Why is it so radical today to affirm that a two-parent family is the best environment for children?
What was it that Dan Quayle said about Murphy Brown? Judging by the reactions, it must have been strong stuff. The news media turned it into the biggest battle between two fictional characters since somebody shot J. R.—fictional characters because the “Dan Quayle” who exists in the minds of Americans is primarily a product of one-liners delivered on late-night TV. Anything Quayle says is attributed to that image, regardless of whatever real faults or virtues he may possess.
What got lost in the media-generated hullabaloo was the rest of the speech wrapped around the one Murphy Brown sentence that made headlines: “Bearing babies irresponsibly is wrong,” Quayle told the Commonwealth Club of California. “Failing to support children one has fathered is wrong. It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown—a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman—mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another ‘lifestyle choice.’ ”
The fact is, Quayle made some very good points. First, Hollywood does have a responsibility for the influence it wields over society. When the entertainment industry refuses to recognize it is a shaper, not just a reflector, of society, it is like an absent father ducking child-support payments. As critic Michael Medved often points out, the television industry is built on the premise that a little time on the tube will influence consumer behavior. Advertisers are lining up to pay as much as $300,000 for a 30-second commercial on future episodes of “Murphy Brown.” If a half-minute is billed as being that valuable to those who want to persuade us, just imagine what influence a half-hour show must have.
Second, Quayle was right in saying that shared family values, or the lack of them, have an impact on society. Politicians and policy makers of every stripe have recently jostled to claim the high ground on “family values”—so much so that that phrase, and even the word family, has lost much of its meaning.
Quayle’s speech pointed to a more particular view of family, one that is admittedly less inclusive, yet demonstrably more effective in creating positive moral and social values: the two-parent family. The reality is that 60 percent of America’s children today will grow up without a father in their home at some time. One in every four babies is born to unmarried women; one in ten, to teenagers.
At the same time, rows of statistics show that single-parent families (the vast majority headed by single mothers) face growing economic and social problems. Fatherless children are more likely to drop out of school, to face physical and mental illness, and to find themselves locked in a cycle of poverty.
Without doubt, many single parents succeed in raising their children. But their task requires heroic effort, and their success remains the exception. To affirm that a two-parent family is the best for a child is not a put-down of single parents. Nor is it merely a nostalgic yearning for life with Ozzie and Harriet.
Focusing on family values alone won’t solve the problems that plague America’s cities. But economic and political plans will not do the job until the erosion of family values, and all of its causes, are seriously addressed. And while the politicians are doing their work, the struggling families of Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago could surely use the support of Hollywood.
By Ken Sidey.
“Rights talk,” says Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon, “encourages our all-too-human tendency to place the self at the center of our moral universe.” And claiming rights, as one of our senior editors says, is “an unlovely modern habit,” often divorced from any Christian moral base.
Our CT Institute supplement (beginning on p. 29) affirms human rights in a biblical context. But Christians sometimes look at society’s ever-increasing catalog of rights, extending to every imaginable interest or group—consumers, tenants, patients, smokers, pregnant women, even trees and animals—and sense that things have gone too far. When “rights” becomes a rubric for making demands for every cause and concern, weariness and defensiveness result. As the demand for civil rights (which belong to people by virtue of their citizenship) increases in frequency and volume, concern for human rights (which belong to people because they are human beings, created in the image of God) may suffer. That is especially so when it is not always clear how such language relates to the gospel summons to lose self and serve others.
While claiming rights out of a misguided hyperindividualism is clearly not Christian, caring about human rights, especially others’ rights, decidedly is. Indeed, it is a Christian duty, with an inescapable foundation in the Bible. When it comes to a blood-spattered Tiananmen Square or electric probes applied to inflict pain on the fetuses of pregnant women or the hanging of Turkish prisoners by their wrists until their arms are pulled from their sockets, Christians miss the point if they see human rights as a concern only of the political Left.
Perhaps the most telling biblical argument for human rights comes from the first pages of Scripture, where we learn that humanity is created in the image of God. Of all the many implications of the imago Dei, one is especially clear: God imparts value to every human person. In the vernacular of the late sixties, “God don’t make junk.” If God’s image is stamped on all persons, indifference to any one person is impossible. Respect is imperative. Christians, to be true to their faith, must learn to value what God values. In honoring the image of God in someone, Christians honor the Creator who made that person.
What began in Genesis was modeled supremely in Jesus. Throughout his ministry, he paid special attention to those whom his culture neglected—the Samaritan, the sick, the outcast. He powerfully lived and modeled the importance of honoring the image of God in others.
Concern for people is what human-rights talk is all about. Given the nation’s current campaign climate, where international human-rights concerns are virtually absent from speeches and platforms, Christians need to remind others, and perhaps be reminded themselves, that concern for other people will not allow us to look the other way when abuses come to light. Our love of neighbor will drive us to concern, prayer, and concrete acts of compassion.
This concern also means that evangelicals should be free to join forces with others in fighting injustice, in what Francis Schaeffer called “cobelligerency.” Not everyone construes the basis of human rights the way Christians do, but many groups and international organizations share our desire to care and to help the suffering. We cannot afford to allow semantic concerns to prevent us from the work of promoting human rights—which, after all, is another way of saying the work for the elimination of murder, torture, and spiritkilling coercion.
By Timothy K. Jones.
Pat Robertson has his share of critics—both inside and outside the church. But lately we think he has been setting an example that should be more copied than critiqued. His well-scrubbed Family Channel network has been such a success and moneymaker that the IRS has forced Robertson to transform it from an arm of his ministry into an independent, for-profit company (giving the lie to network programmers who claim that “clean” television doesn’t sell). Recently he sold public stock in the $500,000 million business. Then, about two weeks later, he orchestrated a buyout offer of United Press International (UPI), which he later rescinded, then offered to purchase only selected assets of the ill-fated news-gathering company.
In doing these things, Robertson is not just talking about doing great things for Christ. Rather, he is demonstrating that he is a player. In the name of Christ, he is dipping his hands into the world’s often-mucky business waters and getting his fingers wet and dirty. No doubt Robertson the evangelical entrepreneur is also making money off of a consumer-and media-oriented society. But maybe he is doing more: grabbing hold, with gospel hands, of a portion of our world that needs some reforming: the mass media.
To be sure, Robertson in the past has done and said some curious things to spark critics. There was his audacious prayer in 1985 for Hurricane Gloria to miss the Virginia coast; his renegade run in 1988 for the Republican presidential nomination; and his best-selling, new conspiracy-laden book, The New World Order. Evangelicals have been divided over what to make of Pat the populist. Still, much of the media’s criticisms of the UPI deal was pure Christian bashing (as if other owners of the news media don’t have a point of view—e.g., Ted Turner).
While his execution may not be perfect, Robertson is attempting something worthwhile. All Christians have a duty to permeate and conquer every nook of society with the gospel, be it the arts, the media, or the body politic. Pat Robertson is attempting just that on a grand scale—not always successfully, but with inspiring vision and goals. Our prayers should be that as the challenges and temptations increase, Robertson and his associates can maintain their integrity and stay focused on the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, believe it or not, wants to redeem even television.
By the editors.
