Religion and Theology

The family is the cornerstone of societal principles and ideals. The diminishing family values, or rather the changing and rapidly evolving family trends are posing a threat to the stability of the society that is. The integral role formally played by the family in promoting the societal ideals appears to be utterly changed. There appears to be a considerable paradigm shift from the cardinal compositions of the society, other than having the family as integral, it is the individuals that are being taken as the main component of society.

Genuinely, I feel strongly that the sudden change in the basic composition of society has put the clergy in a rather indefinite stalemate. Apparently, even the definition of the term family seems to be evolving relatively fast. Maybe redress has to be sought right from the definition of the term family. And perhaps the definition adopted should contain some universality, the controversies surrounding marriage not withstanding.

At the very onset, family was strictly restricted to the father, mother and the child or children if there were any. However, the composition of the family today appears expanded and protracted. Ultimately, one will argue that the changing trend is in line with the ever dynamic world. Presently, the family has become manifest in diverse and astounding forms. As if this state is not enough, the diversity is being fronted with shameless zeal.

The family is today termed single, heterosexual and or homosexual. The initial basis for classification was utterly based on the existence of the parents. Where both parents were present the family was termed as nuclear. Ironically, the proportionate of nuclear families versus the other conglomerations of families is balancing. This assortment of family classifications teen family, single family and homosexual families are taking toll too fast and surprisingly so, particularly for the reverent clergy.

The wonder ought to be the causal factors. Perhaps this is indicative of the equally changing role of the clergy in society today. Formally, the clergy were meant to provide divine guidance on matters of faith and general morality. However it appears that a good proportion of the clergy in society are entangled in controversy.

The dissection of the initial societal roles would offer a take off position for worthwhile discourse. The prelude above however has endeared to tickle the diverse perceptions that are inherent in the family dilemma.

Ardently, the family dilemma starts with the inception of this tidal societal institution. The biblical approach and school of thought sees the primary role of marriage as companionship. The secondary role thereof biblically is siring children. However the very primary role of the family has bee abdicated. Strongly, I feel this is the main root problem to the challenges bedeviling the family structure today. The companionship mentioned above was strictly meant to be between heterosexual partners.

The secondary purpose for the inception of the family only becomes feasible where the partners are heterosexual. The feasibility of this purpose is unattainable in cases of homosexuals and lesbians. Evidently the duo has the least interest in the siring of children. Ironically however, despite the clear understanding that the idea of child siring is not forthcoming still yearn for this course.

The idea of the changing roles of the gender may have well precipitated the sudden change in the approach to both family setup and responsibility. Initially the man was to remain the soul breadwinner of the family. However, the role has changed and some cases comically taken, man is bread eater, such perceptions provide probable insight into the likely cause of the sudden change in societal approach to the family.

Mankind today has today found the partner of the opposite sex strictly a tool for convenience and not a companion. This perception bring me to the second controversial issue sex. Biblically sex was taken as quite divine and restricted within age and status parameters. Today sex has the least preservation in society. The question today is how the whole act should be executed. Here, unlike the biblically approach where the when, who, where and why aspects were addressed, the approach is so haphazard.

Subsequently, the concept of who should be involved in sex raises brows today leaving the clergy utterly dumbfounded. The sex approach today has not only sidelined the ideal of when sex should be accepted but concentrates on how it should be done whether contraceptions should be allowed or refuted. This has perverted societal sex ideals. While the concept of sex was deemed private in biblical context, the issues concerning sex have been instilled in all sphere of life strongly I feel this ought to have remained the prerogative of parents.

Biblically, marriage institution was meant to make the partner as one. However, the upsurges of the contraceptions in families have further perverted the sanctity and responsibility initially placed upon families. The bible is clear on the rules of a marriage institution, postulating that the wife, at marriage becomes solely the mans and the man the womans. This preposition allows the least room for partner restraint in matters of sex. Today the use of contraception has dogged the marriage institution. While the very idea of contraception was well willed, the purpose has become protracted to the extreme. The distinctive family at the moment is substantively dissimilar and structurally different compared to that of the 1950s.
 
Love is supposedly the principle basis on which marriage is built. The definition of love not withstanding, there are varied signs that the original meaning has moved. Perhaps the very tenets of love ought to be redefined. Initially, love was meant to ascribe to a sentimental attachment beyond bounds and traversing limits of material and circumstance. Presently, love ceases to exist when variable such as money and other materials endowment of the partners appear to be in short fall. Paradoxically, there exist isolated cases of increased material and monetary endowment meting a blow on loved ones.
Gradually, Americans are coming up with new patterns in domestic partnerships that need to be acknowledged and understood failure to do so has impacted, and will negatively impact on the state of the American woman and child. The assertion by Lesley is the real position of the present society.

Blaming the present trend in the society in its entirety would be autocratic. There seems to be another host of factors that have directly or indirectly contributed to the current state of affairs in the family. The economic hardship could have well prompted the current controversial trends in the family. Evidently men are opting for the homosexuality on the pretext that they will have avoided responsibility attached to heterosexual marriages. Subsequently, the ladies are turning to lesbianism to evade the parenting role of a woman in marriage. Worse still the compatriots may be feeling inappropriate to meet whatever responsibility.
 
Ardently, as Stockard  Johnson asserts, the delineation of families from economic productivity had important ramifications for gender disparity because families served the economy much more than the economy served the families. This reversed role between societies has dealt a blow on the stability of the family institution.

Nonchalantly, it needs to be noted that the emerging strive and struggle for equality in society has also had a hand in the existing trend in the family patterns. While this struggle remains a genuine and significant course, the opportunists have used the struggle to attain anterior ends. The feminists have used the course to meet their short term objectives. Subsequently, this has translated into the domestic unrest and discontent among couples. Equality ought to be used in the pursuit for a better interaction between the spouses rather than subjecting the couple to intermittent fights.  

There are numerous divorces world over. The divorces are being entered with the least base for the course. This trend has also further distorted the family structure. Subsequent to this, the prospective couples are discouraged from entering a marriage contract. This has been the major cause of the increased single families. The partners enter the contracted with suppressed fears of the unknown particularly the fear for any eminent divorce or partner frustrations that have been exhibited in other marriages. Ultimately, the disintegration of this partnership translates into single families.

There is increased hostility amongst couple shamelessly meted upon the victims in the eyes of the children. The very children are brought up believing that animosity is part of family ideals. Children brought up within such setting will rarely yearn to get into the contract of marriage, hence reducing their certainty of taking marital and subsequent family responsibility.

Family has been further rendered indefinable by trends such cohabiting and serial monogamy. Evidently, due to the pronounced discontent in existing marriages, the marriage prospectives are opting for cohabitation which has no defined rules and responsibility restrictions. Besides, the upsurge in the number of divorces has meant the divorces remarries, translating to serial monogamy.

Ethically, the protracted relationships have posed a threat to the societal morals with confounding ramifications. The ultimate outcome could just be the extinction of the family institution with which is the foundation of marriage. The clergy have it upon them to seek course that need be beyond reproach in addressing issues of sexism

The modernization of the society may present both retracting and supportive lessons. However regardless of the role that the innovations may have on the noble course the clergy need not relent, or else the human race may be wiped out in total. Site the case of the world going the homosexual way how will the generation be replicated. Here lies the imminent and the inevitable need for interventions.

Conclusion
The challenges to the marriage institutions appear so abound and immense. However, this does not present a life impasse. There still exists sufficient room for the clergy to address the simmering problem. If not checked, there is high likelihood that the family institution may just become extinct. The church would address the challenge through reviewing its very own ideals. Giving the reverence nature of the church, the interaction of the society with the church may embrace the principle.

It also needs to be noted that this can not be achieved through resenting the deviants rather it will be achieved through friendship. Besides, the course will gain sufficient ground if the very clergy live their word. This course may continue receiving resistance where the very house of the clergy appears divided on the matter.

The state has the least role in the transformation of the changing family and marriage trend. It further need be noted that the approach to the debacle need to be two-pronged. The implication in this context is that the two concepts are inseparable. Contemplating legislation would be loosing the war before it starts. Utterly, the issue to be addressed is morality in it real sense.