The Value of the Nuclear Family
The term “nuclear family” found its first usage in 1941 according to Merriam-Webster, and is defined as a family group consisting of only parents and children living in one household. (Merriam-Webster) This differs from a larger family group consisting of the nuclear family along with extended relatives living in the same household. While many people mat assume that the nuclear family is a more recent development in western culture, studies have found that it has been the dominant family structure as far back as thirteenth century Europe. (Real Roots of the Nuclear Family) This may have something to do with why it was the dominant family structure in the United States up until recently.
With that being said, I wanted to know if the nuclear family was so predominant because it was necessary to the times. Now that times have changed and our society is more advanced, do we still need to think of the core family unit in such a traditional way? What has caused the current shift away from the traditional view? Finally, what, if anything, is the biblical view of the core family unit, and if so, how does it differ from what we see now?
First, I want to see if the nuclear family was necessary to the times, which led to it being so dominant in western culture. Obviously western civilization changed greatly between the thirteenth century and today, so it would be hard to find one sociological constant that would dictate the nuclear family being necessary the whole time. One of the most significant changes would definitely be the industrial revolution, and many sociologists have written about its effects on the family. The industrial revolution began in Britain in the mid to late 1700s and marked a change from a more agrarian society to one more “dominated by industry and manufacturing”, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. So it couldn’t be the industrial revolution that made the nuclear family necessary for survival, as is often thought, because the nuclear family was dominate for almost 500 years, from the 13th century to the 18th century, before the industrial revolution. “In fact, the family arrangement so common to England helps explain why it and other nations of northwest Europe were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the launching ground for modern affluence.” (Real Roots of the Nuclear Family) So it seems that the nuclear family was not the result of the industrial revolution, but rather lent itself to making it possible.
Still, the industrial revolution was a long time ago, so is it really necessary to keep such a traditional view of what a core family unit should be? According to a Pew research study from 2014, only 46% of children under the age of eighteen are living with two married heterosexual parents. In 1960, that number was 73%. (Pew Research) So obviously the traditional nuclear family is no longer the majority of families, comprising slightly less than half of all families in that study. But just because it is no longer the prevailing culture does not mean it is no longer a good culture. In his speech at Apostolic Church of God in Chicago on Father’s Day, then President Barack Obama stated the following statistics. That children without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crimes, nine times more likely to drop out of school and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. He goes on to say “many…women are doing a heroic job, but they need support. They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That’s what keeps their foundation strong. It’s what keeps the foundation of our country strong.” So apparently the nuclear family is foundational to this very country, and should be valued as such.
If this is true, what has caused the current shift away from holding the traditional nuclear family as an important value? There is certainly a rise in children born out of wedlock, and even for those that are born to married couples, the divorce rate is also increasing. Some of the cause might just be shifts in social norms. Divorce is definitely more socially acceptable now, and so is having children before marriage. Now, ““baby mamas” are more of the norm, and there are reality tv shows about being sixteen and pregnant. But is it just social acceptability that makes the rise in single parent homes possible? Some, including myself, think not.
The article LBJ vs. the Nuclear Family discusses some of the effects of LBJ’s “Great Society”. In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson began the “War on Poverty”, which aimed to lift up and enrich American civilization. Johnson began a series of programs that would have lasting consequences on the American family, consequences that we are beginning to realize today. This was the beginning of what has been referred to as the welfare state. First there was Medicare and Medicaid, which would provide healthcare for the elderly and the poor respectively. This was followed by food stamp programs and a Department of Housing and Urban Development. No matter how altruistic the motives for these government social programs may have been, it is not a coincidence that the steady systematic decline of the nuclear family in America coincides with the rise of such programs. The author is quoted as saying “Johnson and his policy team believed that expanding government funding for broken families would help save them. Instead, it incentivized single mothers to remain unmarried”. (LBJ vs the Nuclear Family)
So what would be a biblical worldview/Christian response to the erosion of the traditional family unit be? As has already been pointed out, the nuclear family is not the result of the industrial revolution, but more of a cause of it. Of course, the bible was written long before the industrial revolution, it was written even before the 13th century when the nuclear family became the norm in Europe. Yet it seems as though the biblical idea of the core family unit does not differ from the traditional nuclear family. In Matthew chapter 19, Jesus says to the Pharisees “Have you not read the He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’”. Now the society in Jesus’ time was largely agrarian, yet He did not speak of a large extended family living together in one household. Instead He said that the man and woman should leave the family unit that they were a part of to go and form their own family unit. Here, also, Jesus is referring to even older scripture, Genesis 2:24, so it seems as though the nuclear family is what was intended from the very beginning, so it predated all of society and should not just be seen as a reaction to society. Instead it should be seen as a value set by God, and therefore should not be dependent upon social norms, nor can it be set aside for social convenience. While America may have set aside the nuclear family as a value, I do not think we as Christians can do the same. We must strengthen and encourage that value in our family, our church and in our community. It is one of the many ways in which we are to be set apart from the prevailing culture, and one of the more significant ones. We have to take personal responsibility for it and not count on worldly social programs to deal with the social problems that result from single parent homes and children born out of wedlock. It is not “privilege” to be born into a nuclear family, it is a blessing from God, and we can share that blessing with others.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear%20family
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-real-roots-of-the-nuclear-family/
https://www.britannica.com/event/Industrial-Revolution
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lbj-vs-the-nuclear-family/
