It needed more mysticism to keep the people in line. When the spirit and power departed there was noting to keep the laity. Mary worship and the deification of Mary provided the mysticism that grew till Mary became a figure considered more understanding and loving than Jesus. These are not my words, but the words of those who elevate Mary. And in doing this, motherhood was artificially elevated to a level far above fatherhood. One thing led to another and soon the father's role diminished. The father soon became little more than a stud or sperm donor.
Unfortunately the devil saw an opportunity here, he began to show men this was a good opportunity to avoid the effort of fatherhood, after all, properly rearing a child is work, no scratch that, hard work. But it is rewarding if one is willing to take on the task. In real fathering there are no conscripts, the real fathers are volunteers. Fathering a child is much more than bringing home a pay check, it is more than putting a roof over the family's heads, clothes on their backs and food in their stomachs. But I might add, far be it from me to say that these are not generally valid concerns. The scripture says that the man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel.
1 Tim 5:8
Provide certainly includes food and clothing and housing, but it includes
much more. And the things that were lost when the church went into the dark ages were
not all restored with the Protestant Reformation. For information on
this see the book,
The Eternal Church" by
Bill Hammon. They are still being restored and will be until
Jesus comes. And this is a must on fathering.
Men like James Dobson and
Ed Cole are teaching the principles of
Godly fathering and manhood. They and a lot of others are restoring these
to the church. It is up to the church to be salt and light to the world. Fathering is protecting the family from hazards, internal and external. And
one of those hazards are those who will kill the soul. Let it be understood
that the first goal here for the father is the protection of the mother,
spiritually, physically and emotionally. One of the father's primary duties
is to see that the mother of his children is able to properly handle her
duties. She cannot be the object of his abuse, or his negligence. I believe
that much of the depression in women today is the result of men not taking
their active role as fathers and husbands. This is not putting the "little
woman" in her place but seeing she is cared for. And that is still his job
if she works outside the home and makes more money for the family. Fathering is also actively teaching the children the proper ways of the
Lord and how to live in this world. The scripture is very specific, the
parents, with the father as a significant and active participant, are
responsible for the child's spiritual training. Let's be real, there are
many aids in this, and they should be utilized to the fullest. Generally most
of these are through the local church, but if the father is not a significant
provider here, he is not following God's plan. The sole responsibility of
this can never be passed off on the mother or the church. The child's social
training and work ethic are also a father's responsibility. Some have asked
me, what about the child's academic education? The father is responsible
here too. Too many fathers have had poor background here and duck doing
anything, if they participate, even if only to the extent of providing
encouragement and locating resources, this is very significant. Just being
there can help. Here I may seem to straddle the fence somewhat because I
cannot find any scripture that specifically says TO ME that home schooling
is MANDATED by God. (Any more than I can find any scripture that says that
all spiritual training should come from the father.) And as a Bible
teacher, all efforts I have seen to prove this badly misappropriate the
scriptures used. Without the direction from God, I consider the efforts of
those who push home schooling as control, manipulation and taking God's
name in vain. Both of these are sin. And as the
home schoolers use
those scriptures, I note that they condemn the Christian Schools as part of
the Egyptian System. This is exactly what the Christian Schools did in the
80's using the same scriptures that are now used against them! But no
matter how it is carried out, the father is responsible to see that the children
are properly educated and to utilize and provide the resources to see it
happen. The scriptures say to provide for the generations to some, and the
training of the father is a significant part of that. What I have seen in many
home schooling situations is harried moms, desperately trying to juggle the
balls while the father watches her flounder. This is NOT Christian and
Godly Fathering. It violates both common sense and God's laws. If you agree
with my premise that the father's role includes seeing that the mother is
able to carry out her duties, you will easily agree with me that something
is amiss in this situation. If you do not see it, you not only fail to
understand Christian Fathering, you fail to understand Christian Marriage. I
say this, not the Lord, but if the father is not actively
participating in home schooling,
at least to the extent of one fifth of the time spent, I would have some
serious questions on its effectiveness. In a practical matter, there are few
couples, even working together who can by themselves provide a proper
education beyond middle school. Fathering is mentoring, providing a sounding board for the child to use when
facing difficult decisions. It is coaching, encouraging the child to grow
and it is correcting, showing the child where ways that have been learned
are not right. It is disciplining, working with the child to instill the
self control and inward discipline that will help the child grow, mature
and flourish. It is whatever it takes. A recent TV magazine show segment talked about the lack of fathers and how
that impacts individual children and in turn the society. The writer stated
that 40 percent of the children will grow up without fathers. The show later
interviewed a feminist who stated that it was not the fathers which were
missed but the money they earned. I agree with her that the money is an
integral part of bringing up children and having the husband present is
likely to increase the economic base. But I am sure we haven't learned to
successfully raise children without fathers and mothers. Let's examine her statements. They are bankrupt morally and socially. Look
at the statistics. Children raised in two parent homes are one third as
likely to be subjected to disciplinary action in school and are one ninth as
likely to get into serious trouble as those in single parent homes. Those
who get in serious trouble in school are more likely to get into trouble with
the law. The economic status of the family in not as much a barometer on the
children's future as the presence and commitment of both parents. Admittedly,
some fathers and mothers in two parent homes are so disfunctional as to
provide little if any help, thus placing the child at risk, but even these
bad situations do not dilute the statistics. The presence of two functional
parents has an awesome impact for good on the children. The message she brings is designed to take our society closer to disaster,
by undermining the family. The self serving lies hidden in her message are
even more frightening. She considers children the possession of the mother,
from conception. This premise is essential to the feminist sacred cow,
abortion. If the child is the sole possession of the mother, it is hers to
do with as she wills. The first commandment of the feminist movement is that
abortion must not only be preserved, it must be guaranteed and its availability
and use must expand. It must continue at all cost. Unless every woman has an
abortion, any woman can be denied an abortion. The logic is simple, if
children are the possession of the mother, then so is the unborn child. It
is the mother's to dispose of as she sees fit. Fortunately our society has
still the moral fiber to consider the killing of a baby after birth a crime,
but if the mother can conspire with another and select an agent to kill an
unborn, why should she not be able to kill the newly or recently born? And
this sacred cow is so important to the feminist movement that they would
jeopardize our children and society, they would twist the truth, to preserve
it. It matters not to her if she destroys our children and our society by
degrading fathers, she has a more important agenda, the feminist manifesto. Look at one of the inconsistency, a unborn child's future is in the mother's
hands. But when that child reaches the age that she can soon be a mother
herself, her mother has no control over her, because an all seeing femininst
movement knows better than her parents that she may need to practice birth
control or need an abortion, so these must be available, even over the
parent's objections. Is this not a contradiction? Let's examine another lie of the movement. They claim they are promoting
the good of females. Remember that one half of the babies aborted are female. I
guess these are front line troops who must die in the struggle for equality
or some omniscient person in the movement has chosen that these should not
live for the good of the other females. On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, DELETED wrote: Dear Ralph, I recently have been hearing more and more statistics about how fatherless
children are much more likely to be delinquent citizens. I've been bombarded
with numbers like 75% of all crimes are commited by fatherless children and
how fatherless children will not graduate high school or live productive
lives. This information, or should I say lack of "positive" information,
disturbs me. I am a single mother with a 4 year old son. I have never been
married. My son's father and I dated for two years. He told me he was
unable to have children. He lied. He already had a daughter several years
before he met me. I didn't find out about this until 3 months after I gave
birth to our son. Upon finding out I was pregnant my boyfriend wanted me to
have an abortion. I refused. I was financially independent and being a mother
was one of my goals in life. I knew I was meant to be a mother. My boyfriend
obviously wanted nothing to do with parenting this child because he has
dissapeared. I have tried to locate him through private detectives with no
luck. My son has my last name and I recieve no support from his father. I
have a very supportive family. I have two brothers and a sister who love and
care for my son as if he were there own. My child is exceptionally bright. At
age 4 he is starting to read,uses a computer by himself and goes to
pre-school 4 days a week. My concern is that when these statistics are rattled off over the airwaves
and in print, what are these children who have grown up without fathers
going to think when they hear about thier "certain" demise? These people
who are collecting this information need to clarify just where these
statistics are comming from. Primarilly inner-city, low-income, uneducated
families. I myself have a college degree, am a homeowner living in a quiet
suburban neighborhood and have an anual income of 50,000.00. I understand
this makes a difference in how my son is being raised. But what am I to
tell him when he comes to me and asks me about these horrifying statistics. It's
hard enough for kids to go through school and childhood with only one parent,
but to have society watching over them to see if they are going to increase
these statistics is a burden we need to eliviate from our single parent
children. Why can't we report on single parent kids who are making a
difference in a positive way in our society and communities? Kids who have
overcome the hardships of only having one parent. Lets give these kids some
airtime and applaud their accomplishments instead of intensifying the
downfalls of the other end of the spectrum. There are plenty of fatherless
kids out there who are wonderful human beings and not the horrifiying,
delinquent crime committing misfitts we have portrayed them all to be. Sincerely, Concerned Single Mom From [email protected] Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:18:35 -0400 (EDT) From: brandtre <[email protected] To: Name deleted... Subject: Re: fatherless children Thank you for writing. The IDEAL (God's, mine and the experience of experts)
is for a child to grow up with TWO LOVING PARENTS taking care of him or her.
Sometimes due to circumstances (death of a parent) or sin
(Abuse, Divorce, Fornication, Hardheartedness) this is not possible. I will let you decide the reason in your case, but let me say that had you
not engaged in Sex outside of marriage the situation would not be as it is.
Like your boyfriend, as a participant, you must also bear a portion of the
blame here. This guy was content to have sex with you with no commitment, it is
likely that he did with others. You sound really intelligent, but you apparently
bought a line that I have heard so many times that I am amazed that women buy
it. Apparently there are other factors here. But I do not believe all is lost and in fact although I have sounded hard
on you, it sounds like you are trying to raise your child in a manner that
will help remove the impact of past sin. I applaud you for this. On the other hand you try to blame those who cite VALID statistics on the
subject as a party in doing things to your child. I suspect that here you
are also a participant. You are living out of several hurts. A stud that
refused to be a man, a father and a husband as he should have been. (I have
names for this I don't use publically.) A situation that placed you in the
position of shame -- and you exhibit it well in the message. Your current
position makes you tend to blame males for all that is wrong. As one who counsels, I applaud you for the desire to have your child grow
up in spite of the past. But let's get to the root, the problem is not those
who cite the statistics, it is those who would tell your son these are so
without any redemption. I believe (and statistics show) that children who grow up without two
parents have about 3 times the chance of minor problems in school and nine
times the chance of serious problems. BUT THERE ARE SOME WHO DO NOT! And
you should focus on this yourself and affirm this positively with your son. For
you to reinforce this negative with him does him a disservice. I would counsel
you to show him the love you apparently have for him. Make him the most important
person in your life. Your desires may have to go on hold for a few years if
you really care as much as you say (and I think you do). To introduce another
man into the picture WITHOUT commitment is to risk another major event for
him. I have seen this second crisis, the new boyfriend leaving after
befriending, as more serious. I know someone that in fact divorced his first
wife, shacked up with a gal that had a daughter for three years (she was 5 - 8)
and then dumped her after he had treated her as daddy and the whole family
had treated her as neice, granddaughter, etc. This was tramautic for her!
The only good thing I can say about it is that the rest of the family did not
desert her. I think it is even more so for a young boy. One other thread I have concern about is the idea that you make enough money
to keep him (great) and there is a veiled implicaiton that this is
important. IT IS. But LOVE is more important than anything else if he is to
not become a statistic. If you think I kicked you between the eyes, maybe I did, and if so I am
sorry, but I may get only one chance to make an impact in your life and more
important in the life of your son. I have sat here with tears because I can tell you are torn by this, and I
believe your concerns are real. I hope you continue (and you have started
doing a lot of things right). You may reject this, I hope not, I will promise
to pray for you. My greatest joy would some day have you send me a note
(I know in the future) and say you were able to help your son escape being
a statistic. The deck is stacked against him, but the outcome need not be
bad. There is one who can help you any time of the day or night, if you look
to him for guidance he is there. His name is Jesus. If you do not have a
personal relationship with him, consider making that a priority. It will
benefit you and it will benefit your son. You did not mention extended
family, these are an asset in helping, but if they are steeped in shame
from this (and often this is the case) it would be better to find someone
else to help. I have no idea where you are, there are many good churches
that might help you provide "family" for your son. My three children have
two informal "moms and dads", couples our age that have no children that
have given support and love to children in the church. I consider them an
asset to me as a father and our children have been blessed with two
set of parents. I needed help at times, I had to fact that. I encourage you
to not turn aside help for the wrong reasons, that it might look like you
couldn't handle being a parent (you can't without some help) or because of
shame. You see, once you confess any wrong, the bible says there is no
condemnation, no shame, it is gone. God's best to you and your son. Within the last two weeks the Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania has issued
an order to his deputies and staff. Anyone who tries to get a gun permit in
York County has had to submit to a background check, which now includes a
check with Children's Services. If the person is not current on child
support, the sheriff's ruling is that the person is not law abiding and
should be denied a handgun permit. I applaud this. Maybe the check should
also be made to determine if the person has outstanding parking and traffic
violations. In no way does paying his support fulfill the role of fathering,
but it is a start. Any pressure that can be brought to bear would be good. I
would like to see anyone who has fathered a child and is not taking financial
responsibility should be denied a permit too. There are probably some other
things that I would deny them if it were up to me. Let's treat non-dads like
they are, as less than good citizens. Dads should be role models, I don't
expect them to be perfect, but someone the children can look up to,
morally and spiritually as well as physically. And if they are looked up to
when the children are small, they will continue to be looked up to when the
kids are taller than dad. I know... First hand... Return to the Common Sense in York PA - Home Page I'll be very surprised if
(c) Ralph Brandt, 1996 Write me at [email protected]
Return to Geocities Home Page
Revised 6/20/2002 DRAAW is not a misspelling, it is an acronymn for Dee, Ralph,
Angela, Annette and William. Common Sense in York PA, Copyright 1995, 2001, 2002 Ralph E. Brandt, York PA The Impact of being Fatherless
Impact on a Child of being Fatherless
Dead Beat Dads now called "Not Law Abiding"
people write to me.
Get your own
Free Home Page