Fatherhood at Christmas

In this time when over 70% of African American children, about 50% of Hispanic children, and 30% of causcasian children in America are born out of wedlock, it is always timely to talk about fatherhood since most of these children will be missing the influence of their biological father in their lives and many will never have a significant father influence. A fortunate few will be blessed with an adoptive father who accepts them as his own, which reminds me of Joseph.

J.I. Packer has written in his classic book Knowing God that if he had to sum up the gospel in 3 words he would choose 'adoption through propitiation'. It is our adoption by God into His family that gives us the hope of salvation. How appropriate that Jesus would be similarly accepted by Joseph by adoption into his family.

In the nativity story as told by Luke, we first are told about the annunciation and birth of John the Baptist, which preceeded Jesus' birth. When John was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth he was also given his name, as was the custom. The significance of this name-giving comes through in the story of John.

Fathers in our culture as well as in the Bible have always given their family name to their children. This is taken for granted, but in today's world of fatherless children it can no longer be taken for granted. Sometimes the father is not even known. By providing his name, however, the father takes responsibility for the child and claims the child. This was made more explicit at the circumcision of boys in Biblical times as the father also gave the child his full name and presented him to the Lord as his son.

For John, Zacharias had been stricken dumb at his annunciation due to his doubt and questioning of Gabriel, so he could not give John his name. So, the priests assumed that he would be named after his father and proceeded with this approach until interrupted by Elizabeth, objecting that his name was John. They would not accept this from the mother, however, as the father is the name-giver. They turned to Zacharias and he wrote, 'His name is John!' since he was unable to speak.

This makes the passage about Joseph in Matthew the more meaningful. Joseph had been ready to prepare a divorce from Mary, but an angel visited him to make it clear that he should take her as his wife because this child was of God, not of infidelity. And so in Matt. 1:21 the angel says 'and she will bear a son; and you (my emphasis) will call his name Jesus'; then again in 1:25, 'and she gave birth to a Son; and he (my emphasis) called His name Jesus'.

And so Joseph gave Him the name Jesus, which God had instructed but which required a father to give. So Jesus would be known in this life as the son of Joseph who had taken Him as his own and given Him a name. Father's are , among other things, name-givers. We, too, have been adopted and have been given the name 'sons of God' and 'Christian'. In our culture we tend to focus on Mary and overlook Joseph, as if he were irrelevant. God did not overlook him, but specifically sent an angel to him to make sure this special child had a father, a name-giver. In our day, fathers seem to be increasingly seen as irrelevant. Single mothers can choose in vitro fertilization and start a 'family' with no father at all, just a sperm donor who may even be anonymous. We do this at great peril. Even though Jesus had a divine Father, that Father made sure that He also had an adoptive father on this earth. We best not take that example lightly.

The Founding Fathers

I just finished reading Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow which was not only a very thorough and even handed treatment of Mr. Hamilton but also shed more light on John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Having now read a number of biographies about the founders, including John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson along with 1776 and Founding Brothers, a fairly consistent set of images of the founders emerges from these books and their various authors. Certainly these were men with feet of clay, and while they were all men of high principles they varied widely on matters of faith, fidelity to their spouses, treatment of their political adversaries, slavery, and more. Many of them, including Hamilton and Jefferson, left their families deeply in debt when they died. Several, including Jefferson, Hamilton and Franklin, had trouble controlling their lusts. Several, including Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson could be vindictive, spiteful, and full of rage in their political dealings. Although he was the least educated, least travelled, and least colorful of the bunch, Washington stands out as the one consistently in control of his temper, his passions, his money, his family life, and his decisions. He was the one most likely to see the strengths and weaknesses of all the other founders. He set the example of freeing his slaves which Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe could not bring themselves to do. After Washington's death, Hamilton seemed to lose some of the self-control and restraint he had showed until then, likely because of the influence Washington had upon him. While not a man making a lot of show of his faith, Washington seems to have been true to the faith. After his death, the partisanship that followed resulted in libel and slander that would more than rival the mud slinging we saw in the recent presidential campaign, which had been much more restrained while Washington remained. Washington stands out in this crowd of founders, not because of his intellect, his writing, his speeches, or even his military campaigns. He stands out primarily for his character and self-mastery. One has to think it was more than just his own personality at work here, that this was indeed the hand of Providence upon him.

The other characters that stand out in these books are Eliza Hamilton and Abigail Adams. The picture of both that emerges are women of serene and strong faith who support, defend, forgive, and encourage their husbands despite the evident failings of those men. They suffer all the slurs that were launched at their husbands and provided refuge and support while taking on much of the load of supporting their family while their husbands focused on the country and were often gone for months at a time. These two were clearly exceptional human beings.

The more one learns about Jefferson, on the other hand, the less one admires him. He is clearly the most disappointing of the founders and the least consistent with his own avowed values on matters of family, morality, freedom, and speaking the truth about his political foes. He and Hamilton emerge as tragic figures, Hamilton dying in a duel as a result of his own overblown sense of 'honor' and Jefferson so consumed by his own selfishness and ambition that he betrays his own lofty writing about freedom to maintain his lifestyle by slaves, consistently hides behind others in his malicious attacks on political foes, sires children by his slave, refuses to recognize the truth about the evil in the French Revolution, and leaves his family deeply in debt upon his death. All of this on top of his confused views of Christianity make Jefferson the most disappointing of the founders.

All of these books put the recent presidential campaigns into context. The personal attacks, the partisanship, the revelations of personal moral character and judgement that are disappointing are nothing new. Let us hope that Providence has a Washington out there somewhere for our time as well.

Negative campaigning...some things never change

I voted today in the runoff election between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin, which will help decide whether the Democratic party will get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate or not. Both candidates ran campaigns that were not only negative, they were downright deceptive and certainly less than straightforward. Both ran ads that reached back many years and ran them with headlines and sound bites that highly distorted what really happened. Neither candidate came across as honest and ethical. The entire campaign on both sides was exceedingly shabby.



I have recently been reading the biography of Alexander Hamilton, and the rumors, intrigues, and outright lies and libels that were written of him by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and their partisans that are discussed in the book seem sadly contemporary in light of the recent political campaign. Hamilton induldged in some of the same things to them in return, of course. As I have read the biographies of Hamilton and John Adams along with Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, Eleanor and FDR, and other books about the Founding Fathers the past couple of years I have been repeatedly reminded how familiar a theme dirty campaigning, falsehoods, vote stealing/buying, and other unethical behaviors have been in elections ever since the 1790's. Our exposure to the current campaigns impresses this upon us for elections in our experience, but it seems that the same behaviors have been common throughout our history. In spite of this, the Founders were able to establish the freedoms we hold dear today and the nation managed to move forward.



With having just had the Thanksgiving holidays a few days ago, besides being thankful for the end of this campaign season, I am thankful that somehow our nation has been guided by Providence despite our many failings and the often unethical and often immoral behavior of our leaders. Let us pray that continues.