Basic HTML Version
nist "spokesperson," offers a similar
definition: " Family is people who are
living together with deep commitment
and mutual needs and sharing."
An even more liberal definition
was offered by a 1976 panel repre–
senting one large Protestant body:
"A relationship community of
more than one person."
Words like
commitment, sharing
and
mutual
may have nice, warm
cozy rings to them, but they do not
hide the truth that these definitions
include any number of
antifamily
and nonfamily relationships.
Thus, two or three or five or ten
homosexuals living together could
qualify as a "family" under the new
definitions of family. So would any
reasonably long term "shacking-up,"
between unmarried heterosexuals.
Even affinity groups (say five com–
puter enthusiasts who share the same
house) could qualify as a family.
The new definition of famil y leads
to absurd results.
It
insidiously
implies that, to use the language God
uses, fornication, adultery, homosex–
uality and vice all can be dignified
. with the label "family" if there is
sufficient "mutuality" and "shar–
ing." About tbe only kind of "living
togetber" thl:!t the definitions don't
call a family would be cohabitation
with 'animals!
To these human definitions God
thunders: "Woe to them that call evil
good, and good evil; that put dark–
ness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweef and sweet
for bitter!" (lsaiah 5:20).
But what is God's definition of a
family? The nucleus of a family is a
marriage between a man and a
woman. Heterosexual marriage is the
mínimum requirement for a family,
based on the revelation that God
gave to the first human beings after
the creation of mankind:
"Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesp" (Genesis 2:24; Mat–
thew 19:5).
A family will normally include
children (see Psalm 127:3-5), and
may include relatives, such as grand–
parents, aunts or uncles. (Consider
that the patriarch Jacob's family, as
described in Genesis chapters 37-46,
16
included a grandfather, married chil–
dren and grandchildren, all living as
one family.) Nevertheless tbe struc–
tural core of the family is heterosex–
ual marriage.
This is the bíblica! test for family.
It
corresponds with the traditional
family of the Western world.
The Inhuman Wedge
The grossly over-broad definitions of
"family" are not the only insidious
attack on the family as it was consti–
tuted by God.
A far more
frightening~hilling
development is the attempt to drive a
wedge between parents and children.
The means by which the wedge is
driven is the assertion that human
government
owns
your children.
God asserts that children are His
gift (Psalm 127:3). God puts respon–
sibility for proper child rearing
squarely on the parents (Deuterono–
my 6:7, Proverbs 22:6). A parent is,
while not an absolute owner of a
child, God's trustee who has the
God-given right to care for and train
the child as Go.d's steward.
But a different idea is gaining
influence today. The idea is govern–
ment owns your child. The reason
behind the idea is that social plan–
ners- people who consider it their
business to remake society according
to what they think is good-will be
unable to bring about a "just" or
"equal" society unless government is
able to control child rearing.
Mark the following frightening
words:
" ... the fact that children are
raised in families means there is no
equality. In order to raise children
with equality
we must take them
away fromfamilies and communally
raise them"
(emphasis ours).
The statement was made by Mary
Jo Baine, assistant professor of edu–
cation at Wellesley College.
The sentiment is echoed by top
government bureaucrats in the
United States. "Children do not
belong to parents," says Edward
Zigler, director of the U.S. Govern–
ment Office of Child Development.
The 1972 Minneapolis Declara–
tion of Feminism, as you would
expect, follows the antifamily party
line:
" ... With the destruction of the
nuclear family, children must be seen
as the responsibility of the entire
society, rather than the individual."
(Evidently, the Minnesota feminists
don't even recognize the existence of
parents, only that of society and
individuals.)
Even more chilling is the fact that
such jackboot antifamily sentiments
are occasionally found among judges
in our society. Judge Lisa Richette of
the First Judicial District of Pennsyl–
vania, reportedly said:
"If
there is a least detrimental
alternative, remove the child and
don't worry about the right of the
parents. The child belongs to society.
The parents were only biological pro–
ducers."
(Evidently, Judge Richette has
never read the decision of the Ameri–
can Supreme Court made in 1925
before the recent attack on the fami–
ly, which directly contradicts her
sentiments. "The child," said the
Supreme Court in one of its greatest
moments, "is not the mere creature
of the state"
(Pierce v. Society of
Sisters).
When you read of the statements
of people such as Professor Baine,
Mr. Zigler or Judge Richette, you
cannot help but be reminded of a
book that showed penetrating insight
into the modern world.
lt
is George
Orwell's
1984.
The book prophesies a horrible,
nightmarish future for mankind. Life
will be a vast prison- human govern–
ment will be in control of everything.
There will be no freedom. There will be
no individuality, and the family will be
ormade the servant of the state.
The following passage from
1984
practically describes to a tee the kind
of world advocated by Ms. Baine,
Mr. Zigler and Judge Richette:
"Nearly all children nowadays
were horrib.le. Wbat was worst of all
was by means ofsuch organizations as
the Spies they were systematically
turned into ungovernable little sav–
ages, and yet this produced in them no
tendencywhatever to rebel against the
discipline of the Party. On the con–
trary, they adored the Party and
everything connected with it."
In George Orwell 's nightmare
world of
1984,
children wi 11 be
The
PLAIN TRUTH