tothesource asked David Blankenhorn, a nationally
recognized leader in the Fatherhood Movement, to share his
insights on men reconnecting with their children.

On this Fathers Day 2004, what is the state of fatherhood in our society? First, let me state the challenge before us. A generation ago, an American child could reasonably expect to grow up with his or her father. Today, an American child can reasonably expect not to. Fatherlessness has now approached a rough parity with fatherhood as a defining feature of American childhood.

Tonight, more than one-third of American children will go to sleep in homes in which their fathers do not live. Before they reach the age of eighteen, more than half of our nation's children are likely to spend at least a significant portion of their childhood living apart from their fathers. Never before in this country have so many children been voluntarily abandoned by their fathers. Never before have so many children grown up without knowing what it means to have a father.

Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation. It is the leading cause of declining child well-being in our society. It is also the engine driving our most urgent social problems, from crime to adolescent pregnancy to child sexual abuse to domestic violence against women.

Where is this trend heading? As people born after 1970 come increasingly to dominate our working-age adult population, the United States will be divided into two groups, separate and unequal. The two groups will work in the same economy, speak a common language, and remember the same national history. But they will live fundamentally divergent lives. One group will receive basic benefits – psychological, social, economic, educational, and moral – that are denied to the other group.

The primary fault line dividing the two groups will not be race, religion, class, education, or gender. It will be patrimony. One group will consist of those adults who grew up with the daily presence and provision of fathers. The other group will consist of those who did not. Amazingly, in our society today, these two groups are roughly the same size.

The core question is simple: Does every child need a father? Currently, our society's answer is "no", or at least, "not necessarily." Few idea shifts in this century are as consequential as this one. At stake is nothing less than what it means to be a man, who our children will be, and what kind of society we will become.

Margaret Mead and others have observed that the supreme test of any civilization is whether it can socialize men by teaching them to be fathers – creating a culture in which men acknowledge their paternity and willingly nurture their offspring. Indeed, if we equate the essence of the antisocial male with violence, we can equate the essence of the socialized male with being a good father. Thus, at the center of our most important cultural imperative, we find the story that describes what it ought to mean for a man to have a child. Today the United States is conspicuously failing to meet Margaret Mead’s supreme test.

That is the challenge before us. Is there hope? Of course. Is there good news? Yes. First, some demographics. Since the late 1990s, the trends of fatherlessness and family fragmentation – as evidenced by steady increases in unwed childbearing and divorce, resulting in ever greater proportions of children living in father-absent homes – have largely stopped in their tracks.

A few key facts. The proportion of all U.S. families with children under age 18 that are headed by married couples reached an all-time low (about 73 percent) in the mid 1990s, but since then has stabilized. Similarly, the proportion of all U.S. children living in two-parent homes reached an all-time low in the mid 1990s, but since then has stabilized. Here is perhaps the most promising statistic. From 1995 to 2000, the proportion of African American children living in two-parent, married-couple homes rose from 34.8 to 38.9 percent, a significant increase in just five years, representing the clear cessation and even reversal of the long-term shift toward Black family fragmentation.

These changes are not large or definitive, but they are certainly good news. There is a lesson here. Many people have argued that the trend of fatherlessness is irreversible – a fact of modern life about which nothing can be done. These encouraging demographic developments show that these people are wrong. The trend is not irreversible. In fact, the wind may already be at our backs. If the current good trends continue and intensify, they will change the lives of millions of U.S. children and families for the better.

These new facts on the ground are in part the result of changing attitudes and values in recent years, especially among our elites. For the past decade, I’ve been privileged to participate in a grass-roots fatherhood movement in the United States – a diverse and growing group of leaders, initiatives, and organizations working to reconnect men with their children. In a 1997 public appeal, “A Call to Fatherhood,” 55 of us wrote: “We come together because we believe that every child deserves a loving, committed, and responsible father. Not just the lucky ones, but every child. We come together from across the nation and across the political spectrum, all dedicated to ending the curse of fatherlessness that is maiming our children and coarsening our society.” Much has been accomplished. Increasingly influential organizations, such as the National Fatherhood Initiative, and recent pro-fatherhood policy initiatives at both state and federal levels, as well as a significantly greater focus on fatherhood from civic, religious, philanthropic, and academic leaders, are in part the results of this fatherhood movement.

A similar grass-roots movement has arisen in recent years to support marriage. It makes perfect sense that paying more attention to fatherhood requires us also to pay more attention to marriage. Why? Because for most men, marriage is the precondition, the life support system, for hands-on, effective fatherhood. Everywhere, the two rise or fall together. In a 2000 public appeal, “The Marriage Movement,” more than 100 of us wrote: “We come together to pledge that in this decade we will turn the tide on marriage and reduce divorce and unwed childbearing, so that each year more children will grow up protected by their own two happily married parents, and so that each year more adults’ marriage dreams will come true.”

In the area of marriage, too, much has been accomplished. Many new organizations and initiatives – including by now hundreds of church-led “community marriage policies” – have emerged. Federal welfare law now directly encourages marriage, and the Bush Administration has launched a “Healthy Marriage Initiative” aimed at supporting marriage education and marriage-supportive community organizing.

How much progress has bee made? “On the heels of a fatherhood movement,” writes Alex Kotlowitz in 2002 in the New York Times, more and more young couples in inner cities “are considering marriage.” Kotlowitz’s 2002 Frontline television documentary, “Let’s Get Married,” focuses on what the documentary calls the “burgeoning marriage movement.”

New research findings, and new scholarly perspectives, are also supporting the renewed concern for fatherhood and marriage. A recent report co-sponsored by my organization is called “Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities.” In the report, 33 children’s doctors, brain researchers, and other child experts conclude that children are biologically primed (“hardwired”) for deep connections to loving adults and to moral and spiritual meaning. And what is the first and most important of the “authoritative communities” that give children this connectedness? These researchers in lab coats tell us that it is the mother-father, married-couple family.

The great challenge on this Fathers Day is to turn these early signs of renewal into a full-fledged turnaround toward more and more U.S. children growing up in loving homes with nurturing, hands-on fathers. We now know that positive change is possible. The question before us is whether we will commit ourselves as a society to making that possibility a reality.

In their book The Fatherhood Movement: A Call to Action, Blankenhorn, Horn and Pearlstein lay out the challenges for social change.

The first challenge is setting goals that are compelling and realizable.

The leading indicators for evaluating progress in the fatherhood movement should include:

1. The proportion of Americans who believe that all children deserve fathers and that fatherlessness poses serious risks for children and society.
2. The proportion of children who have a positive, enduring relationship with at least one responsible adult male.
3. The proportion of children who spend their childhood living with their two, married parents
4. The proportion of children whose fathers are legally identified, support them financially, and love and nurture them to adulthood

The second challenge for the fatherhood movement is racial reconciliation.

Fatherlessness is currently increasing faster among whites than among blacks. It can no longer, then, be viewed as a black problem, a poverty problem, a "them" problem. It's an "us" problem.

The third challenge for the fatherhood movement is supporting marriage.

A marriage strategy is also the most realistic strategy. For there is little reason to believe -- there is almost no empirical evidence to suggest -- that we as a society can ignore or dispense with marriage while simultaneously renewing fatherhood. Everywhere, the two rise or fall together.

The fourth challenge for the fatherhood movement is recognizing the moral and religious dimensions of fatherhood.

Fatherhood calls men to purposes larger than themselves. In this sense, the essence of fatherhood is the giving of oneself, connecting to others, and recognizing truths that are bigger than any one man.

High Court rules that atheist father Michael Newdow lacks the legal authority to represent his 10 year old daughter in his attempt to excise the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience.

The ruling came down this week on Flag Day, exactly 50 years from the date that the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge.

Referring to Newdow's protracted custody suit Justice Stevens said that "the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict." He said that while Dr. Newdow was free to "instruct his daughter in his religious views," California law did not give him "a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion." Lacking a plaintiff with standing, the federal courts did not have jurisdiction over the case.

“When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course if for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty issue of constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.”

Arguing for the removal of the phrase "under God" before the Supreme Court was only one of 3 lawsuits brought by Newdow this spring. The day after arguing his own case before the Supreme Court, he brought another suit attempting to stop congressional chaplains from offering prayers on Capitol Hill. In keeping with his atheist objectives, last February he attempted to abolish clergy-led prayer at presidential inaugurations.

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." - Mark Twain

Responses to: Mourning in America

BRAVO!!! In these times of screeching, vile lies and attacks on all sides, total lack of civility or respect, it's like a drink of cool, clean water on a very hot day to read uplifting articles like this. Thank you,   Rev. B. S.

I was able to visit Leningrad in 1979. Amidst the statements of many leading of American "experts" to the contrary I saw clearly that their economy and their nation could not survive. I am not well schooled in economics, politics or international relations but the signs of death were clear. I knew at once that the glowing reports about freedom and economic strength from left wing visitors were lies. All one had to do was look at the people and visit the shops.

We were on a cruise that began in Holland and stopped in several Scandinavian ports before docking in Leningrad. The contrast between the modern facilities of the free world and those in the USSR was stark. No objective person who actually saw what was going on there could miss the differences. Perhaps scholars only read the bogus statistics and failed to look at production, how people dress and whether they can look at visitors in the eye.

I have been involved in ministry in Russia and the CIS since 1992 and can tell you that the stink of death was unmistakable long before Mr. Reagan pointed it out. One did not need to be a genius, just honest about reality to see that. This was another of Mr Reagan's great gifts. He looked at reality and called it what it was. His optimism did not overlook the facts about a rotten system. Keep up the good work. Shalom,   G. S.

Former President Reagan is a an icon of leadership. His calm demeanor in the most anxious of times, his use of humor to disarm potentially heated situations, his use of narrative to connect with his audience and communicate his perspectives and positions were traits that we all could learn from for our own daily lives. All of these served to communicate to America the authentic gentle patriot that he was.

His gifts for communication aside, his policies, especially on the domestic front, where terrible for the least of those among us -- the poor, the homeless, the hungry. On his tenure we saw the wealth of the wealthiest 10% of our population grow while the income of the poorest 50% declined. And his command of the facts on any number of issues had much to be desired.

This having been said, as a man and leader, he believed in what he was doing and honestly felt it was right. One must respect him for the courage of his convictions, even though many were misguided.    Rev. P. O.

Communism was considered the emerging political force in the world. Nearly half of the world's population lived under communistic regimes. Yet two years into his first term, with America in a recession, Reagan shocked the world by proclaiming that Soviet Communism would end up on the "ash heap of history". Everyone dismissed it as rhetoric, I've seen this historical fantasy repeated several times this week and, like much that Reagan said (and much that his faithful disciple "W" says today), it's a bold-faced lie. The Soviet system was dying within itself in the 1980s. Reaganism gave birth to a new American system that continues to reproduce mounting inequities and is also destined to destroy itself. I pray that the violence will be minimized.   L. S.

Responses to: Saved!

Thank you for the heads up on the movie. I used it as an sermon illustration last week as we celebrated Trinity Sunday. God's timing is truly amazing, the same time a movie is coming out to confuse the world about God in Christ, all Christendom is giving praise to the One True God, Father Son and Holy Spirit. In Christ,    Rev. J. N.

Although I rarely if ever waste time on the Right-wing-nut Protestant cults, and/or their propagandists, I did read the diatribe against the movie. Since this writer takes issue with the portraits of the vangelical/charismatic/book-banging/hate mongers and bigots who style themselves "Christians", I would ask him a question:

You write: "I know hundreds, even thousands, of Christians. And NONE OF THEM is like this; not on the christian right or the Christian left." (Emphasis added.)

Oh, really! What about Pastor Phelps in Wichita, Kansas? Or Jerry Falwell? Or Pat Robertson? Just to name 3 of the most outstanding Baptist preachers who peddle the kind of "Christianity" that is so richly detailed in the film.

Or perhaps one might add the host of other Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ holy phoney-baloneys that are the actual reality of your so called brand of "Christian" that you either DON'T KNOW, or perhaps just don't want to acknowledge knowing, since they certainly serve as excellent examples of those who refute everything you say; and are themselves the archytypes from which the movie draws its characters.   C. G.

(tothesource responds) For you to reference Pastor Phelps shows the extreme lengths you must go to in order to find a Christian as abhorrent as those overpopulating ‘Saved’. I wrote that “I know hundreds, even thousands of Christians. Not one of them is like this.” I did not write that “I know of hundreds, even thousands of Christians. Not one of them is like this.” I stand by the distinction.

Dannelly overreaches with ‘Saved’, distorting the potentially useful stereotypes of spiritually overzealous adolescents and hypocritical authority figures (and we all know these are not limited to Christians) into characters resembling Torquemada ruling the Inquisition. His goal is to characterize Christians as judgmental beasts so as to discredit their cultural involvement. He wants to mute their voices. Christians must reject this characterization not only by how they live their lives but by noting the obvious intolerance.

Is it possible that this film, despite the demurring of it's director, is actually a satire on the tendency to create a Christian sub-culture that apes the current pop culture, but injects some Jesus into it to make it "palatable", "acceptable", and "hip" to assuage the perennial sense of inferiority that much of evangelical sub-culture (read: inward gazing "cultural" ghetto) experiences and promotes?

Frankly, this evangelical doesn't see Fundamentalism as doing us any favors. Could it be possible that this review is just adding fuel to the fire by giving people more reason to respond to hostility with hostility, to return evil with evil, to respond in anger to the angry?

Why can't we see this film as an opportunity to address the stereotypes you lament? Stereotypes are rooted in some measure of reality. You may feel that you know not a single Christian that represents the attitudes portrayed, but somewhere the Christian community HAS communicated ineffectively who we are and it has been capitalized on by those who are hostile to us. We are seen as whining, self-righteous, hypocritical bigots and we perpetuate that when we arrogantly dismiss our critics as rejecting "The Truth".

Why can't we see people like Michael Stipe and Dannely and all like them as tragic figures who need our prayer? I'll tell you why...it's easier to get angry at people than to love. It's easier to retreat into declarations of truth and ramp up the troops to fight another battle than to embrace our critics and overwhelm them with graciousness and engagement.

The reality of this film is that while I grant there are excesses to it--it's a movie for crying out loud--it rips the face off our hypocrisy and the reality that while we may stand for Truth in areas of morality, etc. our churches are filled with people that are a mess and are constantly consumed with other people's lives instead of their own.

If anything makes me angry, it's people that will read your review and not see the movie for themselves. And we wonder why people see us as unthinking puppets of self-righteous charlatans that peddle Jesus for some extra bucks.   Pastor N. C.

Rebuttals to Rebuttals: Memorial Day

I read the responses of folks about the memorial day article by D'Souza. I tend to agree with the analysis that he provided, but understand that he did not make his case as water-tight as possible as he could have. I offer my own reasons and analyses as a response.

Although Hussein may be no Hitler, there are some similarities: Both were totalitarian dictators. As such, both built a cult around themselves, exalting themselves. Both brutally repressed those who challenged their rule, and as such, committed genocide. Hitler was responsible for the death of millions of Jews. Hussein, according to National Geographic, oversaw the death of about 5-7 million of his citizens over the last 20 years. And i am sure that the US invasion and occupation has not come close to even 100,000 deaths (2% of Hussein's). All this begs the question, is it really so wrong for us to liberate such a nation?

Also, every time i read or hear about no weapons of mass destruction i want to give a history lesson. God gave us MEMORY, and i have found mine very useful in this matter. On the question of WMD's and Iraq, we know that Hussein used chemicals on the Kurds and the Iranians. So there is a history of chemicals weapons. Not surprisingly, we have heard about programs of the nuclear and biological nature. I even remember from my youth the Israelis bombing a nuclear reactor for the same. It should not be a huge stretch for someone who is willing to use chemical weapons on 10,000's of people that the same would seek WMD's of biological and nuclear ilk.

But remember , since the last war, the UN has been seeking WMD inspections and every time getting less than a half-hearted response. We recall that 14 UN resolutions were passed to so deal with the Iraqi regime. Further, remember, the concern about WMD's was not a lie made up by the Bush administration. Recall that the Clinton administration had a hand in crafting some of the 14 UN resolutions that dealt with the subject; it was clearly a concern to the Clinton administration.

And remember that there was clearly international concern about WMD's. All the major countries did not dispute the concern about WMD's: England, France, Russia, China, Germany. It was almost universal in the international community that Iraq might have WMD's. Recall that the discussion was not so much doubting if there were WMD's but how to go about compelling Hussein to comply with international requirements on Iraq. So when it is suggested that the Bush administration lied about WMD's, this goes against the grain of the conventional wisdom and memory in the international community. So a criticism to say that the Bush administration knew Iraq had no WMD's, is accusing them of knowing what nobody knew until after invading Iraq (and is still claimed not known). Such a criticism of the Iraq liberation war is unreasonable and anti-causal, because it requires the administration to contradict what is generally held true without substantial evidence to the contrary, and it requires the administration to make decision in the past based on what is now known. Whatever you think of the decision to go to war, this is an irrational critique. There are a lot of things we might change if we could know the future...but the strange thing about reality is that you don't know what will happen until AFTER it has happened.

Now if you reason this from what was known at the time, the case where Iraq might have WMD's, with a leader that has shown little restraint in deploying then in the past, is it more prudent to remove the weapons by force, or to ignore them? If you think that such weapons need to be removed by force, then when should it be done? Before their presence is know for certain, or after? There are only 2 ways we can be certain to know if Iraq had WMD's: either we find them, or they use them. If the choice is after they are certain to have WMD's, then in war there are greater risks to casualties by these same WMD's. Further, if certainty only comes after their use, then we also have the certainty of casualties. If the choice is to invade before it is certain that Iraq had such weapons, then the possibility must exist that they might not have WMD's. And so the administration fundamentally had to face the decision of which is better: to wait to start a war until we know that they have weapons, risking higher casualties (human lives) or overthrowing a despotic government (known to mass murder its citizens) and risking the chance that there might no WMD's.

As for the criticism about failing to secure UN approval to secure international consensus, there are 3 problems with this criticism. First, if there be any country (like France or Russia) which has a vested interest in profit, rather than justice, this alone can stop the UN international 'consensus.' As such, doing what is right gets derailed and we choose to be inactive about finding justice. Second, a coalition of some 30 countries is not exactly a unilateral move: to the contrary, it represents the best coalition that could be put together outside of the UN veto. Thirdly, it amounts to surrendering our national sovereignty (and that of 30 other nations) to a super-state called the UN, and thus the whims of its rulings. Need i mention that the UN does not have a stellar record, especially when looking at how it has failed with, 14 resolutions, 12 years, and corruption in the oil for food program, to deal with Iraq to openly declare the state of its WMD's programs.

If anything, our going to war in Iraq says more about the failure of the UN, and about the desire of the Bush administration to do what is right even if it is viewed as unpopular. The fact that the funds from the oil sales are going to Iraq and that we are spending tens of billions of dollars of our US money to rebuild Iraq says something about motive: hint, it is not profit or greed.   E. J.

I wish now I had responded to your excellent piece on Memorial Day. Some of the rebuttal left me wanting to scream.

There seemed to be two strands to the rebuttals: [1] pre-emptive violence is bad, and [2] our invasion of Iraq was fought because of WMD. None of the arguments offered seemed to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of either the Scriptures or American policy in this current arena.

First, it is a Scriptural principle that violence by the hands of an ordained authority is within the realm of God's will. As an OT example, God commanded the Israelites to commit whole-sale slaughter of the Canaanites and the other inhabitants of Palestine in order to bring His chosen people to the Promised Land. Under the NT, while there is no covenant nation-state on Earth that Christians advance and protect, we are clearly taught by both the Apostles Paul and Peter that those authorities that do exist bear the sword to punish those that do wrong." (Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-14) Since there is no one state and not all leaders of all states practice Godly ethics in the administrations of their duties, it has to be the case that some authorities must exert pressure and even violence against the representatives of rogue states that threaten the basic human rights of people. Save for the hand of God himself, there is no other ordained authority to keep rogue states in check. Violence is often a practical necessity, a moral requirement, and a God-ordained response. Furthermore, if a rogue can be "headed off at the pass" before its action unnecessarily hurts others, then that pre-emptive action has to have a higher moral utility than waiting until it's too late. I think this is part of the policy that has become known as the Bush Doctrine. This leads to the second point.

At what point in the President's presentation to America of his case against Iraq did he ever state that the EXISTENCE of WMD's were the primary reason for the campaign in Iraq? Saddam Hussein and his friends, having already declared war on America in numerous ways, were not experiencing a preemptive action by us, but a very measured response to actions already taken against us, most notably that of September 11, 2001. While Saddam may not have had direct input into that plan of attack, he was complicit in many indirect ways. The message has always been quite clear to me and others who understood the President's message that Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing force in the Middle East as well as a facilitator of terrorists bent on destroying America and other free peoples. He had consistently engaged in abetting America's enemies, and he demonstrated the capacity and willingness to develop and use WMDs against Iraqis and others, whether he currently (at the time of the invasion) possessed them or not. By removing this toxic influence in the Middle East and reorienting the direction of Iraq, we disorient the terrorists, free an oppressed people, demonstrate to the world our resolve that we will not be bullied by third rate dictators or their friends, and establish a beach head in a war that has been described by Donald Rumsfeld as "...a long hard slog." In response to H.B.'s comments, just because Korea verifiably does possess WMD's, that doesn't necessarily make it a strong candidate for the exercise of a campaign in the current situation. However, its being being denoted as being among the Axis of Evil has summarily placed it on notice by our action in Iraq. While no Marines landed on its shores, we did fire a warning shot. I hope you responded to each of these ill-informed opinions in kind. Dinesh, I deeply appreciate the writing you and others have brought us through To The Source. I look forward to every issue.    R. B.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.