Archive for December, 2009

THE COLLAPSE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY (cont.)

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

Most historians–and social scientists–agree that a stable, two parent American family is the key to a revitalization of American society. Whether it is 1850 Cincinnati described by the historian Mary Ryan, or 1995 Los Angeles, a two parent family brings significant bonuses to American society. Its absence creates all sorts of problems.

In conclusion, these are no longer right wing, conservative Judeo-Christian organizations saying these things. According to a study by the National Commission on Children, the “Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Child Well-Being,” published by the liberal Center for the Study of Social Policy, children growing up in single-parent households are at greater risk than those in two-parent families for substance abuse, adolescent childbearing, criminality, suicide, mental illness and dropping out of school. It is clear too that the economic risks to children are greatest among unwed mothers. And clearly there is no compelling evidence that a decline in government spending alone accounts for the growing risks to children. In fact, let me make myself very clear: all my research points to an unavoidable conclusion: The most important indicator of childhood problems–from poor health to poverty to behavioral problems–is whether a child grows up in a two-parent or single parent household. No other indicator–race, economics, ethnicity, demographics–is as important as whether or not there is a father in the house. In that sense, the loss of fatherhood in our society has had a devastating effect. The single most important, and, in my opinion, trend in American families today is the increased absence of fathers and the feminization of kinship.

The problem is not simply missing fathers, but the cultural shift stripping fatherhood of its masculinity. In the movie Mrs. Doubtfire as an androgynous parent Robin Williams is badly needed by his children; as a father, he is irrelevant. Fathers are becoming an extinct species.

The collapse of the American Family (cont.)

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Clearly single parenthood exacerbates poverty, but would marriage cure it? Yes. Research suggests that over 60% of poor children in mother-only families would be lifted out of poverty if they were in two parent households.

Would money help the problem? “Unless we slow down these social trends–out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs, the breakdown of values–government money is not going to do much,” says Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council. Bauer concludes by saying, “Kids are not in poverty because Washington is not spending more money.” “Programs like AFDC combined with food stamps and housing assistance, although meant for good, have broken up more families than slavery ever did. As a result of these broken families, children are being raised without fathers in the house. This single fact contributes more than anything to the chaotic atmosphere in our inner cities,” writes Rev. John Perkins, a pioneer of African American self-help programs, in Policy Review a publication of the Heritage Foundation.

In spite of billions of federal dollars being poured into social projects since the War on Poverty began in the middle sixties, there are more poor people today than any other time in American history. Even in the idealistic decade of 1960-170, when everyone thought the war on poverty would be won in a generation, in spite of the fact that the government provided unprecedented resources for children, the well-being of children declined.

Young persons who grow up in single parent households are much more likely to commit crime than any other population group. Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent. Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes. Tracking studies indicate that five of six adolescents caught up in the criminal-justice system came from families in which a parent (usually the father) has been absent. In fact, in 1988 a government survey of 17,000 children found, according to one analyst, that “children living apart from a biological parent are 20 to 40% more vulnerable to sickness. As illegitimately increases, so does criminal activity. And most social scientists insist that there is a clear connection. In 1972, when about 10% of children were illegitimate, the federal and state prison population in the United States was 94.6 per 100,000 people. In 1982, the rate was 170 per 100,000. By 1992, when over 30% of American children were illegitimate, the prison rate had grown to 330 for every 100,000.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY

Monday, December 14th, 2009

The social welfare system is a runaway juggernaut. We have spent over $5 trillion since 1965 and we are worse off. If all this money had given us happy, healthy families, it would have been worth it. But the opposite is true. It has consigned untold millions of children to lives of bitterness and failure.

In 1960 five of every 100 American births were illegitimate. By 1991 that figure was thirty of every 100, and the upward trend shows no sign of slowing. Government welfare programs dealing with the problem have also increased. But the cost of illegitimacy is not measured only in dollars, as New York’s Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once observed: “A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder–most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure–that is not only to be expected, it is very near to inevitable.”

By 1994 the figure of illegitimate births grew to 40% and, an even more alarming figure, 27% of pregnancies are aborted. “Now, I don’t care what your position is, whether you’re pro-choice or anti- that’s too many,” President Clinton told the National Baptist Convention U.S.A. Having a baby out of wedlock is “simply not right,” he said. “You shouldn’t have a baby before you’re ready, and you shouldn’t have a baby when you’re not married.”

“Children who do not live with a mother and a father are more likely to be high school dropouts, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol and more likely to be dependent on welfare than children who live with both biological parents,” Human Services Chief Louis Sullivan said in October, 1994. Psychologists point out that fathers are not simply substitute mothers. Fathers tend to be stronger disciplinarians than mothers and that’s particularly true for boys. Boys are much less likely to develop good self-control when fathers are not present. But, as Senator Daniel Patrick Moniyhan pointed out in 1965, a man, already suffering from his failure as a provider, is further demeaned by becoming dependent on the woman who gets the welfare check. As a result, many African American men have turned to violence to gain self-esteem. Roughly 40 percent of young black men ages 17 to 35 are in prison, on probation or on the dole. I blame human depravity and the social welfare system for this deplorable situation.

Of course the real victims are children. Single households statistically are usually poorer than two parent households.In 1993, 46.1% of the 8.8 million female-headed families with children lived in poverty, compared with only 9.0% of the 26.1 million married couple families with children. Of 1.6 million families headed by unmarried men only 22.5% lived in poverty. Out of 69.3 million children younger than 18 15.7 million–one in four–are poor. Most of these poor children are illegitimate and illegitimacy is approaching an 80% rate in some inner-cities. And it is not simply an innercity phenomenon. 23% of American children live in families below the poverty line and 31% of these in Suburbia.

A BOOK REVIEW – Part 2

Friday, December 11th, 2009

Blankenhorn’s insightful analysis of the state of American fathers is disarmingly simple: the Unnecessary Father (Ch. 4), the Old Father (Ch. 5), the New Father (Ch. 6), the Deadbeat Dad (Ch. 7), the Visiting Father (Ch. 8), the Sperm Father (Ch. 9), the Stepfather and the Nearby Guy (10), and, our hero, the Good Family Man (Ch. 11). One of the reasons this book is destined to influence social welfare policy as well as social mores is that its structure is so inescapably simple and right. The Unnecessary Father (typical notion that dads are not necessary), the Old Father (the macho, mean, domineering father), and the New Father (the sensitive, liberated, androgyny dad) are the most common garden variety dads we will meet in our society today. The other five roles are minor but insightful. The Deadbeat Dad is the bad guy, the guy who does not pay child support. The Visiting Father is a victim, a pathetic example of what fathering has become, proof positive that fathers are not important after all. I really like Blankenhorn’s Sperm Father. The Sperm Father is a minimalist. “His fatherhood consists entirely of the biological act of ejaculation.” (p. 171). The Stepfather and the Nearby Guy are surrogate dads, magnanimously assuming the role of father of father for Deadbeat dads/jerks who have abandoning their kids. Again, though, the Nearby Guy/Stepfather is a rather innocuous version of what fathers should be. Blankenhorn uses the example of the Disney movie The Incredible Journey (1993) where a poor example of a father slowly earns the right to be a dad by sheepishly giving into his stepchildren’s wants.

But, by far, the strength of Blankenhorn’s book is Part III entitled “Fatherhood.” We meet finally The Good Family Man: the quintessential hope of all America. I mean it: this is the answer. This paradigm of Judeo-Christian virtue, the Promise Keeper par excellent, the “father without portfolio.” (p.201).

It would never occur to him–or to his children or to his wife–to make distinctions between “biological” and “social” fathering. For him, these two identities are tightly fused. Nor would it ever occur to him to suspect that the “male income” is more important for children than the “male image.” For him the two fit together. Consequently, he seldom ponders issues such as child support, visitation, paternity identification, fathers’ rights, better divorce, joint custody, dating, or blended families. His priorities lie elsewhere . . . (p. 201)

Blankenhorn’s image is powerful and so very true. We all thank him for pointing out to us fathers what we may have forgotten: that there is nothing wrong with putting our family first, with being a good and steady provider, and setting a good example by high moral character (p. 205). Yes, we all have much for which to thank David G. Blankenhorn.

The pastoral application of this book seems obvious. Finally the pastor has a well respected scholarly book on fathering, devoid of antiquated archetypes, for which he/she can point as a resource clearly offering an efficacious model of fathering for his parishioners. The cultural impact is equally obvious: Chapter 12’s twelve proposals of social imperatives will no doubt keep us all thinking for many years to come. Bravo! This book is destined to becoming one of the most important cultural offerings in this decade.

Dr. Blankenhorn is a senior fellow at a think tank in Washington, D.C.

A BOOK REVIEW

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

David Blankenhorn, Jr., Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 328 pages.

David Blankenhorn, in his revolutionary work of cultural criticism, asks an anti-modern, almost heretical question: “So the question is not, What do men want? but rather, What do men do?” Blankenhorn goes where very few social historians dare to go before: he argues that men should be, very simply, good fathers–no matter how hard it is, or how foolish it may seem. “In a larger sense, the fatherhood story is the irreplaceable basis of a culture’s most urgent imperative: the socialization of males.” (p. 65). American children need fathers, American society needs fathers.

Blankenhorn begins his discussion arguing that having a father is very good for children. In the scheme of things, ironically, the notion that children have intrinsic rights and value is a relatively late developing phenomenon among social welfare discussions. In fact, not until America developed a social welfare profession corps in the middle 1920s were children’s rights seriously considered on any level. Now, Blankenhorn argues, that children are more important than any other priority. So why are children so often sacrificed for individual rights? Because of individualism. Blankenhorn attacks this insidious individualism rampant in American society. No one disagrees that fathers are absent from many American families–80% of urban American families have no fathers–but what concerns Blankenhorn even more is the fact that we no longer think that fathers are important (p. 67). Blankenhorn says that we no longer have a distinctive “cultural script” for fatherhood. In American social welfare policy (mothers receive money–not fathers), in the popular media (e.g., Mrs. Doubtfire), and even in family therapy theory (e.g., only a mom is necessary for a healthy family system) fathers are seen as superfluous.

Lost Americans

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

It seems at times that Americans are lost. I am a pastor, and in spite of our hedonistic bravado, I generally find some of my congregation members—who generally are nott living a life centered on Jesus Christ—are in fact desperately unhappy. No wonder. This world does not provide what we need. I once thought it did. I can remember being seduced by the august institution, Harvard University. In 1976, I really believed my university chaplain who told the incoming Harvard class, “You are the next history makers of America.” I wanted to believe it. I needed to believe it. My acquaintance and colleague from Harvard Divinity School, Dr. Forrest Church, now pastor in a Unitarian Church in New York City, was fond of saying, “In our faith God is not a given; God is a question . . . God is defined by us. Our views are shaped and changed by our experiences. We create a faith in which we can live and struggle to live up to it . . . compared to love, a distant God had no allure.” Indeed. This thinking has gotten us into quite a mess.

What kind of mess? While I attended seminary, I remember hurrying to the opening ceremony of the academic year held every September at Harvard Memorial Chapel in the Yard. Spying an impressive group of Harvard Professors, decked out in all their academic robes, capes, and histrionic sententiousness, I decided to follow them to Memorial Chapel, a landmark in Harvard Yard. Although I knew one way to go there, they were not going my way, so, I trusted these sagacious gentlemen to show me a better way. Well, we got lost! And I was late! In spite of their august credentials, they did not know the way after all.

One of the most disturbing essays I have ever read is an essay by Thomas Merton entitled “A Devout Meditation in Memory of Adolf Eichmann.” “One of the most disturbing facts,” Merton begins, “that came out in the Eichmann trial was that a psychiatrist examined him and pronounced him perfectly sane.” The fact is, given our world, we can no longer assume that because a person is “sane” or “adjusted” that he/she is ok. Merton reminds us that such people can be well adjusted even in hell itself! “The whole concept of sanity in a society where spiritual values have lost their meaning is itself meaningless.”

The central symbol for every twenty-first century Christian must be the cross. At least from the second century onwards, Christians used the cross as their central symbol. I yearn, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did at the end of his life, for the crucified Lord to return again—as the rediscovered center”to the center of the Church and American society. America does not need a new religion; it needs Jesus Christ—crucified and resurrected.< With John Stott, in The Cross of Christ, my prayer is that this new generation, haunted by so many bad memories, so bewitched by technology and social science theories, would again come to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. And, at the same time, I want us to reclaim the joy of this adventure—so persuasively presented by John Piper in Desiring God. Steering right into the storm, armed with God’s divine presence and teachings, can affect the end results of this spiritual storm we Americans are experiencing.

Evoking the Spirit of Isaiah

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

The task ahead of us is to live and evoke the spirit of Isaiah in our community. As the theologian Walter Brueggemann, and others like him, argue, our task is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a conscious­ness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us. And increasingly that culture is become inimical to the Gospel. Either way, a community rooted in the Lordship of Jesus Christ is a curiosity and a threat in such a culture. No wonder Isaiah’s argument that one should rely on a faithful, historical God was such a threatening message to His generation. And to ours. Our world does not understand, much less believe in our history. God is not to be trusted because He cannot be quantified. He is not to be controlled. This God makes self-proclaimed kings of the earth uncomfortable. And this God of ours, therefore, has been making kings like Herod, Ahab, and Nero uncomfortable for ages. I remember a simple, powerful Gospel Song that all of us in our 1966 Southern church sang. This was the song of the redeemed. But we scarcely knew it. “Jesus loves the little children. . . red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight.” Since I was still too young to doubt the veracity of my parents and teachers, I actually believed that song. And, when I started living that song it changed my world. And when enough people live that message we will change our world. Our cause will become holy, our witness worthy of the Gospel. There will be opposition. But our song brings hope, life, and salvation. So it is worth it. Be bold and courageous, young people, and sing a new song. Do your best on the SAT to bring glory to Him. And become a light to this new generation!

Lost & Unhappy

Monday, December 7th, 2009

It seems at times that Americans are lost. I am a pastor, and in spite of our hedonistic bravado, I generally find some of my congregation members—who generally are not living a life centered on Jesus Christ—are in fact desperately unhappy. No wonder. This world does not provide what we need. I once thought it did. I can remember being seduced by the august institution, Harvard University. In 1976, I really believed my university chaplain who told the incoming Harvard class, “You are the next history makers of America.” I wanted to believe it. I needed to believe it. My acquaintance and colleague from Harvard Divinity School, Dr. Forrest Church, now pastor in a Unitarian Church in New York City, was fond of saying, “In our faith God is not a given; God is a question . . . God is defined by us. Our views are shaped and changed by our experiences. We create a faith in which we can live and struggle to live up to it . . . compared to love, a distant God had no allure.” Indeed. This thinking has gotten us into quite a mess.

What kind of mess? While I attended seminary, I remember hurrying to the opening ceremony of the academic year held every September at Harvard Memorial Chapel in the Yard. Spying an impressive group of Harvard Professors, decked out in all their academic robes, capes, and histrionic sententiousness, I decided to follow them to Memorial Chapel, a landmark in Harvard Yard. Although I knew one way to go there, they were not going my way, so, I trusted these sagacious gentlemen to show me a better way. Well, we got lost! And I was late! In spite of their august credentials, they did not know the way after all.

One of the most disturbing essays I have ever read is an essay by Thomas Merton entitled “A Devout Meditation in Memory of Adolf Eichmann.” “One of the most disturbing facts,” Merton begins, “that came out in the Eichmann trial was that a psychiatrist examined him and pronounced him perfectly sane.” The fact is, given our world, we can no longer assume that because a person is “sane” or “adjusted” that he/she is ok. Merton reminds us that such people can be well adjusted even in hell itself! “The whole concept of sanity in a society where spiritual values have lost their meaning is itself meaningless.”

The central symbol for every twenty-first century Christian must be the cross. At least from the second century onwards, Christians used the cross as their central symbol. I yearn, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did at the end of his life, for the crucified Lord to return again—as the rediscovered center”to the center of the Church and American society. America does not need a new religion; it needs Jesus Christ—crucified and resurrected.

With John Stott, in The Cross of Christ, my prayer is that this new generation, haunted by so many bad memories, so bewitched by technology and social science theories, would again come to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. And, at the same time, I want us to reclaim the joy of this adventure—so persuasively presented by John Piper in Desiring God. Steering right into the storm, armed with God’s divine presence and teachings, can affect the end results of this spiritual storm we Americans are experiencing.

NEW CONSERVATISM

Friday, December 4th, 2009

By this time, a thriving counterculture permeated American society in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones and other British groups took the country by storm. “Hard rock” grew popular, and songs with a political or social commentary, such as those by singer-songwriter Bob Dylan, became common. The youth counterculture reached its apex in August 1969 at Woodstock, a three-day music festival in rural New York State attended by almost half-a-million persons. The festival, mythologized in films and record albums, gave its name to the era — The Woodstock Generation (Outline of American History).

A conservative reaction to the radicalism of the 1960s and 1970s was inevitable (thank God!). This conservative upsurge had many sources. A large group of evangelical Christians–some of whom were called The Moral Majority–weree particularly concerned about an increase in immoral behavior. Some of you may remember the laudable, in my opinion, effect of men of God like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on the Republican Party.

Another galvanizing issue for conservatives was one of the most divisive and morally reprehensible issues of the time: abortion. Opposition to the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, which upheld a woman’s right to an abortion, brought together a wide array of organizations and individuals. They included, but were not limited to, large numbers of Catholics, political conservatives and religious fundamentalists, most of whom regarded abortion under virtually any circumstances as tantamount to murder. They were prepared to organize in support of politicians who agreed with their position — and against those who disagreed with it. Pro-choice and antiabortion demonstrations became a fixture of the political landscape (An Outline of American History).

The figure who drew all these disparate strands together was Ronald Reagan. Reagan, born in Illinois, achieved stardom as an actor in Hollywood movies and television before turning to politics. He first achieved political prominence with a nationwide televised speech in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater. In 1966 Reagan won the governorship of California, owing to a wave of voter reaction against the student rebellion at the University of California-Berkeley, and served until 1975. He narrowly missed winning the Republican nomination for president in 1976 before succeeding in 1980 and going on to win the presidency from Jimmy Carter. Reagan won overwhelming reelection in 1984 against Carter’s vice president, Walter Mondale (An Outline of American History).

As one historian explains, President Reagan’s unflagging optimism and his ability to celebrate the achievements and aspirations of the American people persisted throughout his two terms in office. He was a figure of reassurance and stability for many Americans. Despite his propensity for misstatements, Reagan was known as the “Great Communicator,” primarily for his mastery of television. For many, he recalled the prosperity and relative social tranquility of the 1950s — an era dominated by another genial public personality who evoked widespread affection, President Dwight Eisenhower.

President Reagan enjoyed unusually high popularity at the end of his second term in office, but under the terms of the U.S. Constitution he could not run again in 1988. He certainly wanted to do so! His vice president during all eight years of his presidency, George Bush was elected the 41st president of the United States.

Bush campaigned by promising voters a continuation of the prosperity Reagan had brought; he also argued that his expertise could better support a strong defense for the United States than that of the Democratic Party’s candidate, Michael Dukakis. Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts, claimed that less fortunate Americans were hurting economically and that the government had to help those people while simultaneously bringing the federal debt and defense spending under control. The public was much more engaged, however, by Bush’s economic message: a promise of no new taxes. In the balloting, Bush finished with a 54-to-46-percent popular vote margin.

Because of an ailing economy, Bill Clinton was elected president in 1990. While America experienced, significant prosperity in his two term tenure, we also experienced unprecedented political and moral abuse of the office. It was, as former Education Secretary William Bennett wrote, a time of the “Death of Outrage.” The Godly president George Bush, however, in this author’s opinion, providentially was elected in 2000. And we know the rest of the story. . .

1970’s – WATERGATE

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

The next twist in history has shocked a generation of Americans.

As one historian explains, President Nixon took office after eight years of Democratic rule. Facing Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress during his first term, Nixon wanted to win an overwhelming re-election victory in 1972 that would bring Republican congressional majorities and end the legislative stalemate. The Committee to Re-elect the President launched a massive fund-raising campaign to collect money before contributions had to be reported under a new law.

Early in 1972, Nixon’s team proposed to tap the telephones of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate apartment complex in Washington, D.C. The attempt failed. When the burglars, carrying money and documents that could ultimately be traced to The White House, were arrested, the administration decided to cover up its involvement. Six days after the discovery of the break-in, Nixon told the Central Intelligence Agency to order the Federal Bureau of Investigation to cease its investigation on the grounds that national security was at stake. In fact, the break-in was just one aspect of a campaign to locate and destroy people whom the administration considered its “enemies.” These activities involved illegal wiretapping, break-ins and fundraising. Although Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected that year, the press, particularly the Washington Post, continued to investigate. As the scandal unfolded, the Democratic majority in the Congress instituted impeachment proceedings against Nixon. As the evidence of his involvement began to mount, he resigned on August 9, 1974 (Verbatim from Outline of American History).

Gerald Ford, an unpretentious man who had spent most of his public life in public service, notably Congress, became Nixon’s vice president following the resignation of the previous vice president, Spiro T. Agnew, after it was revealed that Vice President Agnew had accepted bribes both before and during his term as vice president. Scarcely twenty months later, upon Nixon’s resignation, Ford became president. His first priority was to restore trust in the government, which had been shaken by impeachment proceedings and run away inflation. He did a credible job.

Annapolis graduate Jimmy Carter, former Democratic governor of Georgia, won the presidency in 1976. While Carter no doubt manifested shortcomings as a politician, his commitment to moral leadership was refreshing and much needed in American society.

Poor Jimmy Carter, who history shall surely judge with more approbation than his peers, hoped to reestablish Democratic leadership, but his efforts failed to gain either public or congressional support. By the end of his term, his disapproval rating reached 77 percent, and Americans began to look toward the Republican Party again.