There is a new study out of the University of North Carolina about youth and religion. UNC is hardly a religious bastion. Some of its public stands have been anti-religious. But the new study gives support to the idea that the family is the basic unit of society, and that family stability is strengthened by religion.
This is contrary to a lot of modern theory which has tended to get children away from the home earlier. Some educational theorists have been effective in advocating this. Our observations here are not an attack on public educations per se, but of the direction some therein wish it to go. Their aim is to get the child out of the home as soon as possible. First there was kindergarten, then preschool, and now there is some movement to start public education at age three. Some of the more radical elements have let it slip that parents are too early corrupting young minds with out-of-date ideas, including religious ideas, and that schools getting control of children sooner will save the children from these corrupting influences.
In states where kindergarten is available but not compulsory, I have known parents who chose to opt out of the kindergarten choice. They felt the child would profit more by another year at home under family influence. Of course, where both parents worked, kindergarten was a convenient option, as is the possibility of even earlier schooling. It is free day care. This present study, as well as others, may undercut the idea of compulsory universal early schooling. The idea is that more home influence is better than early socialization. The latter tends more to peer pressure, and pressure to conform to societal, rather than family, norms. And the study says that religion strengthens the home.
The study was funded by the Lilly Endowment Inc., and its latest publication, “Family Religious Involvement and the Quality of Family Relationships of Early Adolescents,” also draws conclusions from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It concludes such things as, “Adolescents...reared in religious households are more likely than peers from nonreligious families to admire Mom and Dad, to not run away from home.” And, “More religiously active families...exhibit signs of stronger family relationships”... “The parents get along with the teens better, the teens (are) more likely look up to their parents.”
That considered a “religious family” in the study is where religious activity such as attending worship services, or praying together, are engaged in 5 to 7 times a week. Among such families more than 70% of youth want to be like their parents. In non religious families this falls to about half. Obviously societal and peer pressures are stronger upon youth from non religious homes. In religious homes 61% of youth report eating dinner together with their families every night. Among non religious families only 38% of youth eat with their families each night. Having fun with the family each day was reported by 19% of youth from religious homes as compared with only 5% of youth from non religious homes.
While these figures are not ideal, they show a correlation between religious activity and family stability and influence. They show a spiritual component to man not satisfied by a secular society. And if we are not critical of public education per se, we are not champions of religion per se. The knowledge and practice of Truth that comes from God is going to be more powerful than just religion. But those of you with teens are to be commended for your faithfulness. Be assured that your faithful attendance is beneficial to your youth. Also let the gospel pervade your households. The family will be stronger, your young will be happier, and better equipped to withstand the godlessness that has been sown in this nation. “Nurture your children in the chastening and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). - Dale
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Reflections from Childhood
I generally think of my present faith as one developed seamlessly, without interruption. In my upbringing I was taken regularly to church, and trained morally and spiritually at home. With steady and growing understanding, came faith and commitment. I don't know what got me to thinking, but it came as a shock to me that such was not quite the case. There were cross roads and forks along the way. Different courses could have been taken. It frightens me to think what might have happened if one of those other paths had been pursued. Would I have recovered?
Here is one of them. My mother was a Christian. My father was not. That alone might make it easy for a boy to be disinterested. With World War II, my mother went to work. It was the patriotic thing to do. It was also financially beneficial. My family bought a house. I had lots of freedom and ran with a group of kids who had the same unsupervised time I had, and had similar preoccupied parents who tried to make it up to us in providing frequent parties here and there. Actually, at ages 10 and 11 we were acting much older than we were. A group of us went to a movie, but some of us were paired up. The girl with me being 12, and I 11, I bought one "adult" ticket and one "child's." I cringe when I think of that, for many reasons, but it helps me understand why our "relationship" deteriorated somewhat. She was associated with a younger man. But we all had as much or more impact upon one another as our parents did. I still went to church on Sunday mornings, but things could have gone either way.
What saved me, and probably several of us, is that we had a background of teaching regarding right, wrong, honesty, and responsibility. Though we were too free, those lessons being recent rather than remote, still carried weight. There was also the influence of my mother's faith in earlier years when she had been so determined and fought so hard for my spiritual attention, and guided it. She went to much trouble to see that we attended services regularly. That had made church an important thing, and had residual influence.
Nevertheless, I can look back and see weakness of resolve in my self and probably her. I can remember a Sunday when a friend with whom I was sitting didn't want to stay after classes. A fleeting, and I mean momentary, stomach discomfort hit me. It had before and would again, without interrupting other things I was doing. But I decided to complain that day, and my mother said I could go home. She should have told me I would live. I remember walking home with mixed feelings. There was a little guilt, but it was really a nice Sunday morning to have off.
Even with such lapses, I still identified more with what was right because of early teaching. I was just growing less militant about it. But if those lapses had begun to dominate, where would I be today? And if we had stayed there, they might have. But the war ended and we moved. My mother was at home again, her determination was renewed, and the folks at church took an interest in me. I began to listen better. Conviction grew and I obeyed the gospel. Thank God.
I was prepared to do right. But in softening of resolve, I might have lost the fruit of that preparation. Fortunately my peer influence had come from those who were not so different. That often is not true today. What do you think will keep our children from taking a wrong fork in the road? How about, our consistent unrelenting commitment, and example? -- Dale Smelser
Here is one of them. My mother was a Christian. My father was not. That alone might make it easy for a boy to be disinterested. With World War II, my mother went to work. It was the patriotic thing to do. It was also financially beneficial. My family bought a house. I had lots of freedom and ran with a group of kids who had the same unsupervised time I had, and had similar preoccupied parents who tried to make it up to us in providing frequent parties here and there. Actually, at ages 10 and 11 we were acting much older than we were. A group of us went to a movie, but some of us were paired up. The girl with me being 12, and I 11, I bought one "adult" ticket and one "child's." I cringe when I think of that, for many reasons, but it helps me understand why our "relationship" deteriorated somewhat. She was associated with a younger man. But we all had as much or more impact upon one another as our parents did. I still went to church on Sunday mornings, but things could have gone either way.
What saved me, and probably several of us, is that we had a background of teaching regarding right, wrong, honesty, and responsibility. Though we were too free, those lessons being recent rather than remote, still carried weight. There was also the influence of my mother's faith in earlier years when she had been so determined and fought so hard for my spiritual attention, and guided it. She went to much trouble to see that we attended services regularly. That had made church an important thing, and had residual influence.
Nevertheless, I can look back and see weakness of resolve in my self and probably her. I can remember a Sunday when a friend with whom I was sitting didn't want to stay after classes. A fleeting, and I mean momentary, stomach discomfort hit me. It had before and would again, without interrupting other things I was doing. But I decided to complain that day, and my mother said I could go home. She should have told me I would live. I remember walking home with mixed feelings. There was a little guilt, but it was really a nice Sunday morning to have off.
Even with such lapses, I still identified more with what was right because of early teaching. I was just growing less militant about it. But if those lapses had begun to dominate, where would I be today? And if we had stayed there, they might have. But the war ended and we moved. My mother was at home again, her determination was renewed, and the folks at church took an interest in me. I began to listen better. Conviction grew and I obeyed the gospel. Thank God.
I was prepared to do right. But in softening of resolve, I might have lost the fruit of that preparation. Fortunately my peer influence had come from those who were not so different. That often is not true today. What do you think will keep our children from taking a wrong fork in the road? How about, our consistent unrelenting commitment, and example? -- Dale Smelser
Monday, December 06, 2010
Good News and Bad News
The morals of this nation and most of the world are in the sewer. Unless Christians learn to gird themselves and take the ridicule of the arrogant news and entertainment media, and speak boldly, disaster awaits. The host of children being born outside of marriage and without both parents, is judged to be a bomb waiting to explode. But in that a bomb signifies instantaneous disaster, another figure may be more apt. The situation is probably more like a cancer that will methodically eat away at the vitals of civilization until it dies away in agony.
If though, Christians maintain the righteousness of their confession, there are glimmers of hope. There are opportunities available if we have enough faith to meet the challenge. For instance, there are some encouraging statistics on teen sex. Sexual activity in some areas seems to be declining after decades of rising. For instance, in 1970 the number of girls aged 15-19 who had experienced a sexual relation was 29%. But by 1988 the number rose to 53%. The climb continued until in 1990 when it reached 55%. But by 1995 that dropped back to 50%; disastrous still, but a reversal nonetheless. The frequency of sexual activity may also be declining, as indicated by figures relating to boys. In 1988 the number of boys who had sexual relations within the previous three months was 43%. In 1995 that number had dropped to 38%.
The bad news is that teens who have sexual relations, do so at an earlier age. From 1988 to 1995 the number of teen girls having such experiences before they were 15, rose from 11 to 19%. Much of that increase is so compelled that the girls later judge the experience "unwanted." This means boys are not learning respect for girls. It means, as feminism has increased, respect for girls has decreased. This means, besides changing the thinking of boys, girls are going to have to be instilled with character strong enough to withstand peer pressure and meaningfully say no, mean it, and unhesitatingly and unmistakably show it in their actions.
Another hopeful statistic is that the teen age birth rate has fallen by 12% since 1991. Some suppose this is due to more abortion and use of contraception. That is unclear. But there seems to be something more fundamental at work. In 1987 a poll of college freshmen asked if "sex is okay if people like each other." 52% said yes. By 1996 only 42% thought so. This indicates a shift in moral values.
Now, for the necessity of teaching not only what the Bible says about sex outside marriage, but also what it teaches about the family, this fact should alert us. In families with two biological parents, teen sex at age 15 occurs only half as often as in one parent families. While this indicates there are some one parent families where morals are instilled, it does show the increased difficulty of accomplishing that. We must stop making selfish excuses, and where possible, keep marriages together and heal the sick ones.
These statistics came from an article by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post ( 7-1-98 ). He was criticizing an article in TIME magazine which made it sound that among teens, "everyone is doing it" (sex). Samuelson learned that the careless editor of the TIME article did not know recent surveys are showing less teen sex. Do some reporters and editors have an agenda? -- Dale Smelser
If though, Christians maintain the righteousness of their confession, there are glimmers of hope. There are opportunities available if we have enough faith to meet the challenge. For instance, there are some encouraging statistics on teen sex. Sexual activity in some areas seems to be declining after decades of rising. For instance, in 1970 the number of girls aged 15-19 who had experienced a sexual relation was 29%. But by 1988 the number rose to 53%. The climb continued until in 1990 when it reached 55%. But by 1995 that dropped back to 50%; disastrous still, but a reversal nonetheless. The frequency of sexual activity may also be declining, as indicated by figures relating to boys. In 1988 the number of boys who had sexual relations within the previous three months was 43%. In 1995 that number had dropped to 38%.
The bad news is that teens who have sexual relations, do so at an earlier age. From 1988 to 1995 the number of teen girls having such experiences before they were 15, rose from 11 to 19%. Much of that increase is so compelled that the girls later judge the experience "unwanted." This means boys are not learning respect for girls. It means, as feminism has increased, respect for girls has decreased. This means, besides changing the thinking of boys, girls are going to have to be instilled with character strong enough to withstand peer pressure and meaningfully say no, mean it, and unhesitatingly and unmistakably show it in their actions.
Another hopeful statistic is that the teen age birth rate has fallen by 12% since 1991. Some suppose this is due to more abortion and use of contraception. That is unclear. But there seems to be something more fundamental at work. In 1987 a poll of college freshmen asked if "sex is okay if people like each other." 52% said yes. By 1996 only 42% thought so. This indicates a shift in moral values.
Now, for the necessity of teaching not only what the Bible says about sex outside marriage, but also what it teaches about the family, this fact should alert us. In families with two biological parents, teen sex at age 15 occurs only half as often as in one parent families. While this indicates there are some one parent families where morals are instilled, it does show the increased difficulty of accomplishing that. We must stop making selfish excuses, and where possible, keep marriages together and heal the sick ones.
These statistics came from an article by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post ( 7-1-98 ). He was criticizing an article in TIME magazine which made it sound that among teens, "everyone is doing it" (sex). Samuelson learned that the careless editor of the TIME article did not know recent surveys are showing less teen sex. Do some reporters and editors have an agenda? -- Dale Smelser
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)