SMBC and Disposable Fathers
article by Cecil Maranville
Family structure is constantly changing. We cannot afford to assume that different is better. Tampering with God's design will bring catastrophic results.
US Airways, a major air carrier, ran a contest this year inviting children to write an essay about their father or their "father figure." Such is the time in which we live. "Father figures" who replace the real McCoy are within the boundaries of "normal" life.
"SMBC" is another reality that would have been considered an oddity not long ago. Do you know what it represents? It stands for four words that define a current trend in Western society—"Single Mother By Choice." This defiant moniker stands in stark contrast to the idea of a Father's Day, a day set aside to honor dads.
Among today's trendsetters are several prominent female entertainers who have chosen to have children without the presence of a father. One of these, actress Camryn Manheim, explained in a recent interview that she plans to provide everything her child needs, including "male stimulus" from family members and friends. She much preferred that arrangement, she said, to having to "seek the approval" of a spouse for such typically shared decisions as naming the children.
Can occasional contact with any male actually replace what a father gives to his son or daughter? Are fathers so disposable?
"How on earth will Ms. Manheim teach her son to be a good father when she has made such a mockery of the concept?" asked columnist Michelle Malkin. "'Go ask your male stimulant' seems a criminally inadequate response." The title of Malkin's stinging editorial was "'Male Stimulant's Day?" (Creators Syndicate, Inc., June 13, 2001). It's worth your time to read it.
Ms. Malkin makes a good point-children learn to parent best through the example of their parents. Take the normal father out of the picture, as has happened much in this generation, and the future generation of males is doomed to struggle with its identity and role. (We have to add "normal," because the character and behavior of some fathers makes them a terrible example and influence on their children.)
Another actress, Calista Flockhart of Ally McBeal fame, adopted a baby recently. She doesn't mind the idea of having a husband, she told The New York Post , but "meanwhile, the baby is all I really want."
Of course, there are many more reasons that fathers are absent from their families than the SMBC ilk; but for the purpose of this article, we'll look at those homes where fathers would be found, if wanted. Whatever the reasons, currently more than one third of children in the United States live apart from their biological fathers. Of those children, 40 percent have not seen their fathers in at least a year.
Aren't the children better off with just a mother, who after all is a better nurturer? Don't be too sure.
A surprising study
A California psychologist has just released a book that shows how effective a father is at nurturing his children on his own. Wayne Farrell's research revealed that both sons and daughters would fare better under the care of a single father than they would under the care of a single mother.
Better? How so?
In Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love , Farrell reported that single fathers make better disciplinarians and exercise self-control more effectively than single mothers. Single mothers more commonly "lose it" and strike their children in uncontrolled anger. Farrell says that single moms are 24 times as likely to kill their children as are single fathers—a gruesome topic and statistic.
Further, children of single dads do better in every academic discipline, with math and science at the top of the list. They miss fewer days of school due to sickness and are also socially healthier than their counterparts who live only with mom.
Does this mean that men are better nurturers than women? It is more likely that the statistics reflect the type of men who seek primary custody of their children. However, the research disproves a too-widely accepted modern myth, that children are "better off without dad" in their lives.
Columnist Maggie Gallagher featured Becky Peck in a recent article on single mothers. Ms. Peck was considered avant-garde for her time by having a baby through anonymous sperm donation in the early '80s. She is the consummate SMBC. In spite of all the love and material provisions Ms. Peck gave her child, a fatherless household wasn't enough. By the mid-teen years, the child wanted—needed—to know its father. Just carrying his DNA wasn't enough.
The debate will probably continue, and statistical cannons will be rolled out to shoot figures back and forth. But it isn't a petty battle over who could do a better job rearing the children, mother or father. SFBC-Single Father By Choice-isn't an improvement over SMBC.
Dr. Farrell's book shows the need for two-parent homes. He ranks family structures according to how they best serve the interest of the children. Out of four rankings, a home with primarily the mother present-including the silly and selfish SMBC-is dead last.
A home with a father as the primary parent is only slightly better.
There's a difference between a home in which a father excludes the mother from her children and the family structure Farrell calls shared parent-time, which he ranks as healthier. In this structure, the primary parent invites and encourages the other parent to be involved with his or her children, in spite of divorce.
And single fathers are more likely to include their children's mother in their lives than single mothers are, according to Farrell.
But the healthiest home, the best environment for rearing children, is what he calls "the intact family," a home in which children live with their father and mother.
All the "modern" reasoning aside, what's best for the children is the way the Creator structured a home from the beginning. Children are the losers when mothers or fathers try to compete with the other by becoming a SPBC-Single Parent By Choice.
Bringing up children not a competitive sport
Rearing children is not a competitive sport, a field of contest in which one parent is proven superior to another.
President George W. Bush appropriately observed: "A child's greatest source of security today is not only knowing, 'my mom loves me' and 'my dad loves me,' but also that Mom and Dad love each other. If we're serious about renewing fatherhood, we must be serious about renewing marriage" ("Fatherlessness a Problem for Kids, Not Mothers," by Maggie Gallagher, June 12, 2001, Universal Press Syndicate).
Does the SMBC crowd stop to consider the wording of the Fifth Commandment, "Honor your father and mother"? The apostle Paul noted further that it was "the first commandment with promise," and quoted, "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth" (Ephesians 6:2-3 [2] Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
[3] That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
See All...).
The Fifth Commandment promises well-being to more than just a child who honors his or her parents. We are so used to thinking in terms of the individual that we may fail to perceive that this special commandment looks beyond the individual to the entire human family. Revealed within this promise is a formula of success for generations to come. The pledge isn't necessarily of long life for every child who heeds and applies the law.
Rather, it guarantees that mankind itself would be preserved.
Addressed to more than children, the law calls on men and women to create and rear families in the context of marriage.
More at stake than most could imagine
God's law says children need their fathers. Women who choose to have a family without a father have their own interests at heart, not their children's. Worse, they sacrifice the best interest of the entire human family—not just that of their offspring.
Malachi was inspired with an appeal from God similar to what was later recorded in Ephesians: "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse" (Malachi 4:4-6 [4] Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
[5] Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
[6] And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
See All..., NIV).
In the present context of those who are SMBC, the wording of this prophecy is strikingly appropriate-"turn...the hearts of the children to their fathers." The intent of the Hebrew, however, is to imply that parents turn their hearts to their children and vice versa. Several translations of the Bible have the word parents. Both the SMBC and the SFBC are selfish.
More must be said about Malachi's prophecy, for the English word curse inaccurately tempers the actual meaning. The Hebrew word from which it's translated conveys a much broader and more serious warning. The word and the root from which it's taken imply utter destruction.
What would be destroyed? Written to the remnant of Israel that still occupied the Promised Land, their homeland is the immediate focus of the warning. However, the prophecy is clearly about an end-time setting, a time in which God concerns Himself with the entire earth, not just a limited territory in the Middle East.
The full impact of the warning is that God would be forced to scrap His plans and hopes for mankind if it abandons the family structure. Some people attempt to spiritualize the prophecy, ascribing the sense that people (children of God) must return to their (heavenly) Father. Clearly, though, the Father doesn't need to be admonished to turn His heart to His children! So, the warning is to physical parents about physical families.
We assume that most readers of World News and Prophec y are dedicated to the biblical ideal. Nonetheless, we realize that we are all influenced by the society in which we live, that fathers are discouraged by the growing whim that families are better off without them and that women are encouraged to choose a family structure that will only hurt all concerned.
The United States took a census in 2000. The previous census showed that 55 percent of the population lived in married couple households. Last year's count showed the figure has dropped to only a little over half, 51 percent. At the same time, single-parent households have jumped to 7.5 million, a 25 percent increase .
How are American children faring in the evolving family structure, as their parents indulge their selfish whims? Today 30 percent of U.S. children do not live with two parents—even stepparents, much less their mother and father.
The United Church of God is dedicated to the spirit of Elijah, seeking to have our fathers' and children's hearts turned toward each other. It's also our desire to bring this urgent, double-edged message of warning and promise to all who have ears to hear. WNP
.
No comments:
Post a Comment