Yater Tant A Man for His Season

By Jefferson David Tant

Fanning Yater Tant went to his final home on March 3, 1997. Words fail me to adequately describe this man  my father. Journalist, preacher, debater, husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, counselor, friend, Christian. Many words could be written on each subject.

Marc Antony said at Caesar’s funeral that the good that men do is oft interred with their bones. This has not been true of my father, for the cards, letters, phone calls, and personal conversations have literally been in the hundreds, and all have been most encouraging, telling of his saving marriages, showing hospitality, performing acts of kindness, helping people understand the Bible, and countless other things that were a part of his life. There was one negative comment that I saw on the Internet. Some institutional brother wrote that my father was the Darth Vader of the church of Christ. My father would have laughed about that.

Yater Tant was born December 30, 1908 in Macon, Tennessee. The son of the well-known frontier preacher, J. D. Tant, he moved a lot in his younger years, as my grandfather’s preaching and farming took the family into Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and New Mexico in an effort to sup-port his family while preaching the gospel.

As a teen, my father wanted to farm, and went to Texas Tech to enroll, but before school started, he decided to preach. He was well educated, having attended several schools and receiving advanced degrees, but he never thought it necessary to parade his learning. His writings reflected his educational background. He began preaching for the Bardstown Road church in Louisville, Kentucky while in school there, after having graduated from David Lipscomb College. He married Helen Gotto in September of 1931.

They moved to the Park Hill church in Ft. Smith, Arkansas in 1934. Foy E. Wallace, Jr. called Dr. C.B. Billingsley (an elder at Park Hill), and recommended my father. They took him sight unseen, on brother Wallace’s recommendation. Denver was his next work in 1937. From there to Chicago during WWII, where he preached for two congregations for a time, as he helped start a new church in Evanston. Oklahoma City was his next work, with the Tenth and Francis church, again on brother Wallace’s recommendation. At that time, it was probably the second largest church of Christ in the U.S. with an attendance of 1,000 or more. Next to Norman, Oklahoma for one year  1946-47. Then back to Oklahoma City and full-time meeting work.

About that time he was asked by Foy Wallace and Roy Cogdill to edit the Gospel Guardian, as Wallace was closing down the Bible Banner. (My grandfather wrote for the old Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation, serving in various editorial capacities at times.) My understanding is that during this period my father was asked to teach Bible at Abilene Christian College, but he declined. We did move to Abilene in 1950, where I finished high school.

Storm clouds were now coming over various missionary efforts in Europe following the war. Much of the mission work was being centralized through a few churches, known as sponsoring churches. These churches asked for other churches to send funds to them, which would then be disbursed to the preachers. This raised concern in brethren who knew of the division that took place in the last century over Missionary Societies that brought about the Christian Church denomination. The Guardian and its writers stood opposed to this method, preferring to support missionaries in the manner they found in the Scriptures  sending funds directly to the men involved, rather than through another organization or a sponsoring church. Also involved in the controversy was the Herald of Truth radio and (later) television program put on by the 5th and Highland church in Abilene, Texas. This national program also involved the sponsoring church concept. Earlier some were advocating the inclusion of secular schools in the budget of the churches. As proponents of these departures were unable to make convincing arguments from Scripture, they turned the argument to emotion, claiming that church support of colleges was justified on the same basis as the support of orphan asylums. So the charge was made that those who opposed such innovations were orphan-haters or worse. They were stigmatized as antis, and since my father was rather well-known, some wag invented the term Tantis, as the ignorant and unlearned had used the term Campbellites in the last century to deride those who, like Alexander Campbell, sought a return to biblical Christianity.

In 1953 we moved to Lufkin, Texas. The church had divided there, and since my father knew people on both sides, he was asked to move there and work to heal the wounds. He put off his meetings, and labored with the Timberland Drive church. He was able to bring about a reconciliation and then resumed his meeting schedule. He sometimes held 25 meetings a year, taking his little portable typewriter with him everywhere, as the demands of a weekly religious paper were great. He was tireless in preaching all over the country and Canada in order to stem the tide of digression. An example of this was his participation in the lectures at Florida Christian College in the early 50s. After the last lecture on Thursday night, he was engaged in a lengthy discussion with some brethren, and then left that night to drive straight through to home in Abilene, Texas. Some 200 miles was driven on ice. He arrived home at 3:00 a.m., and then left by plane at 5:00 a.m. for a meeting in California.

The institutional controversy grew intense through the late 50s and 60s and my father suffered much abuse, with meetings canceled, false rumors, etc. He was among the first to debate the issues in discussions in Lufkin and Abilene, Texas with E.R. Harper, a chief proponent of the sponsoring church concept. Through all this, my father was always fair to his opponents, and let them write what they wanted. He never used his position as editor to take advantage of others, and on occasion took responsibility, as editor, for articles that were inserted by the publisher without my father’s knowledge or approval. Meanwhile, the pages of the Gospel Advocate and other such papers were closed to those who opposed the departures. This paper called for a quarantine of all preachers who were opposed to the new schemes, seeking to get them fired and their meetings canceled. Such high-handed policies squelched honest discussion, and furthered the division.

Of all the compliments ever paid to my father’s character, one of the most often heard had to do with his absolute fairness, even to his enemies. I never remember seeing my father lose his temper or seek to retaliate, even when he was lied about or dealt with in a underhanded manner. One outstanding example of this occurred after his debates with Harper. In the Lufkin debate, my father prepared a booklet to pass out to the audience with his charts in it. (These were BOP days  before overhead projectors.) After the debate, and in preparation for the Abilene debate, he revised and refined his charts, adding some and deleting others. After the Abilene debate (on the same propositions), Harper and James Walter Nichols insisted that they publish the debate. A contract was drawn up. But much to my father’s surprise, they printed his Lufkin charts along with his Abilene speeches. Therefore, those who would read the debate could make no sense out of the references my father made to his charts. Harper and Nichols clearly understood this, for my father talked with them, wrote to them, and consulted with attorneys who said this was a clear breach of contract. There was nothing he could do about it. Well, so much for ethical treatment from brethren. But my father showed no bitterness, and in later years as E.R. Harper’s fortunes and health declined, he would call Harper on occasion to encourage him.

I cannot count the people who have remarked that they thought Yater Tant was the best writer among us. And similarly, many have remarked that they believed he was the best man for the job as editor of the Guardian through turbulent times. His even temperament, his absolute fairness, and his lack of a retaliatory spirit truly made him a man for his season.

In 1956 my parents moved back to Abilene, anticipating worshiping with the congregation where they had been accepted and used before. The elders let them know they would not be welcome. But the good brethren at the North Park church welcomed us. By now I had finished my work at Florida College and was enrolling in Abilene Christian College. Those were interesting years, as some faculty and fellow students took it upon themselves to spread rumors about both me and my father. One would suppose that we wore red union suits with tails, had sprouted horns and carded pitchforks. There were some very underhanded things done against both of us, but the Lord will take care of it in his own way and time.

In 1957 my father took several months from his meetings to write his father’s biography, J.D. Tant, Texas Preacher. Of all such books published about gospel preachers, this continues to be a best seller. In 1958 my parents moved back to Oklahoma City.

1960 saw my father back at Park Hill in Ft. Smith working with Cecil Douthitt in a teaching program. This led to his moving to Nacogdoches, Texas to work with the Mound and Starr church and Stephen E Austin University in a Bible Chair program. In a work supported by the church, my father taught Bible classes which university students could take for credit. He enjoyed his work, and as I recall, several students were converted to Christ through the years. James Adams was one of the preachers there during the five years my father taught. And all the while he continued writing and preaching, although the Bible classes cut back on his meeting work some.

Five years later, it was back to Lufkin, where he continued the Gospel Guardian and meeting work. The final long move was to Birmingham about 1969. There my parents were to live for the next 28 years. At age 60, my father evidently thought it was time to do less traveling, and he settled to do local work with the Cahaba Heights congregation.

In 1971 he turned the Gospel Guardian over to William Wallace, the son of Foy E. Wallace, Jr. My father had grown weary of keeping the paper afloat through the years. It was always a struggle, as few, if any, of our brethren’s journals pay for themselves. There has to be a book business or something similar to provide support. After Cahaba Heights, my parents were with the Vestavia church for a time before beginning work with the North Birmingham church.

With writing in his blood, he began publishing Vanguard in 1975 and continued for ten years. The list of writers included Franklin Puckett, who died in January 1975, the month of the first issue. Vanguard continued for ten years.

The work at North Birmingham continued several years, even into the move to Fultondale. He retired from full-time work several years ago, but continued to teach and preach as needed. In the last few years, he preached for the Ensley congregation in Birmingham one Sunday a month. His last sermon was on November 17, 1996, just a month before he turned 88.

Through the years my father and mother served many people. At times people lived with them who needed a home, including pregnant girls. They helped in arranging adoptions for several, following the practice of his father, J.D. Tant. And the third generation has taken up the practice, as my wife and I have been involved in this for the past 30 years.

My father fell on the driveway at his home in Gardendale, Alabama on January 3. After Flora and I went to bring my parents home with us to care for him, it was discovered that he had broken his pelvis in two places. Recovery looked promising, though it would be long and painful. Then he had emergency surgery on February 8 to repair a perforated stomach ulcer. The doctor then discovered an advanced form of liver disease, whose symptoms had not been evident. He remained in the hospital until March 1, when we brought him home. He took his last breath Mon-day morning, March 3, as Flora and I sat by his side holding his hands. I will be forever grateful that we were able to care for him during his last months, and that we were honored to be with him as he made the transition to eternity. He is survived by his wife of 65 years, his son and daughter-in-law, five grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. He also leaves his sister, Mozelle Priestley, of Germantown, Tennessee. She is the last remaining child of J.D. and Nannie Tant. He often said that what meant most to him was the fact that his son was a gospel preacher, his daughter-in-law a wonderful Christian, and that all his grandchildren were faithful Christians, and the four that are married are married to faithful Christians.

Two funerals were held. Tom Beeler and Sewell Hall spoke at Roswell, and Steve Murrell, Lloyd Barker, and Ed Harrell spoke in Gardendale. I was able to add a few words at each place. He was buried in Gardendale. He insisted on my taking him back there for burial, as he had bought some lots from my wife’s brother, Huey Hartsell, a few years ago. My father reminded me just a few days before his death that he wanted to be sure that he would see someone he knew when he was raised, for he knew that Huey would be close by. He kept his sense of humor right to the end. My mother is living with us. She is 89, and enjoys good health, although her Alzheimers limits her short term memory.

Were there mistakes? Yes, and others will probably cover them. But all in all, it was a life well lived. I miss him, and look forward to a grand reunion one day.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 12 p. 25-27
June 19, 1997

1 Peter 4:1-5 – Narcotics

By Thomas Bunting

I see on the smoking ads that smoking is “hazardous to your health.” There is presently a cowl case charging the tobacco company with causing loss of health. But I wonder why I see no such warnings about alcohol? I have yet to hear of a case against the brewery for destroying one’s health. It is common knowledge that alcohol is hazardous to one’s health. It is common and confirmed knowledge that it causes death and is often the cause of liver disease, heart disease and cancer.

None of today’s narcotics is directly named in the Bible, nor are any of today’s liquors or beers named. Alcohol is a narcotic, it is a toxin! Wine is named in the Bible, but it is not the same as the wines of our time. The point is that since none of these are named in the Bible, it is necessary to use Bible principles to decide if it is right or wrong for us to use them. There is good reason for concern when one understands the chemical ingredients in the plants and drinks (that which people eat, smoke, and drink).

One cannot open the Bible to a Scripture which says “marijuana is sin.” Can I participate in a hashish party (marijuana party)? Can I smoke a little marijuana at home now and then? (Marijuana has both short lived and long lasting consequences.) One must use Bible principles to decide right and wrong.

The Bible names two drinks, wine and strong drink. There are many that wonder what “strong drink” could have been. I do not believe that any-one knows exactly what it was, but it could have been some kind of strong narcotics which had been in existence for a long time. No matter what it was I believe that everyone agrees that we must not use “strong drink.”

The majority of those who try to de-fend their drinking habits point to the Bible word “wine.” Here one needs to be honest with himself and with Bible teaching. In the Bible the word, wine, did not always contain narcotics (alcohol). Sometimes it referred only to grape juice, but other times it did contain alcohol. (There was no alcohol when the word, wine, was used in these verses: Isa. 65:8; 16:10; 27:2; :Jer. 40:10, 12.) In the Bible when wine contained alcohol it happened by natural process and cannot compare with the today’s wines and their alcohol content.

Distilling was first discovered about A.D. 1000 to 1100. Distilling is a method of increasing the alcohol content in drinks. As soon as it became common practice in the Catholic church (the major church in Europe at that time) to use alcoholic wine in the communion the consumption of alcohol increased significantly. (The word “wine” is never used in connection with the communion, Lord’s supper, in the Bible.) Keep in mind that when you read “wine” in the Bible you are reading about something completely different from today’s wine.

Be careful about what your view is regarding such common expressions as: “drunk,” “drunkenness,” “alcohol problem,” “misuse of alcohol,” “abuse of alcohol.” Is your view built on what the Bible teaches and on Bible principles, or is it based on societies’ traditions (customs)?

What is “drunkenness”? Is one drunk when he cannot walk? When it is difficult to walk? He can walk, but can’t see very well? He talks too much? He acts extremely happy? etc.

What does “has an alcohol problem” mean? Does that mean he is an alcoholic? Or is always drunk? he drinks regularly? Always has wine with his meals? Drinks every Saturday? Every evening? Drinks at all important meetings?

What is abuse of alcohol? Does that mean he drinks too much? Drinks a little? Drinks it but not as medicine? Refrains from all use of alcohol? What is your view regarding these expressions and is your view built upon Bible principles or societies’ traditions?

Everyone is surely already aware of the consequences of alcohol on society. I quote from a few Norwegian and English papers and magazines.

..alcohol ruins lives, destroys families, kills thousands on highways.”

“Alcohol is the most common cause for accidents, both in the home and outside the home, two of three accidental deaths happens in connection with alcohol.”

“Alcohol is by far the most devastating of drugs  wrecking families, imparting health, filling jails, hospitals and morgues. In 1990 it cost the American society 136 billion dollars and more than 65,000 lives. These damages do not lie entirely on severely afflicted but much on moderate drinking  where drink merges into dependence is blurry..

“A pregnant woman takes a drink and within minutes her fetus has the same drink”

“Alcohol is one of the leading causes of mental retardation.”

“Violence and alcohol go together. One cannot talk about violence and crime with out recognizing that it is very often a result of alcohol.”

“Sixty-six percent of those who murder have been drinking alcohol” (or other narcotics).

“America and Europe have for a long time been am-bivalent (attracted) towards alcohol. So much so that the “war” on drugs, attacking cocaine, heroin and other contraband  omits inquiry into one of the most prevalent drugs in the world” (National Geographic).

Myths

1. Not many alcoholics in France because they drink wine. “They have the highest rate of alcohol-related problems, with twice the death rate by liver cirrhosis.”

2. No danger of being dependent for I drink beer. “Most alcoholics in Britain are beer drinkers.” “Beer is the major man killer. Half of the alcohol consumed in Norway is beer.”

3. Teach young people to drink to avoid problems later in life. “The earlier in life young people are introduced to alcohol the greater the problems with alcohol will be later.”

4. Teach your children at home and it will go fine. “It most often goes all wrong. Children experience this as acceptance.”

Alcohol Like All the Other Narcotics

Affects the Brain

“The mind-bending effects of alcohol begin soon after it hits the blood stream. Within minutes alcohol enters the brain, numbing nerve cells and slowing messages to the body, heart It isn’t a question of how many glasses or bottles before it begins to happen. The brain is affected with the first bit. “If drinking continues, alcohol builds in the blood stream and the nerve center in the brain governing speech, vision, balance and judgment go haywire.” Alcohol “combined with soda moves it more rapidly to all vital organs.”

Alcohol is described in the Bible as a sedative. It dulls the brain. It makes it lazy and slow. It is a part of the lifestyle that belonged to the “old man” (man of sin), and some try to bring it with them into the new life.

What Alcohol Does

1. It effects your judgment (narcosis, sedative, Prov. 31:4-7).

2. It is not for kings and judges (Prov. 31:4-5).

3. It is a mocker (Prov. 20:1).

4. It gets a person to do things he ordinarily would not do (Prov. 23:29-35).

Alcohol and Bible Principles

We should take care of our body for it is the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17). There is no question but that narcotics (alcohol is one of them) are harmful to the physical body. When you consider the number of people, alcohol is the world’s worst narcotic. It is not necessary to drink a lot every time but rather moderate drinking through one’s life is enough to destroy the heart, liver, brain, etc.

The use of alcohol will often find you in the wrong company (1 Cor. 15:33). Of course it is possible to drink alone. There are many alcoholics who drink at home. There are many that do nearly all their drinking at home. But before one has gone so far, it is most often that one does his drinking out. You are with your friends at a disco or bar, or you are with friends at a party and you want to keep these friend-ships. Generally alcohol leads you into the wrong company.

Alcohol most always is associated with evil (1 Thess. 5:22). What kind of a picture does one most often get regarding the use of alcohol in the society? Is one’s fast thoughts, “There is a Christian, see how much he can drink?” Can you picture Christ waiting to be served at the bar or disco? Alcohol is often present when all kinds of evil are happening.

The use of alcohol can cause others to fall or sin (1 Cor. 10:32; Rom. 14:13). Because of its nature all use of alcohol is a bad example for others. It is a bad example for other Christians and it is bad example for those who are not Christians. It is an especially bad example for children. Statistics say that one out of ten who drinks will be seriously injured and one out of 20 will have a serious alcohol problem. Would you let your children play Russian roulette since only one of the ten pistols is loaded? How can you encourage your child to drink knowing that one out of ten is going to be seriously affected? Having alcohol in your home is extremely bad influence on your children. Its presence in your home says to the children, “accept” (approval). It suggests to the child “a satisfying experience.” They are supported in these attitudes by their own parents. Such messages should not be advanced by a Christian.

Sins With the Use of Alcohol

1. 1 Peter 4:3: There are three words used in this passage: (1) otvouytats  excess of wine, the same meaning as the word in Gal. 5:21 (peeum drunken), (2) Kt3110ts  revellings (a real party, loud, boisterous, just having fun, a good time), (3) rrorotg banqueting, actually the word is “drinking” (before the noise starts, before others begin to notice, not a lot of drinking, but still sin).

The above are included in a list of sins. They all belong to the life before you were a Christian. This is what people do who live after the desire of man (will of Gentiles). Such things belong to the old man described in Ephesians 4:17-24. Peter says that they used to do these things, but now it is different. The life has changed. Your former friends will notice that you are no longer with them (1 Pet. 4:4). Have your friends noticed a change, or are you still with them?

2. 1 Peter 4:7: In this verse we find the word “sober minded” (sober). This word means to be free of narcotics, a clear mind. It is not a question of how many drinks or how many bottles, for with the first drink the mind is affected. The word is certainly not limited to alcohol, but refers to anything that causes us not to keep a clear mind, anything that hinders our having control of our mental capacity. It is used in 1 Thessalonians 5:6; 1 Timothy 3:2, 11; Titus 2:2, 1 Peter 1:13; 4:7. It takes very little alcohol before it be-gins to affect our mind such that it does not function clearly. If your body is not free of narcotics (including alcohol), then you are on the first step (not sober), no longer clear, the mind is affected.

I believe that Christians should keep themselves away from all use of alcohol just as all other narcotics. I am convinced from these Bible principles that it is sinful to drink alcohol even on a social basis. We must never act in a way that seems to encourage or support the use of alcohol. We must never suggest the thought that maybe God approves! It is especially important that our message is clear when the use of alcohol and other narcotics is so common in today’s society.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 11-13
July 3, 1997

Soldiers of Christ

By Shannon S. Shaffer

Ephesians 6:13  “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”

A glowing picture is painted of the soldier of Christ as he stands prepared for battle in Ephesians chapter 6. His waist is girded with truth which “holds it all together.” For without truth the battle would be vanity. The breastplate which protects the “vital organs” is righteousness. The soldier lives rightly as the commander instructs, giving no occasion for the enemy to attack his character. The soldier’s feet are properly shod for steadiness, protection, and maneuverability. He can stand on the truth of the gospel, protect it from attack and charge into the fray with its message of peace. His most important piece of defensive equipment is his shield which will “quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.” His shield is faith. It will defend, protect, and save. The soldier’s defensive armor is topped with a helmet  the crowning promise of salvation after the battle is done.

There is yet one more piece of armor. It is an offensive weapon. It is a two-edged sword, sharper than any surgeon’s scalpel. “The sword . . . is the Word of God.” The soldier of Christ who wields the word with ac-curacy and precision cuts through the hardened hearts of the enemy laying bear tender flesh that will be changed by the power of the gospel. The “enemy” defects from the slavery of Satan to the ranks of the soldiers of Christ. The days of the commander of the wicked are numbered. He is set for defeat and destruction. The Great Commander who has already gained the victory orders his troops from the vaulted sky. The soldier “stands on his knees” with prayer, poised for victory in Christ Jesus the Lord.

The battle rages. Be strong, soldier! Stand!

As we look about the battle field it is strewn with fallen soldiers. Some have fallen because of cowardice. The wicked one pierced them with a fiery dart as they turned their backs to the battle and fled. Dishonor in death is their epitaph. There are those who have “fallen on their own sword,” failing to heed the Commander they have devised their own hurt.

There are those who fell in the heat of the battle. In their prime, they were removed from this battle field for a better service.

And, then there is the old soldier of the cross. He does not just fade away without notice. But his time comes to lay down his armor. The armor is battered and worn but still usable. It has served well and been well used. It is evidence of hard fought conquests. There are notches in the shield, scratches and slash markings in the breastplate, and a dent in the helmet. The soldier has met the enemy one-on-one. Even in death the soldier’s hand clings to the sword. The fingers will not release. It will go with him; for it is the eternal word of God that has brought him this far and will see him over the chilling tide of death. He has fought the good fight . . . he has kept the faith. He looks forward to a crown of righteousness to replace the battered helmet of salvation which gave such hope for victory.

As faithful soldiers pass from this scene, hope for future battles is not lost. There are others enlisting in the army of the Lord. They will prepare themselves and put on the glistening armor of the King. They will learn to “handle accurately” their sword and use its power. The battle for truth and right will continue.

To soldiers who are still in the battle field  stand  watch  fight. To the old soldiers who are laying down their armor  despair not  rest. Victory in Christ is ours! Praise be to the Great Commander and Savior of our souls who alone is King of kings, and Lord of lords!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 10
July 3, 1997

Fathers in the Media

By Gary Kerr

This is an intriguing assignment. Having majored in Broadcast Journalism, I have always considered myself a “media freak”  a term coined by one of my college professors. I grew up in the “golden age” of television. So, I feel qualified to discuss media fathers.

The Early Years

Like many of you, I grew up watching fathers on television, and for the most part, they were good role models. Can you identify these TV fathers? If so, you are probably a “media freak.” Steve Douglas, Andy Taylor, Ward Cleaver, Rob Petrie.

How did you do? Did you recognize Steve Douglas as the father on My Three Sons? Andy Taylor as Opie’s father on The Andy Griffith Show? Ward Cleaver as father of the Beaver? Rob Petrie with Laura and Richie on The Dick Van Dyke Show? These men were role models whether consciously or unconsciously for many who grew up in the 50s and 60s. They were typical of the way television portrayed fathers during this era. They shared several character traits in common.

Moral Purity. They were depicted as men of strong moral character. Two of the four (Steve and Andy) were widowers. We cannot imagine either of them being involved in an illicit sexual affair. Imagining Rob or Ward cheating on their wives is equally impossible.

Leadership. All of these men were unquestionably the heads of their houses. They understood that it was their duty to provide for their families, and they took that responsibility seriously. We do not see these men wasting their paycheck drinking, gambling, or neglecting their families in any way. They took good care of those for whom they were responsible.

Love. These fathers loved their families unconditionally. Ward and Rob loved their wives. They all loved their children. They were not afraid to show that love. Hugs, kisses, and other demonstrable displays of affection were common.

Having said that, let me add that the portrayal of TV fathers in the early years was not all positive. I have noticed something about the conduct of these men as I have grown older. I must admit that I missed it when I was young, and even now, I am inclined to ignore it. They were prone to use “situation ethics” in solving family problems. Andy is my favorite. It pains me to acknowledge that he would frequently “stretch the truth”  to be honest, he often lied  to teach some life-lesson to Opine. Situation ethics played a prominent role in the lives of most TV characters in the golden age. As you view reruns, watch for the number of times that situation ethics comes into play in the solution of problems. It might just shock you.

Times Have Changed

Television’s depiction of fathers has certainly changed since those days. Now, even in those shows that present “positive” portrayals of the family, the role of the father has been transformed.

First, television is at the forefront of the liberal movement in trying to redefine the family unit. The “nuclear” family is a relic. Single parents are less likely to be widows or widowers, and more likely to be unmarried (i.e., Murphy Brown). Homosexual characters have also begun to pervade the family settings of many of today’s TV series. Many of today’s TV “moms” and “dads” are divorced, and living with their second, third, or fourth mate.

A few programs do try to portray fathers in a positive light. Let us notice, though, how that “positive” depiction has changed.

Fathers in today’s programs are likely to be characterized as bumbling, weak, unenlightened men. One of the most popular sitcoms of recent years is The Cosby Show. It introduced us to a medical doctor, Heathcliff Huxtable, who was obviously not the head of his family. He had poor social skills. He was constantly being corrected about his parenting decisions by his wife. He was a totally uncoordinated moron when it came to making repairs around the house. The family leader was Heathcliff’s wife, Clair, an attorney. This depiction of the father as a weak, politically incorrect buffoon has continued, and is now the predominant TV picture of the father in the home. The vast majority of today’s media presentations of the family elevate the woman/wife/mother to the role of strength and leadership, and leave the father to the role of family clown. The popular show Home Improvement, with father Tim “the Tool-Man” Taylor, is a classic example of this shift.

Concluding Thoughts

This special issue of Guardian of Truth contains articles depicting the proper role of the father. Perhaps the most important lesson we learn from the media’s characterization of fathers is that we should not look to the media for our examples. Even in the golden age of television, the best of fathers were likely to engage in activities such as situation ethics. When all is said and done, Ward, Steve, Rob, Andy, Heathcliff, and the “Tool-Man” do not give us good examples of how to be fathers. If we want to know how to be godly fathers, we are going to have to read and study God’s word.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 12 p. 21-22
June 19, 1997