Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Just In Time for Mother's Day

First published May 15, 2009 in The Daily Sentinel.



Last week, an article about motherhood caught my attention. Maybe it’s because we just finished celebrating Mother’s Day last Sunday, maybe it’s because the article indicates that American society has radically changed its expectations of motherhood and fatherhood.

In figures released by the US National Center for Health Statistics, four of every 10 babies born in 2007 were born to single women. In babies born to moms between ages 20 and 24, the number of babies born out of wedlock increased to 6 of every 10. Sixty percent of babies born to a mom in her early 20s – more than half – are going home to households without the traditional dual-parents-united-in-marriage structure.

The article’s sociologists (and perhaps the writer of the article itself) seemed to be gushing over the finding. Here’s how the story concludes:

Some experts said the trend represents positive changes for some women – women are less likely to be shunned if they have children by themselves or to be forced to give their children up for adoption.

“We’ve seen a transformation of social norms," said Rosanna Hertz, a professor of sociology at Wellesley College. "Women can have children on their own and it’s not going to destroy your employment and it’s not going to mean that you’ll be made a pariah by the community.”

Until recently (say the last 30 years or so), the concept of the two-parent household – a mother and father married to one another with children born from that marriage – was commonly recognized as the best context in which children could be raised. Unfortunately, that best context was sometimes the façade behind which much ugliness was contained. Spousal abuse, incest, alcoholism and drug addiction were all kept out of view behind the two-parent family pretext of perfection.

As our society grew increasingly suspicious of institutionalism in all its forms (remember the saying, “never trust anyone over 40”?), the institution of marriage also began to falter. Divorce rates skyrocketed, and so by the late 1970s, a majority of children in America grow up in a home in which at least one parental figure was NOT the child’s natural parent.

With so many homes made up of divorced adults remarrying other divorced adults, our vocabulary changed. No longer called “broken” homes, such households became “blended families.” Today’s 20 and 30-year olds are the product of that change. Often miserable in their blended families, those kids vowed that they would not repeat their parent’s (and step-parent’s) mistakes. If marriage is so miserable, their logic goes, then let’s throw away marriage completely and just live together.

And so we are now in an era when parenting and marriage are no longer linked together. I know that there are many people – probably including that professor from Wellesley College – who consider this a good thing. Don’t count me as one of them. I think this is a very sad development in our society, and time will only tell what the results of it are in the long term.

Yes, the 1950ish ideal portrayed by “Leave it to Beaver” and “Ozzie and Harriet” are probably nostalgic wishful-thinking of a time that never really existed, but I am still convinced that the best context for child-rearing is a home in which a man and woman make a lifelong commitment to one another, and they bring children into the world from that commitment.

Other studies, which often don’t receive much publicity, have shown that the traditional marriage continues to be the most conducive environment for successfully raising children. For example, the majority of children whose parents do not get or stay married experience at least one year (often more) of poverty. Boys whose parents divorced or never married, are two to three times more likely to end up in jail as adults. Finally, children whose parents get and stay married are healthier and much less likely to suffer mental illness, including depression and teen suicide.

As a Christian, I see marriage as something more than just the best context for raising kids. I also see it as a reflection of God’s desire for us to be in a specific type of relationship with one another. In a way that I cannot adequately explain, marriage is God’s idea; and it somehow reflects the relationship between God and us. Several times in the Gospels, Jesus makes an analogy between God’s kingdom and the bride and groom. Jesus is the groom, and those who follow him are his bride. In the book of Revelation, the church is described as the bride of Christ, “beautifully adorned” in Rev. 21:2.

Genesis 2 is seen as the theological foundation for marriage when God announces, “It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper for him. (Gen 2:18) And so God created woman out of the man, and “for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24).

My older daughter will turn 20 later this year. I pray that she does not join the statistical majority and choose to have a baby without first laying the foundation of Biblically oriented marriage. I want the best for her – God’s absolute best – and not what our society seems to have settled on as adequate or easier. If we want God’s absolute best, we must cooperate with God to make it happen. It takes work: dedication, commitment, patience, and especially forgiveness.

And the good news is this: even when we blow it, God can take our mistakes and turn them into a new best. So even if you ARE one of the six in ten, God won’t shun you. And neither will I. But carefully, prayerfully, consider what is best for you and your child for the long term. And if you are not already a parent, please carefully, prayerfully, consider your actions and attitudes before they lead you to parenthood.

Every home – even the traditional mother-father-married-for-life one – is a broken home. But God is here to fix them. Will you let Him fix yours?

No comments:

Post a Comment