A STUDY BY
GARY RAY BRANSCOME
"Abraham shall surely become a great and
mighty nation... For I know him, that he will command his
children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the
Lord." (Genesis 18:
If you devote yourself to the pursuit of material things you
will lose everything that you have labored for when you die. However, if your
family is of primary importance you can have what you value the most in heaven
with you. Even if heaven is not a place of marrying and giving in marriage, you
will still know who your spouse is, and your love for each other will be more
intense than it is now. Moreover, the warmth and love between family members
will be greater not less. Your children will love you,
hug you, and thank you for training them according to God's Word. In fact,
there may be many generations that rise up and call you blessed, so many that
the number of your descendants may well be that of a great and mighty nation
(Proverbs 31:28, Psalm 127:3).
Because the modern American
lifestyle tends to exaggerate the importance of things and material
acquisition, personal relationships are often taken for granted and neglected
in the pursuit of pleasure. It is common for families to be pulled apart by the
desire to have and experience as much as possible. Not only are fathers driven
to work outside the home in order to better finance material acquisition, but
mothers often leave the raising of children to strangers so that they might
work outside the home. As a result, children are rushed from school or day care
to dancing lessons or sporting events, as if such activities were the main
purpose for living. Yet, with all the rushing about, no one takes time to ask
what good these things will be fifty years from now. What good are material
things to a lonely and neglected old person? The only thing you can do that
will bring you happiness and fulfillment in old age is to build strong family
relationships. For true fulfillment comes with the love and devotion of
children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.
In contrast to our modern lifestyle, the rural way of life has traditionally
tended to bind families together, rather than tearing them apart. Rural life
could be hard, but during difficult times families faced things together.
Moreover, because the children were with their parents when the various crises
of life arose, they were taught by example how to handle those crises. As a
result, they went into adulthood with more confidence in their ability to
handle the problems of life than many young people have today. Furthermore,
because they spent much of their time with their parents, they tended to show
more maturity when it came time to shoulder the responsibilities of life. In
fact, you might say that they were trained from youth up to shoulder the
responsibilities of adulthood. That training began with the assignment of
chores. As they grew older the list of chores changed accordingly. At the same
time, they learned all of the skills that they would need as adults, from
working with their parents. Thus, instead of being filled with self-doubt when
they reached their teenage years, they were ready for adult responsibility. If
they chose to leave the farm, they then did so as mature and responsible
adults. And it was just such adults that established businesses, built
industries, and made
[NOTE: One problem that we face today has to do with the fact that when
children spend a disproportionate amount of their time with other children they
tend to imitate the behavior of those children when they ought to be learning
to act like adults.]
Since rural families often had three or even four
generations living under one roof, it was possible for them to share
responsibilities. When that was the case, the older people were not required to
carry as heavy a workload as those who were younger. Yet because there was
always something to do, they did not simply sit around feeling useless, as do
many on social security. In addition, a lighter workload gave them more time to
spend with their grandchildren, and they were able to use that time to pass on
family history, skills, and the wisdom accumulated over a lifetime. Thus, rural
children tended to love and respect the elderly instead of making fun of them.
While modern couples often regard children as a financial burden, the rural
family welcomed children (Psalm 127:3). The more children there were, the more
hands there were to share the work. If the number of mouths increased, they
simply increased the size of the garden. Furthermore, if a child had a handicap,
that child was not institutionalized, but instead was cared for in love. There
were always simple jobs that a handicapped child could do, such as stringing
beans or mending harness. Moreover, such jobs made them feel like contributing
members of the family and not just a burden upon it. However, even if they were
not able to do anything they were still cared for by people who loved them,
people who would be horrified by the cold modern conclusion that the
handicapped ought to be killed. [Is killing people civilization and progress,
or a regress to barbarianism?]
Since men are by nature stronger
and more aggressive than women, every society has had to find some way to deal
with male aggressiveness. And God's way of dealing with that aggressiveness has
been to place the man at the head of the family, and assign him the role of
providing for the needs and well being of his wife and offspring. Furthermore,
that is a role of service; not a role of superiority as those bereft of wisdom
would have you believe. The man serves his family, and they in return give him
their service and devotion. In fact, if that role discriminates against anyone,
it discriminates against the men, for the men shoulder the hardest and dirtiest
jobs. However, men do not see that role as discrimination. They gladly shoulder
the heavier load, out of kindness for women, and see it as an affirmation of
their manhood.
History reveals that society
prospers, crime is at its lowest, and children are happiest only when men in general
take their God assigned responsibility seriously. In fact, it is vital to the
well being of a nation that the men, especially the young men, identify true
manliness with the role of a provider. Wherever that is not the case, young men
tend to show their manhood in detrimental ways, immorality is accepted, and the
family breaks down. This is seen very clearly in the inner cities where single
mothers are common and women often dominate the home. In such neighborhoods
young men tend to congregate in gangs, express their aggressiveness in
destructive ways, and identify manhood with sexual prowess.
For men to rise above destructive
expressions of manhood, it is important for them to see themselves as the link
between past and future generations. And they will only see themselves in that
way if they can be sure that the children they father are really their own. If
they cannot be certain of who their children are, they are unlikely to identify
with those children or feel any responsibility to provide for them. Therefore,
if we are to have a strong nation we must have moral people, and a society that
condemns and censures extramarital sex (Proverbs
Most people are familiar with the
saying "Blood is thicker than water." The thought behind that saying
is that family loyalty is stronger than friendship. And, it is blood that binds
a family together, causing the members to identify with each other and feel a
loyalty to each other. However, what about a man and wife? Since they do not
share a common bloodline, what binds them together? What do they have in common
that no one else shares? Of course the answer to this question is sex. The
sexual intimacy which a man and wife share with each other, but no one else,
causes them to feel a bond to each other – a family bond. I am not saying
that such marriages will never have problems. I am saying that in spite of
difficulties, a man and wife who are confident of each other's faithfulness, will feel like they are family. In fact, when
that bond exists, the love between them normally grows stronger over the years,
not weaker. However, adultery breaks that bond of trust. Once adultery takes
place a marriage is never the same. The victimized spouse may be willing to
forgive and forget, but the relationship will never be the same. The question,
Can I trust him (or her)? Will always be there, even if the
immorality took place before marriage. For, if the commandment
"Thou shalt not commit adultery" was not
taken seriously before marriage, there is a question as to whether it will be
taken seriously after marriage. Finally, if a man has any question at all about
his wife's faithfulness it will damage the bond which he feels toward his
children, for if he cannot be sure that his wife is faithful, then he cannot be certain that the children are really even
his. For that reason, the sexual bond is fundamental even to the bond of blood
relationship.
The bond of blood
relationship is of key importance in channeling a man's aggressiveness into
constructive effort. Because of that bond, a man will work to build a home, a
business, or a farm expecting one day to leave it to his children. In fact,
because of that bond, he views leaving it to his children almost like leaving
it to himself. He sees his children as an extension of himself, often placing
their interest ahead of his own. Yet the motivation for all of this unselfish
generosity ceases to exist if a man cannot be certain that his children are
really his.
When property is passed on from
generation to generation, men tend to see themselves not just as consumers of
wealth, but as stewards who are responsible for preserving and passing on a
heritage to future generations (1 Kings 21:3). Since property taxes can be a
great hindrance to passing on the land, especially in hard times, it is
noteworthy that the Law of Moses did not place any tax upon the land. In
contrast, ancient
Since people from
I
would like to conclude with a prose poem, that was written by
Christian Missionary to
I
should like to find the existence of what my father called "Plain living
and high thinking."
I want some fields and hills, woodlands and streams I can call my own. I want
to spend my strength in making fields green, and the cattle fat, so that I may
give sustenance to my loved ones, and aid to those neighbors who suffer
misfortune. I do not want a life of monotonous paper-shuffling or trafficking
with money-mad traders.
I only want enough of science to enable fruitful husbandry of the land with
simple tools, a time for leisure, and the guarding of my family's health. I do
not care to be absorbed in the endless examining of force and space and matter,
which I believe can only slowly lead to God.
I do not want a hectic hurrying from place to place on whizzing machines or
busy streets. I do not want an elbowing through crowds of impatient strangers
who have time neither to think their own thoughts nor to know real friendship.
I want to live slowly, to relax with my family before a glowing fireplace, to
welcome the visits of my neighbors, to worship God, to enjoy a book, to lie on
a shaded grassy bank and watch the clouds sail across the blue.
I want to love a wife who prefers rural peace to urban excitement, one who
would rather climb a hilltop to watch a sunset with me than to take a taxi to
any Broadway play. I want a woman who is not afraid of bearing children, and
who is able to rear them with a love for home and the soil, and a fear of God.
I want of Government only protection against the violence and injustices of
evil or selfish men.
I want to reach the sunset of life sound in body and mind, flanked by strong
sons and grandsons, enjoying the friendship and respect of neighbors,
surrounded by fertile fields and sleek cattle, and retaining my boyhood faith
in Him who promised a life to come.
Where can I find this world? Would its anachronism doom it to ridicule or
loneliness? Is there yet a place for such simple ways in my own