-------------------
Responsibilities Towards Children(1)
Rev Kenneth Koole
--------------------
That the family structure in twentieth century America is in a state of crisis is denied by no one. It is not only the moral majority and the conservative political activists that sound the warning but the major newsweeklies have addressed the issue as well. They acknowledge that the family structure has changed dramatically over the past half century, and they are forced to concede that, however "enlightened" those who applaud the changes may claim to be, the results are troubling. With chagrin they admit some re-evaluation may be necessary.In particular, the most troubling statistics have to do with the youth, the troubled youth. The studies of their behavior, values, interests, knowledge (or educational ignorance, if you prefer), and goals in life have yielded statistics that can only be classified as alarming.
Statistics show that the number of crimes committed by juveniles (pre-teens even) has simply been skyrocketing. John W. Whitehead, in his book, The Stealing of America, gives some interesting statistics. According to his information, from 1950 to 1980 the rate of adult crime increased 300 percent. In that same time span serious crime (which excludes then such "minor" infractions as burglary, shoplifting, and auto theft) committed by children (under 15) increased by 11,000 (eleven thousand!) percent. The more "minor" crimes increased by 8,300 percent. And though all the figures are not in yet, the decade of the 80s indicates no slowing of the trend. In New York the epidemic is so alarming that children from the ages of 13-15 can be tried in adult courts and be assessed with similar penalties.
What has also pricked the national conscience is the alarming increase in teenage suicide, the act of ultimate despair and isolation. By the young it is usually the emphatic statement, "No one cares for me. I do not mean that much to anybody. I can not make you love me. I have concluded that by living I will never be important in your eyes. Therefore, I have killed myself. At least I will make you feel guilty for your lack of love. You have driven me to this." And following the despairing shout of suicide there is, indeed, a huge body of guilt left behind that the targets of the suicide must deal with. But that is another matter.
The point is, suicide speaks of estrangement and deep hurt. Now, what must society conclude when its youth, upon whom it is lavishing such staggering amounts of material "blessings" and goods, continue to choose in increasing numbers not to live? Or they drug themselves into mental oblivion. Is the "grace" of "goods" really the answer, ever? Is it what the souls of the young are really looking for and need? Is this what their behavior tells society?
The answer, like the blood of Abel, cries from the ground. It shouts in society's face. The multitude of things is not the answer. It is not what they need and crave. But who listens? Are we listening?
It is important in my judgment to consider what the factors are that have led twentieth century society and the modern family to the crisis, not to say "mess," it now is in.
I say it is important for US as believing parents to consider the various factors that have led to this volatile mixture of anger, isolation, rebellion, and despair that so characterize society's youth, because if we think we and our youth are immune to the factors which have brought the evil of our day about, we are sadly mistaken. The ease with which we can adopt society's life-style and values is simply too apparent to deny; but if we continue to do so, without consciously and vigorously resisting it, what we and our children will reap (right along with the rest of society) is going to be frightening, namely, estrangement from the ways of godliness and from God in our generations, and that without remedy.
First of all, what is the answer? What does a person need through the formative years of his childhood and youth? What must we give our own children if we will see them develop properly? The answer, I believe, can be stated in one word - love and attention.
Now, admittedly, we used two words here and not just one, but we do that on purpose. This is the whole point; love without attention (personal attention) is not love. "Attention" belongs to the very definition of love. Without it, "love" is but an empty word, a sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal. Adding the words "personal attention" to the word "love" should be redundant, unnecessary, understood. But, sad to say, that is precisely what is not understood today.
Here we put our finger on the single most contributing factor to the breakdown of the twentieth century family (and with it the whole of society): the absence of "love," that is, the absence of what love is according to any true definition of it.
Society uses the word "love." The word is used ad nauseam. But for all that, they do not know what "love" really means (perhaps I should say "demands"). They will not count the cost or make the sacrifices "love" requires.
In fact, they have been perverting the truth of love so completely that what they mean by love is really nothing else than sheer self-centered self-love. Our society has taken this mentality to new heights (perhaps I should say new depths). When the only thing that stands between an unborn child and extermination is whether it is convenient for the parents to have "it" at the moment, you are dealing with a selfishness that resembles sheer deviltry.
Spare the life of the rapist and murderer. This is love of the neighbor. Snuff out the life of the child developing in the womb. This is love of the neighbor too. Does such a society have a clue as to what love is? It is towards those who promote such monstrous things as good that I believe the imprecatory Psalms are aimed. And this selfish, loveless (except for self) spirit is devouring the 20th century home, and with it the whole of the fabric of life.
How this comes to expression, and what the modern philosophy behind it is, we will consider in future articles, D.V. But first let us consider the scriptural perspective.
Scripture makes very plain that the strength of the home is to be the covenant of love, love that translates into attention for one's family and children.
At the heading of this rubric is a phrase. The phrase is "When thou sittest in Thine house...." That is, of course, a Scriptural phrase. It is lifted from Deuteronomy 6. Moses is calling the heads of the families of Israel to instruct their children in the law, and the wonders, and the worship of Jehovah God. Thou art to do this "when thou sittest in thine house ...... Mothers and fathers of Israel, think of that a moment. 'When thou sittest in thine house...."
Here is one of the great questions of the day. Dost thou sit in thine house? When? When, fathers? How often? And how long?
And if thou dost, WHAT dost thou do when thou sittest in thine house? How is the time commonly spent? Doing what? Perhaps watching television for hours on end? And the children too?
Can that possibly be what Moses had in mind?
That is obedience to the text?
That describes a covenant home, the homes of the church?
I fear that in our day and age it does to an increasing measure. But is that strength and love, or is it weakness and transgression? Surely our consciences tell us what God's judgment of the matter will be.
What you have in Deuteronomy 6 is the truth of the covenant applied to family relationships, and, in particular, the relationship between fathers (parents) and children.
The family relationship is to be a reflection of the relationship between God as Father and His children, the church, that is to say, a covenant relationship.
What stands at the heart of God's covenant? Well, essentially two things, fellowship and promise. This is apparent from the Scriptural record. When God made His covenant with Abraham He did not just reveal a doctrine about something, but He drew Abraham into His fellowship, and He counted Abraham as His friend. And He assured Abraham of that in countless ways. In His friendship with Abraham God spoke to Abraham, revealing what was in His own divine heart, and Abraham responded with prayer and petitions. They had conversation.
And we well know the promises God made, promises concerning the inheritance of the land, promises concerning the birth of the seed, promises that pertained to his generations. God promised faithfulness. And part of His faithfulness was certainly that He dwelt with His children, the seed of Abraham. When His children needed Him, He was there. He was always just a "cry" away.
The same was true with Israel, God's peculiar people. According to His covenant, God had fellowship with them in the tabernacle, and made promises concerning the Kingdom. In this, God was faithful.
And this is to be reflected on the earthly level in the family. What is at the heart of the Reformed family! What else but God's covenant? How is this to come to expression in our homes? How else but in friendship (or fellowship) and promises (in marriage, and at baptism)? And what is it that betrays and works contrary to that covenantal life? What else but ignoring the covenantal members in their needs and being unfaithful to one's vows? In such an environment of rejection there can only be estrangement; and the fruit of estrangement is bitterness and going one's own way in resentment.
This has become the environment of the twentieth century home. It is the antithesis of the covenant of love. This is demonstrated by what has happened to the promise (vow) of marriage. How meaningless it has become is evidenced by the skyrocketing divorce rate (the naked enmity of which certainly wounds children deeply).
And if the heart of love is the covenant of fellowship in the home, we see just the opposite today.
What do we see? Homes filled with parents who have no time for their children. Home is not a place where the young get sufficient or proper attention. In home after home they do not grow up feeling wanted or valued by their parents. Their parents do not speak with them. They yell at them perhaps, but there is no interest in the child's daily activities. The child feels that he is little more than an inconvenience.
This is devastating. If my father and mother (especially mother) care little or nothing for me and my character and have no time for me, who in this world does? Can I be sure of anybody? (This is part of the shock of learning that one has been adopted. I was unwanted even by my own mother!) A child that grows up feeling "isolated" and "rejected" (ignored) grows up a bitter, resentful child, and that bitter resentment will show itself in the end, as it has today, in explosive fashion.
Such a small matter: begetters of children having not time for them, paying little attention to them. Such tremendous consequences: a lawless generation.
I am not suggesting that this is the reason for the waywardness of every child who is a grief of heart; but when rebellion is not the exception, but a widespread and even a skyrocketing phenomenon, as it is today, conclusions can be drawn. And from those conclusions, warnings - warnings we must take to heart, lest the judgments which God brought upon Israel in their generations, and which we see visited upon our own society today, visit our homes as well. What some of these things is that are tearing at the fabric of the home life, we will consider in our next article, D.V. June 1,1990/ The Standard Bearer/ --------------------------------------
(2)
In our last article we referred to evidences of forces of evil which were tearing at the fabric of the family in 20th century society, evidences which have alarmed even unbelieving society itself. These things, as we have seen, have shown themselves especially amongst the youth, the troubled,oft-times violent youth - things such as exploding criminal behavior among the young, their use of mind-twisting drugs, and an escalating number of incidents of teenage suicide, the ultimate cry of despair. The youth give more and more evidence of feeling estranged from their parents and alone in society, unwanted and unloved.
Never has any generation of youth had so many material things handed them. Never has a generation been so unhappy and filled with resentment. The antagonism between parents and children is extreme. "You do not love me" is their theme.
The question is, what are the things that have led to the growing estrangement in the home and fueled the spirit of rebellious youth?
What has led to the "mess" in which the vast majority of families in our enlightened, educated age find themselves? What are the factors?
The central thing, I have suggested, is ignoring the demands of love. This, quite simply, has very little to do with lavishing all kinds of gifts upon them (in order to salve the conscience for neglecting them so much), but it has much to do with personal attention, spending time with them. This covenantal responsibility with its demands has been forgotten and dismissed. Certain things have intruded into the family and become a wedge between parents and children, breaking the fellowship and life of the home. The result has been that children are left to drift, and the direction into which they have drifted is that of bitterness, which is the root evil.
What are some of the factors that have contributed to the breakdown of the child-parent relationship in contemporary society?
Four things come most immediately to mind, four things that have become dominant characteristics of the contemporary scene, and have served as the seeds that have sown the wind that now is bringing the harvest of the whirlwind. These things are (without reference to order of importance), first, marital strife in the home leading to so many divorces and divisions, the greatest victims of which are children; second, lack of proper discipline (in fact a settled refusal to exercise, and opposition toward, this necessary child-rearing device); third, mothers working long hours out of the home, leaving the children to their own devices; and last, but not least, the intrusion of television into our homes.
Having dealt with divorce to some extent in the previous article.
we will address the matter of discipline.
Discipline is probably the most controversial of the four things mentioned. It may not be readily apparent how this enters in at all. In fact it may seem just the opposite of what is needed. If what is needed is the attention of love, and the reassurance to the child that his parents love him, then discipline, with its harsh indication of disapproval, would seem to be the last thing the child needs. He needs evidence of approval, not the physical pain of disapproval. This, it is said, works resentment, not the security of love. What our children need is less physical punishment, not more. This is the common mentality and is worth considering exactly because it is so prevalent and deeply rooted.
The opposition to physical discipline takes us back to the roots of the philosophy of modern-day education. Those roots find themselves in the father of the philosophy behind modern-day education, John Dewey. This is a name worth remembering. This is a man who was powerfully infected by the spirit of Antichrist. He was antichristian by public creed. He was the one, more than any, who convinced educators and government that the Christian religion with its insistence on God's laws being the perpetual standard of right and wrong was the great hindrance to human development and progress. There is a utopia to be obtained. Man holds within his grasp (through scientific knowledge) the wherewithal to control his own ascent to worldwide unity and prosperity. But mankind will be able to do so only at the expense of the biblical, Christian religion, that is, by its dismissal. Creedal Christianity is the hindrance to moral and intellectual progress.
And what was to be the means of this extinguishing of the Christian religion with its standards? State directed public school education. As one of Dewey's disciples, John J. Dunphy, wrote, "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity... These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers.... The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" will finally be achieved" (The Humanist, 1983). Notice what the agenda is - removing from society the standards of Christianity, which is described as a "rotting corpse." Therefore, society is to bury it. And education of its children in govemment-directed schools is to be one such tool, in fact the major one.
For Dewey's philosophy to prevail, the biblical perspective of the child must be dismissed, and certainly the whole perception of what is good and what is evil must be radically altered as well. It must not reflect the biblical standard. Dewey claimed that the impressing of the absolutes of biblical ethics and morality upon children is suppressive. It suppresses the natural and spontaneous "genius" that is found in almost every child. We must encourage the child to express himself in spontaneous ways without all kinds of restrictions. And it is especially the teacher who must seek to channel the child's creative urges into functions the teacher deems appropriate and beneficial to greater humanity.
Notice what power the teacher appropriates to himself. The parent is out of the picture. The child belongs to mankind and society, not to any one set of parents. The teachers are the experts and professionals. They are set up as the child's gods. The parents are basically breeding pairs and providers of basic bodily necessities, little more. Fathers and mothers are not to impress their values on their children. Our values are most likely outdated, filled with prejudice, and restrictive. Turn the children over to society, that is, the allwise teacher. Teachers will evaluate and determine what and how this particular child can contribute to the advancement of mankind. Parents simply follow the lead of these teachers.
And, secondly, what is promoted is the spirit of "permissiveness". What was once considered wrong is no longer wrong, and therefore must not be punished. The very idea of punishment, the inflicting of sensible physical pain, is to be denounced as uncivilized and counterproductive in the extreme. It suppresses the true character and natural insights children have. It is the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality, they say, that has caused children to become afraid to express themselves in a natural and useful way. And, as a result, the true gifts and insights of the child never come to proper expression. And so the inalienable rights of children to be themselves have been violated. They have been ruined by parental-discipline.
This is the mentality that has won the day. This is the permissive "wisdom" that has bred the appalling promiscuity and defiance of the "do it if you like it" generation. Youth are accustomed to having things done their way. No evil do they fear to do. They suffer no consequences.
At first glance it might seem strange that parents would adopt Dewey's philosophy of child rearing since it shoves them out of the picture and dismisses their control over their children.
Upon reflection, however, its appeal becomes clear. This philosophy plays right into the hands of parental sloth. Man is by nature irresponsible. Raising children is a demanding and time-consuming occupation. Especially this is true of discipline conscientiously administered. Man is selfish. What could be easier? Have a few children and make them the burden (problem) of someone else, the state, teachers, what have you. Meantime, parents can go out and pursue the things that have more appeal and are more profitable, as the world counts profit.
And besides that, this perspective gives parents someone else to blame for the failures of and problems caused by their children. It is the teachers' fault. They are to blame. They have not channeled the energies and abilities of their children into productive ways. They have not given the child a sense of worth. Blame the schools. And, of course, the government's schools are not without fault in these matters. But the point is, parents are able to absolve themselves of almost all guilt, and, hence, refuse to consider changing their ways. They are the products of their own absurd, ungodly education. Educators may decry the lack of parental and home involvement, but if they check their philosophy of education they will find they are the victims of their own absurd educational principles. There is for them no way out.
If you add the horrifying stories of child-abuse to this philosophy (many of which are all too true faces bruised, bones broken) you have the makings of a persuasive argument bolstering the contention that parents are not to be trusted to discipline their own children.
We maintain however, not only that physical discipline is necessary for proper child rearing, but also that, when wisely and persistently applied, it is the expression of love. This is Scripture. "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?" (Heb. 12:6, 7). It is God's pattern of love. As we need it and profit from it, so do our children. Children do not need it regardless of their behavior, but they need it when they have done what is wrong. And Scripture determines for us and them what is wrong.
Discipline shows the child that what he does is important to us. Nothing is more disheartening to a child than the impression that nothing he does means much to his parents at all. The statement, "Nehh. My old man and old lady don't care what I do," reveals a spirit that has withered through lack of attention. His parents are indifferent. They could not care less. The fact that there is little that this one does that could displease his parents reveals that there is little he could do that would please them either. This is killing. Dewey calls this refusal to discipline expressing love to the neighbor. According to Scripture it is the way of death.
Have you hugged your child of late? If he has done wrong have you spanked him? Both are necessary if you will teach your child that you care very much for him and what he does. He wants your approval and attention. Outrageous behavior is often the cry for such parental attention. The undisciplined child knows his parents do not have the time or desire to give him much attention at all. Scripture asks, what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? We may also ask, what father is he who chasteneth not his son? One not worthy of the name. For such fathers children have no respect or love.
/ The Standard Bearer/ December 15, 1990
--------------------------------
(3)
We have been considering the factors that have contributed most heavily to the breakdown of the home and family in 20th century society, and in particular those things which have affected children and young people most adversely.
That the youth have been the primary "victims" of the crumbling home-structure is indisputable. Even worldly society speaks of the youth in terms of alienation and rebellion. Those who have to deal with today's youth on a regular basis, the school teachers (whether in public or private schools), see the adverse effects most clearly. They see firsthand the bitterness, the insecurity, the resentment building up in the youth, all of which displays itself in various disturbing ways, such as challenging those in authority, or in increasing abandonment of self to immorality and drugs, or again, in growing numbers, to suicide itself, the ultimate statement of bitter despair.
In many instances they (the teachers) themselves become the recipients of this pent-up anger and resentment as it comes to expression in the classroom. Witness the number of news reports of bodily assaults upon those who teach.
Frustration characterizes every group dealing with the increasingly dissatisfied youth. "Just what is it that you want?" we ask.
Without their realizing it, or wanting even to admit it, what the youth "want" is the attention of love, and adult approval and guidance as well.
You ask,"Why don't they say this, then?" It is quite simple. They too have their pride. And to admit this need is to admit being dependent in some way upon the very ones with whom they are angry and who are neglecting them. To admit this is to make oneself vulnerable. Who wants to have to do that? Do you and I ... when we have differences with our spouses? No. We are more inclined to say, "Well, who needs you anyway? I can live without you." But we can not. Not in any "happy," secure way. And neither can children and youth, without our attention of love. Do not expect them to tell you that. Did you tell your parents that? Be wise enough to know that.
Society, in its foolishness, asks concerning its alienated youth, what has gone wrong? It does not much care for Scripture's answer, but we will give it anyway.
We have suggested four factors that have shaken the home foundations: first, the refusal to keep the vows of marriage (which means the bitter warfare of divorce, children being the primary casualties); second, the refusal to correct disobedience in the home by discipline ("We love them too much to cause them pain!"); third, mothers working out of the home (and longer and longer hours all the time); and last but not least, the intrusion of television (and videos) into our homes.
We have dealt with the first two. It remains for us to look briefly at these last two. And keep in mind as we do, that our main thesis is that children are not receiving enough parental attention today (which belongs to the very heart of love, especially COVENANTAL love), but are being left to raise themselves, and with disastrous results.
We turn first to this matter of mothers working outside the home. I say "outside" the home, because what mothers do within the home is also certainly "work" and very demanding. There are those making good money performing for others exactly those services that mothers provide in their own homes for "free." Those who tend to the home-fires certainly are "working-mothers." That must be readily acknowledged first of all.
In the second place, I recognize that we deal here with a sensitive issue with complicating factors. The circumstances of families can vary so widely; some are well off, some struggling. And the bills for living in an adequate home, for paying tuition, and for supporting all the kingdom causes besides, have become staggering. A second income seems necessary just to make ends meet.
Will it do simply to state an absolute law here, "If you are a mother with school-age children or younger, thou shalt not work at all outside the home for wages!'? What about the unmarried mother of a child? Should she work or rely entirely upon relatives and the church? What about the wife whose husband has left her and provides inadequate alimony (if any at all)? Or the woman whose husband is simply a lazy lug who shows little ambition to support the family? Or he is incapacitated? Or temporarily laid off? What is the wife to do in such circumstances, if for her some work is available whereby she can keep the family solvent and help pay basic bills?
And how old must the children be before the mother may leave the home with a good conscience and take on some kind of job? And how many hours is permissible? One work day? Two? Only if the hours run from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, or during the night when children are in bed?
And what about the mother who earns no wage working outside the home, but who nonetheless is gone just as much or even more than a "working mother" because she is either gadding about, or perhaps is even donating many hours to "good causes"? Still, the mother is not home when the children come through the door. The one is permissible, the other not? Says who?
And so it goes. Who in the world can lay down enough laws to cover all the circumstances? Giving the answer that addresses every situation is impossible, nor do I intend to try to do so.
Nonetheless, as this matter confronts our homes and threatens our families and we must make wise, spiritual decisions, there are things that must be kept in mind
First of all, what John W. Whitehead says in his book, The Stealing of America, is pertinent. He states that:.. the sharp, sustained increase of employment of married women over the past [four] decades is one of the most profound changes in American family patterns. The statistics tell us the story. In 1890 less than 5 percent of all American wives worked outside the home for wages and salaries. By 1940 this figure had increased to 17 percent, but the most dramatic increases followed World War II. In 1947, 20 percent or one out of every five married women was employed in the labor force. The proportion rose to one in four (25 percent) by 1950, one in three (32 percent) by 1960, to one out Of two (48 percent) by 1980 (p. 63).
He goes on to say that it was forecast that by 1990, two out of three (67 percent) of all wives would be in the labor force.
These statistics are instructive. Surely, it can escape no one's attention that this sharp upswing in married women joining the work force coincides ominously with the sharp increase of juvenile delinquency and crime in our society, as well as of blatant immorality. These things are not unrelated. Whitehead is surely correct when he states that of all the changes in contemporary family-patterns the growing number of married women becoming employed is one of the most profound, which is to say, having consequences most far reaching.
Now it is not that our society is unaware of what has been happening. It is. Today they have even coined a phrase to describe children whose parents are both off working. They are called "latchkey" children. They are expected to be independent enough to unlock the door when they come home from school and supervise their own lives for a few hours without parental supervision. During this unsupervised period problems crop up, and the older the children become the more serious become the problems -- drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity and so on. It is not that modern day parents are not aware of this. They are. Painfully so. They simply refuse to cut back and go back to the old ways. Two incomes are essential. The woman is not going to be tied down like her grandmother. It is the price the family is going to have to pay.
We are certainly very foolish if we do not observe what is happening to the children and homes of our latchkey society, evaluate the problems, assess the reasons and the consequences, and order our own lives, homes, and priorities accordingly. We are not immune.
Society may appear bewildered as to what the solution is to this problem. Scripture is not. It gives us clear, fundamental principles.
You have a passage such as Psalm 128:3. "Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table." Notice, the wife is tied in with the house, it is her proper sphere. There she proves a fruitful vine; not simply in having children, but in nurturing her children, so they, like olive plants, blossom and bear godly fruit.
There is I Timothy 2:15. "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing".And certainly the apostle includes childrearing with childbearing. This is a matter central to the spiritual life and development not only of her children, but also of the believing woman herself. This is the way in which she is SAVED, no less.
In I Timothy 5:14 we read, "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house". How much plainer can the Apostle and Scripture be? In Titus 2:4,5 the Apostle declares that younger women are to be taught to be "keepers at home." In other words, they are not to be gadding about, but homemakers, making the home their first priority. To this they give their attention. This is how they show their love to husband and children. For this their (your) Lord Jesus will praise them. This they are to consider spiritually fulfilling.
Further, keep in mind what is happening to the latchkey generation and the mess it is in. Is it any wonder?
The children come home day after day to an empty house. There are no arms to welcome them home, no ears to hear what is most immediately on their minds no wise voice settling their disputes or consoling them because things did not go well, or eyes to supervise their behavior. They are on their own. And when mother and father come home, time is short. Mother, who has been gone all day, must do the washing, ironing, meal-fixing yet too (with father's assistance, perhaps -- but then again he may have church work, school obligations, and a business to attend to). Common sense tells us nerves are going to be frayed, and be short. And so even when mother and father have come home, there can be precious little time to give the family and the children the attention they need and crave. And we expect tranquility will rule the home as we all rush madly about hurting for time? Or we wonder why our older children will not listen to our advice and instruction? What, when they have been making all their own decisions in our absence?! Let us not be naive.
In this whole sensitive issue of mother-working as a source of second income, let us keep something in mind, namely, children do NOT WANT to raise themselves; children CAN NOT raise themselves (properly); the Lord God DID NOT INTEND for children to raise themselves. If He did, He would not have made them so helpless to begin with, and ordained that they remain so dependent for such a long period of time, much longer than nearly every other creature.
The development of the human offspring is amazingly slow. The wolf cub is already beginning to catch its own game when the human "cub" is just starting to stand up by holding on to furniture to the applause of his admiring parents. This is how the Lord God made "man." Physically, psychologically, spiritually a child is a dependent, communal creature. Children need their parents through their formative years, which runs into the later teens.
For all man's intended majesty amongst created things, his dependency when young is striking. And this itself ought to speak to us about God's whole purpose and will in raising the children given us. They are not ours to neglect or to unload on others, they are ours to raise. As it is true that "it is not good that man should be alone," wherefore, the Lord made a helper suited for him, namely, woman, so it is true that it is not good that our children should be alone; and therefore the Lord provided for them parents, and one in particular, mother, whose greatest assets are her love and patience and arms that embrace and hold.
Staying at home may well involve sacrifices. It is such wives, however, whose children (and husband) will rise up and call blessed. "She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her" (Prov. 31:27,28). And remember, Proverbs 31 is the "last" word on wisdom. /The Standard Bearer/ March 15, 1991
--------------------
(4)
We are considering factors that are tearing at the fabric of the family in our 20th century society, factors which have intruded into the home, breaking down the fellowship, and have contributed to behavior by today's youth that shouts so loudly of resentment and rage (bordering on violence) that even ungodly, self-centered society can no longer pretend that there is no need to worry, that we are just passing through a phase.
Last time we considered what we listed as the third factor, namely, the ill effects of mothers working more and more outside the home, leaving children and youth unattended. At that time we mentioned a fourth factor, the influence of television in our homes. This last influence remains to be addressed. I might add, it also ties in with the matter of mothers not being home when their children come home. The child comes home. No adult is there. The child wants someone to talk to or to talk to him. What is more natural than to sit down, turn on the TV, and have it provide him with companionship? But what kind of companionship? And who supervises what he watches all the while?
The thoughtful observers of the behavior of today's youth are worried, many deeply so. They are worried because statistics do not lie, and statistics tell them that violent and even self-destructive behavior amongst the youth is on the upswing staggeringly so. (Cf. June 1, 1990 article.) And so the experts are consulted for their analysis and solutions.
The trouble with these "experts," however, is that they are the same ones who stated that the absolute standards of Christian morality (God's law) are what have impeded human progress and ought to have been cast onto the rubbish heap long ago.
But today even the not so reflective are troubled, especially if they are parents. When it is your own child who openly resents you and rebels against you and even publicly embarrasses you through outrageous behavior, you can not help but take note. Then parents ask with all apparent surprise, "Why are our children so estranged from us? Where did we go wrong? What did we do to deserve all this? What can we do to undo all this and be close to our children, as real friends, and save ourselves this grief?"
The trouble for many, however, is that for all their apparent sincerity they do not want the real answer. The answer they expect you to give them is to assure them that they did not really go wrong at any point, and they ought not really blame themselves very much at all. After all, nothing is more out of vogue today than personal accountability (that is, fault). Answers that suggest otherwise meet with a rather cool reception.
In answering the concern about behavior and attitudes of today's children and youth one is inclined to say, "Before we begin discussing this crucial issue, would you please turn off your television .... I SAID WOULD YOU PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR TV! Thank-you. NOW KEEP THE BLASTED THING OFF A FEW MORE HOURS PER DAY AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.' I said one is inclined to say that, except I suppose one should not say "blasted" in print in a church periodical. (Maybe "silly" would be more tasteful?)
Still, there is a problem with such advice, namely, that too few are inclined to listen. They are too busy watching TV. They are addicted, booked, and unable to live without it for any extended period of time. It is like talking to the proverbial wall. They tune you out. This in turn means that you could turn off your TV for the rest of your children's born-days, and yet what impact would that make on society Obviously, not much. In fact, really none at all. For the vast majority its evil influence would continue unabated. Nothing in society would change, so what is the benefit?
But still, consider this, that turning the thing off and placing severe restrictions on its use might have a salutary effect on the behavior and attitudes of one's own children. And then, after all, it would be worth it, would it not? For this, surely, is our primary concern anyway, is it not?
The danger that television (to say nothing of movies and videos) poses to our covenant homes could be organized under three headings, namely, its persuasiveness, its pervasiveness, and its perverseness. Take something as perverse and persuasive as television can be, and place it smack-dab in the most convenient place in your home (which usually goes by the name "family room"), and then place few restrictions upon it, and, well, it takes no expert to tell you that you have something that spells TROUBLE in capital letters.
It is with TV's perverseness that we are especially concerned, but something must also be said about the other two.
The persuasive power of television lies (pun unintended, but unavoidable) exactly in the kind of medium it is, that is, it is completely absorbing. It communicates simultaneously through the two main senses used for gathering information and feeding the mind, namely, the eyes and the ears. In other words, when it is on, it dominates. That is what its promoters intend. Therein lies its effectiveness. And when you add music to its audio/visual message you have something that is nothing short of mesmerizing.
Not only is television persuasive, it is also pervasive; or perhaps we should say it is so persuasive exactly because it is so pervasive. By pervasive we refer not only to the number of homes that own this device (and the home without it is rare indeed), but we refer to the time spent in front of it, the hours spent watching it. This is especially true of children, as statistics show. Surveys indicate that the average 2-11 year-old watches TV 25 hours a week. One recent advertisement in a national magazine states that American third graders spend an average of 900 hours per year in class in school, and 1170 hours watching television! Rather alarming. One can only hope that such statistics do not represent children from our own homes; but there are times when one begins to wonder.
But even more troubling than the time devoted to TV watching is what is being watched, what is being shown, what is being heard, and what this all does to families and youth.
Here even worldly men are beginning to express concern (though with little discernible effect on programming). The rot is beyond belief. The language is increasingly vulgar, profane, and insolent. It is raw. The subject matter apparently must be lewd and suggestive in order to attract an audience. On top of that, more and more of what is displayed is violence, and violence displayed in the most gruesome and "realistic" way. It is especially the latter that bears some serious consideration.
Recently I was tuned in to an interview (on a secular station) dealing with the subject of violence on the movie (and TV) screen and its possible effect on the viewers, and on the youth in particular. The interviewer began to list the recent box-office hits. One after the other they had to do with blood and gore and bullets and ,mayhem, each trying to outdo the other in explosions and violent death, many of which had " heroes" acting in cold rage as they took law into their own hands.
The one interviewed, a man who had been active in film production for some decades, was asked to assess what was taking place. He responded that he did not like it, not at all. These "heroes" were conveying a message. And the message was this; "I am armed and dangerous! And I have the right to be! Back off or I'll blow you away!" The message the youth were picking up was quite apparent, namely, this is the way to live; it is the only way to survive; it is the only way to gain others' respect. This attitude so much in evidence in the streets was being encouraged on the screen. He called it a horrible tragedy.
But there is a greater tragedy, is there not, namely, that covenant youth are permitted to imbibe the same aggressive evil, and that within our own God-fearing homes no less. Or are our young people regularly found in the theater enjoying the same message?
Perhaps the warning is most effective if we hear it from the mouth of the world itself. Newsweek magazine, in its cover story, April 1, 1991,
entitled "Violence Goes Mainstream: Movies, Music, Books - Are There Any Limits Left?" reported the following:
By the age of 18, the average American child will have seen 200,000 violent acts on television, including 40,000 murders .... University of Illinois psychologists Leonard Eron and L. Rowell Huesmann studied one set of children for more than 20 years. They found that kids who watched significant amounts of TV violence at the age of 8 were consistently more likely to commit violent crimes or engage in child or spouse abuse at 30. "We believe ... that heavy exposure to televised violence is one of the causes of aggressive behavior, crime and violence in society," they wrote in 1984. "Television violence affects youngsters of all ages .... It cannot be denied or explained away."
Seven years later, Huesmann remains convinced: "Serious aggression never occurs unless there is a convergence of large numbers of causes," he says, "but one of the very important factors we have identified is exposure to media violence .... If we don't do something, we are contributing to a society that will be more and more violent.
Here are some experts who had something of value to say (back in 1984). Now ask yourself, has society paid any attention? Is that what the TV screen and movie page tell you? Savage action rules. And have these predictions concerning violence in the streets come true or not?
But more than that, are WE paying heed? When even the world begins to question something's evil impact, is it not high time we take inventory?
Words, images, music. What three things can move a man and influence him as effectively? Subject a child (or an adult) to all three at the same time, as television does, and who can long resist? Used by experts, its persuasive impact is incalculable.
But besides that, it intrudes into the family. How can members of the family be communicating when eyes and ears are filled with sights and sounds of the television? It is impossible. The television views you as a competitor for your children's attention. It is doing all in its power to captivate their attention completely. The sponsors demand nothing less. It, when it is filling our homes with its "sound and fury...," has us at a distinct disadvantage. It is quite effective in breaking the fellowship and life of the home. Its very purpose is to tune everything and everyone else out.
However, in this connection, remember, we as parents do hold the ultimate power, that is, if we choose to exercise it. We can turn it off. Think about it. Is it tuning us out? Only with our permission!
In conclusion, two things: first, consider Moses' words in Deuteronomy 6, "When thou sittest in thine house". Sit doing what? Watching TV hour after hour? Somehow I do not think this is what Moses had in mind. That is to let the Philistines loose in our family room. And should we let our children find pleasure in how these uncircumcised of heart and mind talk and openly despise God's law?
Second, remember what must rule the home, namely, God's own love. And love means giving attention to those whom we love. Today's youth are crying for attention, approval, and direction - our own included. That which intrudes into this fellowship ought to be driven from our inheritance. What is our inheritance if not the seed of the covenant?
July 1, 1991/ Standard Bearer/
===============
Return to the Reformed
Christian Family page
Return to the Reformed Literature page
Return to the Reformed Sovereign Grace Literature Home Page