries, a surviving live-in partner has no automatic inheritance rights.

Many of the couples decide to split up, of course, and the result has been a significant rise in single parents, most of them mothers.

In the Scandinavian countries, in particular, such women tend to be educated and employed. Buoyed in part by policies that allow them substantial financial grants even when they return to work, single mothers in many European countries are considerably better off than in the United States, where some 45 percent to 50 percent of single mothers live beneath the poverty line.

"As a single mother, you don't have to be ashamed anymore," said Kathrine Lorenz, 35, a child psychologist in Oslo. She is rearing her 3-year-old daughter alone; her former partner, who already had three children by two other women, left her when she became pregnant. (By law, he is obligated to pay 28 percent of his income to the four children.)

Ms. Lorenz was reared by a single mother, too, after her parents divorced when she was 5. Her mother, she said, was ashamed and could not work; Ms. Lorenz was taunted at school. "But our children don't hear this. It's much more normal now."

*

from America Online Health News · Sarah Lyall via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database family values

Mind the Gap: Class and Marriage

In an oft-quoted, albeit apocryphal, exchange between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, Fitzgerald says that “the rich are very different from you and me,” to which Hemingway replies, “Yes, they have more money.”

Well, there is one way in which well-off Americans are increasingly different from other Americans: family structure.

Today, married couples with children are less than one-quarter of all households; that’s down from one-half in 1960. But this decline is not spread evenly among socio-economic classes. As a recent WASHINGTON POST article noted, the decline has been “far less among couples who make the most money and have the best education.”

What’s more, “these couples are also less likely to divorce.” As a result, their children have a tremendous “leg up” in the competition for higher incomes and the status it brings.

In contrast, “the poor aren’t entering into marriage very much at all,” according to Pamela Smock, a sociologist at the University of Michigan. She told the Post that arguments about the economic benefits of marriage “do not seem to change their attitudes.”

So, while the well-off are getting better-off thanks to marriage and family formation, those at the bottom are falling further behind for the opposite reason.

Given the well-documented economic and personal benefits, both to adults and children, of getting and staying married, why aren’t those most in need of those benefits getting married?

Placing the blame, as the POST does, on “the erosion ... of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II” is off target. Economic distress alone cannot explain why the poor are less likely to marry these days. After all, poor people throughout history have gotten married just like everyone else.

One reason has to be cultural. The 1960s assault on traditional authority and values has resulted in what political scientist James Q. Wilson calls the “subversion for the popular support of marriage.”

Unfortunately, as my colleague Anne Morse writes at our BreakPoint website, the WASHINGTON POST article does not explore the influence of “wealthy Hollywood moms who make out-of-wedlock child-bearing look chic and glamorous.” Poor, young women emulate celebrities. Nor does the article “mention the destructive impact of Great Society policies that essentially promised young women regular government checks” so long as they “have a baby out of wedlock and avoid marriage ever after.”

In the end, the POST does not give a satisfactory answer as to why the poor are marrying less often than the wealthy. But the article does set off alarm bells for the future of American society — and for the future of the poor.

As Anne Morse writes on our website, married couples are highly motivated to work hard and pool their savings for the future. Why? Because they believe they’ll HAVE a future together. This is a big part of why married people have more money than those who do not marry.

If the poor truly believe that they cannot afford marriage — or don’t need it — we, the Christian Church, have to find way to help them understand that, for many reasons, including the well-being of their children, they cannot afford NOT to marry. For their future and for ours.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database family valuespoverty

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate