We have often heard the phrase that “it takes a village to raise a child”. It comes from an old African proverb that suggests that children are raised best by a village of people who will help that child reach its full potential in life. I would like to take a moment to address this philosophy and with all due respect, strongly disagree with the basic tenets which underpin its message. It is a philosophy that needs to be addressed for what it is: a catchy little phrase that’s message directly opposes the foundational truths of family.
The history of “It takes a village to raise a child”. Before I address the principles that underlie the “Village” philosophy, let me go into just a little history of the adage. It takes a village to raise a child allegedly has its origins in African culture. It originated from the Nigerian Igbo culture and proverb Ora na azu nwa which means it takes the community/village to raise a child. It is interesting that The Igbo’s also name their children Nwa ora which means child of the community. Other African cultures have promulgated their own version of the proverb. For example, in Lunyoro (Banyoro) there is a proverb that says Omwana takulila nju emoi, which means literally A child does not grow up only in a single home. In another African language (Bahaya) there is a saying, Omwana taba womoi, which translates as A child belongs not to one parent or home. In Kijita (Wajita) there is a proverb which says Omwana ni wa bhone, meaning regardless of a child’s biological parent(s) its upbringing belongs to the community. Finally, Swahili, Asiyefunzwa na mamae hufunzwa na ulimwengu translates similarly to that of Kijita.
More recent history on the proverb it takes a village to raise a child indicates that then, first lady, Hillary Clinton picked up the phrase and idea to write her 1996 book, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us. Ms. Clinton spun her political views regarding community, family and social structure based on this popular phrase. While I have not personally read the book (although I have reviewed 29 of her most popular quotes from the book), reviews of the book suggest that Ms. Clinton’s politics and the worldview that shapes her politics, were (and presumably still are) similar to that of the African tribes. Ms. Clinton certainly ascribes to the notion that a child’s needs are more than any one parent will be able to meet and that a community of caregivers and influential people must be present to help guide that child into adulthood.
The message of it takes a village, as adopted by Ms. Clinton and modern American culture, is at best an acknowledgement that children in America encounter a number of adults who attempt to influence their lives and thinking. In its worst case scenario, it is a suggestion that government and other non-parental entities should become more involved in harnessing and shaping the future of our children. The later notion was apparent in Ms. Clinton’s book and became something of a political lightening rod. Several conservative politicians strongly countered her ideas. For example, in the 1996 presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole is quoted as saying,”… with all due respect, I am here to tell you, it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child.“ Nine years later, conservative Senator Rick Santorum wrote a rebuke to the book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. Both politicians were apparently concerned about Ms. Clinton’s ideology and how it fueled her desire to see government involved in the raising of children.
Where “It takes a village” ideology breaks down. Understand that I’m not here to talk politics. But since adopting our four children, Karen and I have been presented with this same it takes a village mentality multiple times. Unfortunately, we didn’t hear it at campaign headquarters, but rather coming from good, God-fearing brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ. We cringed every time we heard the words. Somehow, God’s church has been lulled into this philosophy and instead of being the support system for the parents and strengthening the parents to raise children, is subtly supplanting parental position by trying to become part of the village effort to raise the child. It is a very covert operation that introduces other voices into the child’s life, distracting them from their parents’ voice, while at the same time inviting parents to relinquish, or at best share, the parental responsibilities and authority of raising their children. This is an idea that I believe God never intended for parents. Before I go any further, let me say this is not to cast a judgmental stone at anyone. To my shame, I too, have used the phrase and perhaps at some point have given place to some of its message in my own life. But having had a sharp rebuke from God’s Spirit, I feel it important to bring this philosophy to Light as we hold its major ideological principles to the standard of God’s word.
What are the major principles of the “It takes a village philosophy”? There are several messages inherent in this philosophy that are designed to undermine parents and the family structure that our Creator has orchestrated to raise healthy, functional, and creative participants in this world. The first message inherent in the it takes a village philosophy is that parents are somehow inadequate, in and of themselves, to raise a child. The idea is that as a parent, you will need more than you and your family to produce a healthy, thriving adult. So everyone is ready to jump in and give your child what he or she needs to mature. Huh!? Now please show in the scripture where God ever said to parents, “I’m going to bless you with this child and you, your neighbor, your brother, your brother’s wife, the garbage man, and the mailman are going to raise it!” While I will concede that various individuals, such as priests, are placed in a child’s life to support what the parents are teaching, nowhere does scripture indicate that those individuals are to supplant parents. No, God said Children are heritage of the Lord like arrows in the hands of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of the youth (Ps 127:3). Again, in Proverbs 22:1 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old , he will not depart from it. The operative word there is “train”. This is an active, dynamic verb that indicates parental effort and involvement with that child. Again, in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 6, children are instructed to obey your parents and one of the conditions that will be found on the earth when Jesus returns is that children will be disobedient to parents (Romans 1:30 & II Timothy 3:2). Notice it doesn’t say “village” most likely because the writer wasn’t thinking that way. No, the Apostle Paul understood that parents had the responsibility to raise their children and that farming out that responsibility to every community entity that so eagerly await receiving a child into their particular philosophy and worldview was not part of the deal.
The second message of the it takes a village philosophy is that you and I as parents, should relinquish our parental responsibility and authority to others. Or at best, that we should share that responsibility with others. Again, let’s bring this idea into the light of scripture and see how it holds up. Is there anywhere in scripture that says a parent should share their parental responsibilities and authority with others in the community? Absolutely not! Scripture consistently admonishes the parents to train up their children in the ways of the Lord. Deuteronomy There were times when parents made a decision that it was perhaps in the child’s best interest to be raised by someone else (Moses comes to mind), but again, when the angel appeared to Mary and Joseph did he outlined a plan whereby the “village” would share in the raising Jesus with others? Not exactly. Rather, Gabriel outlined a clear vision of what their child would become. The vision was shared with the parents not the village! I submit to you that fathers whose children are being raised by the village need no such instruction! This instruction was to a father who embraced the responsibility of parenting and who would bear the weight of raising a child to His God-ordained destiny. Joseph and Mary didn’t give away one iota of responsibility to the “village” to raise their child.
Attachment: The single biggest threat of the “It takes a village” philosophy. At this point some readers may wonder why all the fuss about a “harmless” little saying? If I were going to give one single answer to this question it would focus on the attachment relationship between parents and children. One thing that my work as a psychologist and our recent experience as adoptive parents of four siblings has taught us is this: do not underestimate the importance of the God-ordained attachment between parent and child. It is the backbone of everything in that child’s life. Our new children, ages 2,4,5 and 7, have taught us the devastating impact of poor or failed attachments between children and their parents. Virtually every single decision or judgment that a child (and later adult) demonstrates flows out of this attachment or lack thereof. Children with impaired or incomplete attachment to a parent are left to their own devices and will make decisions out of an egocentric existence, i.e., “I’ll do what I think is best”. Conversely, children who have a healthy, developing relationship or attachment to their parent(s) will make decisions out of a “shared logic” with that parent. It is as if the child borrows his/her parent’s decision-making capacity. Children who have complications in their parental attachments are much more likely to behave in an impulsive, defiant and antisocial manner.
Now the question is, “what does this have to do with the ‘it takes a village’ philosophy? The answer is that any entity, philosophy or lofty notion that interferes, obstructs or in any way undermines the parent-child attachment is counter to Biblical principles and detrimental to the child. The idea that a village is necessary to raise a child convolutes the role of parents in the child’s life and opens the door for disruption in parental attachment. Who does the child listen to? Whose voice will prevail in that child’s head when he/she is faced with a decision? Will it be mom’s or will it be the teacher’s? Will it be dad’s wisdom or the therapist’s? Granted those voices may be saying the same thing, but what if they are not? And even if they are, emotionally and at the attachment level, which one as the highest valence and priority? The “village” philosophy introduces the idea that many “voices” in the child’s head are necessary for him/her to grow into full maturity. I submit to you, that while there may be many support voices in the life of a child, it is only the voice of parents and family that will guide him/her to their full potential. As Bob Dole so aptly stated, “it doesn’t take a village, it takes a family!” and I would refine that to say, “it doesn’t take a village, it takes committed, attached parents to raise a child!”
The idea that attachment parenting is a biblical model shouldn’t sound like Greek to us. In fact, it is inherent in the relationship that God, Himself, extends to man. Jesus prayed, “Our Father, which art in Heaven…” suggesting, a unique relationship with a Heavenly parent. God says “I’ll write my law on their hearts…” again, suggesting that God isn’t so concerned about the do’s and don’ts in life as He is being connected to His children. Yet again, Jesus said, “my sheep know my voice and respond…” which connotes an intimate attachment between Jesus and His own. It is an attachment whereby the voice of Jesus resides and resonates within the “child” and his/her decisions and behavior emanates from the relationship.
In closing, let me ask a simple question: if you were charged with extinguishing the Christian faith from the face of the earth, where would you start? Would you start persecuting all those that claimed faith? Maybe. But then historically such persecution has had a way of breeding resolve and firmer commitment, as well as, drawing the sympathies of the masses. Would you inflict pain and disease, thereby simply killing off the believers in the world? Perhaps, but then again, suffering has a way of drawing out faith from a person not squelching it. Alas, would you attack the children? Now here’s an idea. They are innocent, fairly defenseless and yet, they are tomorrow’s leaders. Yeah, if you could isolate a child, destroy its innocence and impair his/her ability to empathize with another, then you’ve set the stage to discredit faith and stamp out Christianity for all time…if you could get the entire generation. Now, one last question, how would you get to that child? Isn’t it true that the transference of faith is most likely to come from a parent? If so, then the logical attack would be to “divide and conquer”. That is, disrupt the attachment so that the child no longer responds to his/her parents’ voice. In other words, disconnect them in any way possible from that parents’ influence. “It takes a village” is a philosophy, subtle as it may be that replaces mom and dad’s voice with the village’s. A crafty way to squelch faith in the earth![1]
[1] Look for Dr. Thomas’ upcoming books Martian Children and Child of the System later in 2011. Dr. Thomas will be discussing the impact on disruptions in attachment on the developing child in more detail, as well as, exploring the impact of child care systems, such as, foster care, shelters and orphanages on the child and his/her sense of well being.
[...] Follow this link: Does it really take a Village? « Simple Solutions 4 Life – Dr … [...]