I recall a survey from the 1930s that was carried out in Europe on the significance of the family. The article claimed that the diminishing importance of family life in Europe was the result of social change.

The article identified that one of the factors was the intrusion of market values, relentless advertising, suggesting that people switch from one to another and so on, thus impacting on the values of loyalty and commitment. This militates daily against what we hold to be permanent and eventually the family becomes only one of the life anchors.

In an article by the Woodlands Junior School on family life in the United Kingdom the following observations were made. The once typical British family headed by two parents has undergone substantial changes during the 20th century.

In particular there has been a rise in the number of single-person households which increased from 18 to 29 % between 1971 and 2002. By the year 2020, it is estimated there will be more single than married people.

Now about 40% of children in Britain are born to unmarried (cohabiting) parents. In 2000, around a quarter of unmarried people between the ages of 16 and 59 were cohabiting in Great Britain. Cohabiting couples are also starting families without first getting married.

Also it was noted that people were getting married at a later age now and many women do not want to have children immediately. They prefer to concentrate on their jobs and put off having a baby until late thirties. Can these observations be made in the Pacific today?

The concept of the family is difficult to define as its meaning changes according to time, place and context. Different religions and laws have their own definition and understanding of the family. For some the family is seen as the basic social unit that consists of the husband, the wife and their children, while others would include a more extended group.

Increasing secular points are used to describe and identify who the family is. So today people use terms such as a squatter family, a wealthy family, a dysfunctional family, a productive family or a lazy family. The other term is that of the Christian family and the use of the term is slowly disappearing from the vocabulary of the Pacific people. So what is the Christian Family?

In the Christian faith, our Lord Jesus taught these values in what can be described as a Christian family. Being born in a human family, Jesus knew of the joys and the grief, hopes and despair of the family. Jesus' birth in a manger as a refugee, his family's flight into Egypt, the despair that his parents felt when he was lost in the temple are examples. Yet in all this, they remained loyal and committed to one another, and to their respective responsibilities.

By this experience, Jesus understood why a mother or father, a son or daughter despairs when things go wrong or celebrate in joy and happiness when good work is being done. It is for this reason that the Christian family, should and ought to be the cradle of hope, forgiveness and compassion to its members and those that live among us.

I am sure other religions do manifest these principles. For us Christians, the Christian family is where the human heart is nurtured, shaped and educated according to Christian values.

The family can also be a place where we learn to practise human rights. Human rights require us to respect each other and to act responsibly in seeing that each person can develop their full potential. Wherever a child grows up in an environment where human rights are respected he or she has the possibility of developing into autonomous responsible citizen.

It is one thing to enjoy human rights and it is another to take responsibility for it. Human rights need to be utilised as a platform, for responsible human behaviour. However, understanding these and being able to articulate them is another matter.

Mutuality - that the other person has just as much rights as I have is of equal importance.

Many of the Pacific Islands governments have ratified the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and the convention on the rights of the child.

Therefore, governments do have an obligation to protect our women and children.

However, leaving this alone to government is limiting. I believe these must carry the support of everyone. Thus human rights is the responsibility of every human person.

As part of their work, many organisations do have family life programmes. These activities must be supported as they address social issues in a holistic fashion. To influence behavioural changes, we must upgrade our work on the family life within the confines of our individual tenets and beliefs. Parents cannot on their own pass this information without proper education, training and guidance.

Thus I believe it is in our upbringing that we must learn love, value justice and to be compassionate. This means that by loving and respecting our own particular families, we come to know and understand why others value their own. We also learn that these values are fundamental to a compassionate and just society. I do know that not all of us have had the privilege and we are thinking of those among us who had a less favourable view of the family because of violence, poverty and loneliness in the family.

I cannot for one understand how we expect our children to learn love and respect for others in the context of human rights if there has been none shown in their lives. Thus, I believe that the practice of human rights must be contextualised in the home first.

Bishop Apimeleki Qiliho is the Bishop of Vanua Levu / Taveuni, Anglican Diocese of Polynesia.