The Downside of Father's Day, Part 1

The mother-to-be, let's call her Rachel, 19, spent most of her final weeks of pregnancy in the hospital, struggling with health complications while having her first baby. The father, let's call him, Frank, 27, spent those same weeks spending time at the hospital, searching vainly for a job, and getting his mother to care for his three year old son, created with another woman.

Frank and Rachel's son was born Saturday afternoon, June 20, 2009. The three of them are homeless and the baby didn't even have a crib to sleep in. The parents are jobless, with few opportunities in a recession-laden economy. Frank and Rachel could not afford to produce this child. Worse yet, they cannot afford to raise him. Thus, this child enters the world with a huge deficit in possibilities, far more likely to become a burden for society, rather than a contributor to it.

Considering prenatal care, tests, the costs of the birth, and support for the baby's initial year, the price tag tops $100,000 for this mother, father and child. National statistics estimate the annual income of the unmarried family of three at about $15,000. Assuming equal distribution, costs to get this baby to just one-year-old creates an immediate $85,000 deficit for this "family."

We pay for that anyway. So there's no way for us to claim uninvolvement. We must ask ourselves what can we do? The answer is not to complain and criticize, even when our complaints and criticisms ring true. Rather, we must become, N.I.C.E. in our thinking about this issue, the implications of which affect three generations of this family and others similarly situated. Of course, this is not a new challenge. Yet' it's clear that what we've been doing--paying and praying--has not, and I add, will not, work.

As I use the acronym N.I.C.E. it stands for a complete overhaul of our thinking about addressing national challenges, issues that confront all of us. NICE focuses on how we think about issues, and stands for New, Innovative, Creative and Enthusiastic thinking. More on this later as I discuss a proposed solution to this challenge.

I am going to concentrate on this one case, in Durham, NC, including the irony of this birth occurring a day before Father's Day this year. I am also going to provide a snapshot of this tragedy, viewed from the perspective of national statistics. Most importantly, I am going to recommend a solution that offers a more creative and innovative response to this issue. First, consider the national statistics.

More than 15 million children live in poverty throughout the United States. The rate of poverty among children is almost 17%, significantly higher than the poverty rate for the population as a whole. Child poverty in the U.S. is much higher -- often two-to-three times higher -- than that of most other major Western industrialized countries.

Each day in America, 2,019 babies are born into poverty. This means that a child is born into poverty every 43 seconds. Almost 80 percent of poor children live in working households.

One in five children is poor during the first three years of life - the time of greatest brain development.

An American child is born without health insurance every minute - 90 percent of our nine million uninsured children live in working families.

Consider the annual income rates of poor people in the United States.

In 2002 the official federal poverty threshold was $18,850 for a family of four.

Please click here to see the source of these statistics.

Just the price tag of this gargantuan national dilemma deters most of us from considering any real answers. It's less emotionally burdensome to pay and pray. For example, more than 750,000 babies are born into poverty each year in this country. The price tag to get these babies to their first birthday total more than $3.75 billion, most of which we pay, mostly because the parents of these children cannot pay.

Ironically most of these parents are married, committed to each other, working daily, but simply unable to make ends meet.

Couples like Frank and Rachel constitute about 25 percent of this population of poverty stricken parents. They are young, unmarried and with no commitment to raise this child together.

Just briefly, let's consider attendant complications. Rachel, 19, has few, if any marketable skills and so it's not likely that she will find employment that will help the family exit poverty. Frank also lacks significant marketable skills, though he's willing to work. His crime and prison record, amassed mostly during his teen years, complicates his employment challenges.

These complications along with other issues occur hundreds of times throughout the gargantuan statistics we hear daily about poverty. Yet it's clear that our current strategy, simply financing the deficits of the poor, provides no answers. Rather the challenge grows explosively. Consider this family for example.

Frank is the second of four sons, born to his mother, let's call her Shirley. Her four sons are the children of three different men, only one of which she was married to. Frank and his older brother became criminals during their teen years. All four brothers are high school dropouts without any marketable skills. Shirley's older brother, let's call him Tim, is one of the laziest humans I' ve known personally. I have known thia family for more than 15 years and during that time, Tim has not worked any two consecutive years. Shirley has had only three jobs. Her longest stint of employment has been about five years. Shirley's and Tim's mother, we will call her Lois, was for years the only working member of this two generation family. Now, with Frank's two children, the challenges continue into the third generation.

Can we help this family and hundreds of thousands like them break the poverty cycle? Can we help future generations, like this baby born June 20, 2009, start life with a far better chance of becoming successful? Can we become a catalyst empowering him and hundreds of thousands of others to break the poverty cycle?

Yes we can!

We find answers in a source that some could consider a strange place--the Bible. Please consider that my approach to this and other challenges is not religious, but practical, based in powerful, spiritual principles that work for anyone who aligns themselves with these laws, applying them, rather than breaking their lives against them.

First, the Bible says clearly that if a person does not work, the individual should not be given life's basics. That's why our current welfare system fails. Additionally, the Bible also teaches that while we are to share each others burdens, none of us should carry others' burdens for them. That's why our individual efforts most often fail to provide real support and long term change.

So, what's the answer? How can we help without creating premanent dependency?

Let's launch a strategy named T.R.A.I.N.S. This acronym stands for Transforming Relief Activists Into Nouveau-S.U.C.C.E.S.S. As you know, "nouveau" means "new and different, often fashionably so. The SUCCESS acronym means: Striving Until Clear, Comprehensive Empowerment Stabilizes Security.

I've learned over the years, it's not enough to tell, cajole, rant and rave or even preach to people about what they should do, and how they should live. People often agree they should live differently, but they do not know how to live differently. Therefore, people, more often than not, do what they know how to do.

Consider this young Durham couple.

Simple logic determines that a man with a long crime and prison background should not rank sex as a top priority in his lifestyle. But he does not know how to not rank sex with as many women as possible as a significant priority. Logically, no young woman should be attracted to Frank because he seems to have no promising future, and certainly, not one strong enough to raise a family. He has not been out of prison long enough to conquer the crime habit. In fact, he spent about 90 days in prison on a relatively minor drug charge during Rachel's pregancy. Frankly neither of these young people know how to make quality decisions, and they have no incentives to restrain themselves.

The Bible explains this phenomenal lack of understanding this way: "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained. But happy is he who keeps the law." (NASV). Other modern language translations render this verse as follows:

NIV - Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint

NLT - When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild

CEV - Without guidance from God law and order disappear

NKJV - Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint

HCSB - Without revelation people run wild

ESV - Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint

AMP - Where there is no vision [no redemptive revelation of God], the people perish

The Hebrew word--"chazon," translated "vision," refers to a divine communication, a prophetic perspective as it were.Well, in this context, what is a prophetic vision and how can this be applied to help Frank and Rachel work as a team to raise a son who learns early how to break rather than perpetuate the poverty cycle?

I will answer those quesions in Part 2 of this series

Please click here to see the souce of the scriptural explanation