No one can deny that the nature and role of the family has changed in recent decades. The traditional family mother, father, children, all living together has become less common and, for some, less the norm to follow. Yet, the evidence is quickly accumulating from across the political spectrum that the breakdown of this family structure has negative consequences both for individuals and for society.

Thirty-eight percent of Black children live with two parents, compared to 77 percent of White children,

Fifty-one percent of Black children live with only their mother. Black children are more than three times as likely to live with their mother only as are White children.

Black children are more than two-and-a-half times as likely as White children to live with neither parent.

Almost five percent of Black children live with grandparents, and just under two percent of Black children live with other relatives.

Black children are more than twice as likely as White children to be in foster care.

Black children are over six times as likely as White children to have a parent in prison.

Black babies were 2.5 times as likely as White babies to be born to an unmarried mother.
Black babies were more than twice as likely as White babies to be born to a teen mother.

Indeed, Dr. David Myers reports that a survey of members of the American Psychological Association identified the "decline of the nuclear family" as the most important threat to mental health (Myers, p. 5).

Consider the evidence that the family is disintegrating:

Divorce rates have increased from 9.2 per 1,000 married women in 1960 to 20.7 per 1,000 married women in 1990 (Bennett, 1993, p. 14).

The percentage of all children born to unmarried women has increased from 5.3 percent in 1960 to 28.0 percent in 1990 (Bennett, 1993, p. 10).

Out-of-wedlock birth rates reach nearly 80 percent in some urban neighborhoods (Elshtain, 1993, p. 710).

Sixty-four percent of African-American children are born to unwed mothers and 51 percent live in households without a father present (Sawhill, 1992, p. 15).

One out of four children in the 1990s will enter a step-family relationship (Whitehead, 1993, p. 50).

More than 60 percent of single mothers receive no child support from the father (Whitehead, 1993, p. 62).

Consider the damaging effects of family breakdown, especially on children:

Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has not been living in the home (Elshtain, 1993, p. 710).

Five of six adolescents in the criminal justice system come from a family with an absent parent (Elshtain, 1993, p. 710).

More than 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes (Whitehead, 1993, p. 77).

Children in single-parent families are nearly six times as likely to be poor as children in two-parent families (Whitehead, 1993, p. 47).

Forty-four percent of single-parent families in 1989 were poor (Sawhill, 1992, p. 152).

"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 or no-parent household" (Elshtain, 1993 p. 710).

The church cannot simply stand back and watch this deterioration of the family and its damaging effects on society. Rather, the church must work actively to strengthen family bonds and to reduce the societal consequences of family dysfunction.

Alternative Perspectives on the Family

In the midst of a growing consensus that the breakdown of the traditional family is damaging to society, there are loud voices offering contrasting positions in the debate over the family, voices which can lead to extreme perspectives which must be avoided. It is important that we in the RCA re-establish our course between these extreme perspectives on the family.

One perspective is relatively unconcerned about the form of a family, accepting uncritically almost any kind of caring adult relationship with or without children. Two-parent families, single-parent families, cohabiting adults, and homosexual unions are equally valid in this view and ought to be legitimized in law, public policy, and church life. Unfortunately, the more one stretches the definition of family, the less the term "family" really means. If any loving relationship constitutes a family, regardless of the length of the commitment, the term "family" itself has little value. From this perspective, family is defined almost exclusively in terms of function love and care rather than in terms of form. In addition, proponents of this view often minimize the consequences of family breakup. For example, they are quick to suggest divorce in the quest for individual happiness and fulfillment, underemphasizing the effects of divorce on spouses and children.

The contrasting perspective, which can also lead to an unhealthy extreme, accepts only one type of family form a two-parent, patriarchal system, governed by a strong father who is seen as responsible for generating income, and nurtured by the mother who is responsible for housekeeping and child-rearing. Unfortunately, this perspective seems to have little empathy for those involved in family breakdowns, often looking more to cast blame than to meet the needs of the victims of the breakdown. Neither does this perspective seem to appreciate the gifts and the expanding role of women; by idealizing the stay-at-home wife and mother, this perspective does not recognize either the economic circumstances that often force women to work or the capabilities of women for work outside the home. In its rigid separation of parental roles, this perspective sometimes minimizes the role that fathers should play in caring for children. As Rodney Clapp (Families at the Crossroads, Chapter 2) notes, much of this vision of the traditional family represents a middle-class, eighteenth-century, western social structure, rather than a biblical vision of the family. As so often happens in discussion of social issues, advocates of this perspective have allowed a particular historical model to distort their reading of Scripture.

The task of those in the Reformed tradition is to steer a course between these contrasting, often extreme, visions of the family. One must search the Scriptures to find basic principles for the structure and function of families. From Genesis on, it is clear that God has planned for the family to be a most important social structure, joining in love and commitment husband and wife and providing for the birth and nurture of children. Although Scripture portrays a variety of family structures, it also suggests limits to the kinds of family structures that are pleasing to God. The church has an immense obligation to put forth a biblical vision of the family and to address family breakdown and its societal consequences in a prophetic and caring manner.

Why Is the Family in Crisis?

That the traditional two-parent family is eroding is overwhelmingly evident both from demographic trends and from ideological assaults. This trend has serious implications for parents, children, and society as a whole.

At the heart of this erosion is the shift from the value of community to the value of the individual. Instead of seeing themselves as members of a family or community with responsibilities for others, people are more likely to see themselves as individuals with rights, needs, and desires. The language of individual rights has replaced the language of community responsibilities. The language of personal fulfillment has replaced the language of loving one's neighbor. This is clearly seen in the changing attitudes toward divorce in North American society. What was widely seen as an unfortunate and disruptive action of last resort is now seen as a means to pursue individual goals that have been stifled in a constricting, legal relationship.

Economic factors also contribute to family breakdown. Often, both parents now work, leaving many of their childcare responsibilities to others. It is true that some parents enter the work force in a materialistic quest for a certain lifestyle, and others do so for reasons of personal identity and fulfillment. It is also true that more parents must work, must work longer hours, or must work at more than one job to make ends meet. Having both parents working does not automatically create family problems, but in many cases it does. Children are spending more time at home without parental supervision or at day care centers which may or may not provide the loving or learning environment that children need. Many communities lack sufficient high quality, affordable daycare, which can increase the pressures on working parents and hinder the development of children.

Public policies have often permitted, or even worse, facilitated the breakup of families. No-fault divorce laws, although not the determining cause for increased divorce rates, do allow quick and easy dissolutions of marriages, often with little regard for the children and with little encouragement for spouses to work out their difficulties. Some states in the U.S. still have welfare policies which reduce payments to families with a father living in the home, thus providing incentives for fathers to leave. Programs that reduce benefits for parents who accept low-paying jobs with few opportunities for health insurance or child care can have the effect of keeping people on the welfare rolls. Tax policies which reward the wealthy at the expense of the lower-middle class can create additional pressures for both parents to work or for parents to work longer hours.