“…Go forth into the world, there thou wilt learn what poverty is. But as thou hast not a bad heart, and as I mean well by thee, there is one thing I will grant thee; if thou fallest into any difficulty, come to the forest and cry, “Iron John,” and then I will come and help thee. My power is great, greater than thou thinkest, and I have gold and silver in abundance.” – From the Brothers Grimm fairy tale Iron John
If there is one thing I have noticed over the years about the male gender, it is the need. There is an interesting contradiction in the masculine. On one hand, he will run up the stairs of a burning World Trade Center tower to rescue survivors, cover a live grenade with his body in order to save his friends, endure unspeakable torture in order to keep faith to his country, and defend his family’s home to the death. On the other hand, a negative word from a father or respected elder will fold him like a house of cards. There is a deep, deep need in the inside of a man.
The industrial and technological revolutions of the past couple of centuries have done a lot of good in terms of material prosperity and quality of life. The ill it has done, however, is to take fathers away from their sons at critical junctures. Gone are the days of the father teaching the son about seasons of planting and harvest, the habits of the whitetail deer, and the various uses of particular timber stands. Of course, these skills are not the important thing. What is important is the amount of time spent with the son… that the son is worthy of time and effort and vitally important to the family.
The industrial and technological revolutions have placed a premium on a high level of expertise. They have also created a workplace away from the home and that leads to the father’s absence for most of the day. Boys are placed in schools which are often geared toward feminine ways of learning (a good documentary to watch on this subject is Raising Cain). Frustration sets in and self-worth deteriorates. The essence of who he is seems to be obsolete and even frowned upon. He then grows up and the same pattern is repeated with his son. The need of the boy to be affirmed by an older male is acute and underestimated by society.
Sadly, the male reticence about expressing emotions is frequently assumed to be indicative of emotional hardness. Nothing could be further from the truth. A denial of blessing often leads to a quite desperate young man.
In Rod Rosenbladt’s presentation on the theology of the Reformation as it relates to fathers and sons (which, along with the amazing t-shirt below, can be purchased at New Reformation Press), he places his finger squarely on the problem and the solution. The problem is described above: there are precious few (if any) ways for a young man in our society to receive the blessing of an older male (particularly a father). A lack of initiation rites, if you will.
The solution comes in the form of an analogy to the insights of the Reformation.
The Reformers found that Scripture teaches an imputed righteousness, i.e. the blessing of God given to sinful men and women, acquired only by grace and only through faith. The essence of this righteousness belongs to Jesus Christ only. But it is given freely. In this way, there is a sense of reality for the person who is justified. It is called simul iustus et peccator in the Latin. This means simultaneously right before God and yet conflicted.
It is not a “school marmish” idea of superficial improvement. Nuns are not rapping your knuckles with a ruler. There is no program of a progressive increase in virtue. There is no self-deception about inherent righteousness. It is the deep magic that is not magic. It is a free one-way blessing that positively re-orients you to your Maker. It is a real righteousness that covers a real, and continuing, flailing about. It is becoming a grown-up. It is the blessing of God the Father which in itself, affirms, creates purpose, and breaks the curse.
COMMENTS
17 responses to “Repost: Fathers, Sons, and the Reformation, Part II”
Leave a Reply
Hey Dave. Liked your post. In a very clear way you lay out a number reasons why boys and young men are very troubled in 21st century America. Either no father figures at all — or a father who is theoretically there but not really. Fathers are no longer there to closely teach their sons how to be men.
But your last two paragraphs baffled me. You said that this whole vast problem — which you laid out very well — of fathers spending no time with their sons for the first 18 years of their lives — would be solved if young men got a sermon about imputation and the correct kind of Mockingbird-Lutheran theology?
I mean don't get me wrong, I love that whole kind of theology, but are you sure that would fix the problem? Isn't the solution more likely to be tied to a major systemic overhaul of the problems you mentioned, so that earthly fathers are in fact spending time with their sons?
I second SD's first question.
As far as the second question… I'm sure that it would help if fathers were better fathers, but in some senses fathers will always fail at being fathers. Neither does this solution does not address the need of sons would did not have a good father
Thanks for the nice words, StampDawg.
Great questions. If you hear Rod's talks, you hear him speak of analogy. Now, I might not have fleshed it out well (and, looking back over what I wrote a year ago, I might like to elaborate here and cut some there) but here is what I'm driving at:
The father blessing his son and initiating him into adulthood is an analogy of justification by faith/imputation. The son is not going to be able to create adult masculinity on his own. At least, not the best of what that entails. His creation is more likely to be a cockeyed version of what his mind interprets as masculinity. You see the parallel between the bondage of the will (the primacy of the irrational/heart) and justification by works?
The blessing (and the best example of this is Rod's car story) is also an analogy to imputation/justification by faith. Even as the boy is bumping into walls and knocking over vases (metaphorically speaking) via his bondage, the father (who holds all the cards, whether the son likes it or not) freely blesses the son without condition. This, and not nagging/conditional approval, is what actually brings the boy into adulthood. And into the best of what masculinity is.
The relationship is re-oriented, you see.
You see the parallel here between simul iustus et peccator. It is a state of being (which is the most important aspect) but it also enables out of freedom. And being enabled out of freedom is the greatest of all gifts.
So, I guess, somewhere along the line, I hope that some man is liberated by the Gospel and it is existentially grasped. Then the fruit of that, I think, is what you see here.
It is then passed down to the son and there is where the "curse of the father passed down to the son" is damaged in some way. Not all the way, obviously. We're not in the quick elixir business. But something has changed. Something has been set right.
And, I'll say, I have always been better at explaining the effects of sin/Law/bondage than I have fleshing out the existential (and not being merely conceptual) aspects of the Gospel. I have some work to do toward that end.
I think the emphasis is that the solution- the blessing from God to sinners- is in response to the problem- a need to receive our self worth from someone else. While father's not spending time with their sons in a problem, the deeper problem is having no other way of receiving self worth? Is that what you are saying?
Fathers will always fail to one degree or another, but let's not pretend we could still do somethings better from a systemic standpoint.;
Eisenbarth, the term "self-worth" is interesting and pretty loaded theologically. You can easily get into justice/virtue/inherent justification, etc. with it. So, I really don't know what to do with the term.
On the whole, though, I think you're going where I'm going. Instead of being manufactured, the "status of being a man" is conferred freely as a gift. From that man whose opinion is all that matters. Potentially reductionistic, but you get my drift.
It's interesting that you have started this series at just the time a friend has introduced me to the show Scrubs. I'd seen the show before but now that I'm watching a lot of the show it is interesting how a man's quest for an approving father figure has become so central to the sit com's premise. Dorian is constantly on a quest for the approval of Dr. Cox who never actually gives it except in the cases where Dorian has failed against all odds, and gives the approval at those moments where Dorian isn't pleading for it. On the other side of the gender struggle there's Dr. Reid, whose parents were so eager to have a boy they just gave her the boy's name.
I think that's a great show to watch in illustration of this idea.
Hey Dave. I'm still a bit confused, but hey buddy I may be a bit thick. 🙂
Your initial post had this form:
* X is a major social problem. It afflicts a huge number of people today.
* A long time ago, X was a much rarer problem.
* But then several things changed (historical causes A, B, C) which is why we now have social problem X today.
* There's a solution though to this social problem. That is Y.
This form appears all the time in public discourse. It's often very helpful. For instance, it's the form of the debate where X = "childhood obesity". Many others could be mentioned.
When you get to the solution, Y, it's supposed to be some set of proposals that would solve the social problem, often by tackling the causes. That's why it is claimed to be a Solution to the problem X.
You do an awesome job of outlining a real social problem, one which has indeed grown up in the last 60 years as a result of specific changes in families and schools and the job market and so on.
But I am just unclear what your solution is. What concretely is being proposed?
Or were you not actually interested in proposing a solution to a social problem?
Again, sorry for the confusion, just not clear what you are trying to say. Very best, SD
I'm just talking about how this is an analogy and parallels the Gospel message. I'm not proposing an x+y=z solution.
StampDawg, David suggests that certain social realities cause problems for males because of their detrimental effect these have upon the existential reality of being a son and the need to be valued, loved, blessed, etc. Now, it's likely that a solution to this problem could be for fathers themselves to live counter-culturally and provide this value, love, blessing, to the son. This would be the concrete solution you are looking for, correct?
Yet- because of sin this solution is imperfect at best. What one's father is dead (Tiger!)? What if reconciliation is impossible? What if one's father is (inevitably) human and this creates an unbridgeable gap between father and son? What is needed is for a surrogate father to provide the son that affirmation and blessing. Many people find such surrogate fathers in coaches, bosses, or mentors. Yet again, the problem of sin creeps in and you're back where you started.
I think David's theological, vertical answer is indeed what is most needed. The "human" solution of a surrogate father is superseded by the "divine" solution of an adoptive Father, who unconditionally blesses. This may not be a social solution, but it gets at the existential root of the problem.
StampDawg, I too would love some sort of solution to the X/Y bullet points you've listed. Robert Bly (in Iron John) doesn't provide an answer after identifying the problem wonderfully – it's mostly mumbo jumbo after that.
Here, David seems to be grasping at something that seems (to me anyway) to be an important clue, but he isn't really able to flesh out a solution either (nor was he really trying in this case. It would be a long post I think…)
I'm trying to hash this out myself with my own two sons. I work in an office all day… I'm looking for clues.
Certainly (I think), handing out a cut-and-dry solution to you would be handing you back control. Or the illusion of control.
I didn't mean to condemn desk work or anything like that. That, too, is beyond our control. How could you bend ecomomic evolution to your will? Givens render givens and we primarily react (read:acquiesce) to the strong-arming. All you are doing is trying your best to provide for the family you love.
Basically, all I am doing is thinking out loud (poorly, probably). Stampdawg and everyone else raise great questions. I can't, however, say do this or that because you won't be able to and you will be even more discouraged that you were previously. Sometimes ignorance actually is bliss.
Looking back on these posts, I have decided that they need a little work. I think I'll take them back to my thinking cave and edit them a little. Now I see why people continuously re-edit their work over as lifetime.
Many thanks to DB for an interesting post. He really made me think about the whole issue of boys growing up in the last 50 years — which describes almost all of the guys here.
My guess is that what's needed is BOTH a horizontal and a vertical solution — like two blades of a pair of scissors, working in tandem. I think it is just so important that Jesus' model for ministry was always BOTH-AND in this respect. I think there's a reason why, for example, in his summary of the Law he doesn't reduce it just to a Vertical pronouncement.
And the horizontal, as part of the solution, seems like it makes sense given how DB laid the problem out. The crisis today can't be explained as just an enduring problem of being human in any age and culture. Quite to the contrary, Dave shows that it WASN'T a problem 100 years ago — or nothing like the way it was now.
Dave's post made me think, curiously enough, of an Anglo-Catholic friend of mine who's a father of three boys and at Nashotah right now. He's a great dad. And I can see how his boys are always pretending to be Like Daddy. Which they CAN do even when he is acting as a priest because there is such a physical dimension to what he does as a high-church guy: dressing up, swinging the thuriber, and so on. So it may have less to do with white vs. blue collar but finding ways of embodying in a very physical way (that boys can connect with) what Daddy Does.
I've long been intrigued about the lack of masculinity in our culture and how it effects our christian families and churches.
I believe you have put your finger on a very real problem that has real consequences regarding the gospel and how it is presented.
I have attempted to discuss this (somewhat controversial) at my blog in regards to the lack of masculinity in worship leadership. If anyone is interested: http://sounddoxology.blogspot.com/2010/04/effeminate-worship-leader.html
What I got from the article is that I can be parented by the scriptures & God no matter how good or bad my earthly parents were. Loved it!
Kay (not a man) Preston. 🙂