The Father’s Day Paradox That Isn’t

What in the world is going on?

Yesterday was Father’s Day, and my feminist- and gay-rights-supporting social media feeds were full of praise. For partners, for husbands, for fathers. My friends and colleagues were changing their Facebook profiles to pictures of themselves with their dads, even to pictures of their dads. They were posting Thank yous and I love yous and You’re the bests. My social media feeds became a parade of dadliness! A festival of fatherhood! A party for paternity!

How can this be? I’ve been told over and over that these people hate men. They’ve made war on gender differences. They think men and women are interchangeable. I’ve been told that celebrating Father’s Day is diametrically opposed to everything that the cultural left holds dear.

Remember? Anthony Esolen solemnly intoned that we no longer live in a world where “when the women look upon men digging ore out of the heart of a mountain, or laying roads, or bending their strong arms and large hands to shave the marble one grain of dust at a time, and give it the smoothness of a baby’s cheek, they are grateful, not envious.”

But yesterday, one of the most-shared articles on my twitter feed was Elizabeth Alexander’s “A Father’s Day Ode to Strong Black Hands.”

Whoops. Wrong again, Esolen.

And last week, Fr. Robert McTeigue told us that if you really want to annoy certain feminists (the type that talk about “male privilege” and “rape culture”) all you have to do is say “Happy Father’s Day.”

But yesterday, those words were springing from the keyboards of virtually everyone I know and follow. Even–no, especially–the academic feminists who talk about male privilege and rape culture!

And yesterday morning, Ryan T. Anderson posted an article at the Daily Signal asserting that supporting gay marriage “signals that men and women are interchangeable—and that mothers and fathers are replaceable.”

But I didn’t see any signals of interchangeability on my Facebook feed. To the contrary—I saw loving, exuberant celebrations of a variety of men and moving recognitions of the irreplaceable parts those men have played in my friends’ and colleagues’ lives.

Did feminism end? Are the gay-rights activists conceding defeat? Did the Sexual Revolution go away?

Or are cultural conservatives full of it with their strawman notions of feminism and gay rights?

Well, yeah, they are, but the answer goes deeper than that.

Everyone agrees that children generally do best with their (specific) mothers and fathers, although most people recognize that’s not always true, which is why we have adoption. But Anderson et al turn that universally accepted truth into an insistence that children need a(generic) mother and father. See the difference? Their father vs. a father. Specific vs. Generic. The left celebrates fathers; the Catholic Right celebrates the Father.

I don’t mean that in the religious sense, as in God, the Father: I mean that they think of fatherhood not as what individual fathers do, but as a Platonic ideal. And, as with all ideals, their version of fatherhood is a mark from which all individual fathers necessarily diverge.

You can see the implications of these two views in Scott Brand’s recent Mockingbird post on “Fishing and Fatherhood.” In it, the Brand writes (lightheartedly) about the shame he has experienced in life because his father didn’t teach him one of those ideal manly tasks. He confesses:

I don’t know how to fish.

On the scale of things that have caused shame in my life, being unable to “cast a line” (is that how you say it?) is slightly above being unable to swallow pills until I was 16 and considerably lower than wetting my pants in second grade. And yet I am far more willing to admit both of those factoids than I am my complete lack of knowledge when it comes to angling (let’s be honest, I had to google synonyms for fishing).

He’s only sort of kidding. It’s easy to see from his example how the generic view of fatherhood can stigmatize real fathers. In another essay republished this week at the Atlantic–very much in line with Anderson’s–W. Bradford Wilcox says that fathers are valuable because, on average, they roughhouse more than mothers, allow their kids more risk, and discipline them more sternly. But what of fathers who don’t fit those averages? What about fathers who aren’t stern disciplinarians? Who worry more than their wives about their kids’ bodily safety? What about fathers who don’t teach their sons to fish?

“The most profound memories I have from my dad,” Brand writes, “come from moments when he showed weakness. He taught me and my siblings what it looked like to confess sins by confessing to us. He admitted over and over again to us that he didn’t know what he was doing.”

Rather than teaching his son independence—which Wilcox and Cardinal Burke, and even Pope Francis, say men are supposed to do—Brand’s father taught neediness. He differed from the masculine norm, and Brand says this is what made him irreplaceable. “He is the best father I could ever ask for,” Brand writes.

Ironically, Anderson is the one making fathers interchangeable, by reducing them to a role. For him, fathers are valuable because of what they do: “[T]here are,” he writes, “on average, differences in the ways that mothers and fathers interact with their children and the functional roles that they play.”

For writers like Brand, though, fathers aren’t valuable for what they do, for how well they fit into the role of Man, but for who they are, in all their gloriously messy individuality. That’s what I saw on my Facebook and Twitter feeds yesterday: posts celebrating an immense variety of men—big, burly men fixing cars, yes, but also nerdy, quiet men reading to their kids; men leading their kids on outdoor adventures, but also men tenderly rocking infants to sleep. I even saw posts praising men who parent together.

My own dad made me lots of dinners. He read me lots of books. He tucked me in lots of nights when my mom, an ER nurse, was working late. Yes, he taught me to throw a curve; he wrestled with me. Because that’s who he is. But throwing a curve means a whole lot less to me than the fact that he spent time with me—I would love him just as much if we had spent that time playing Scrabble or learning to knit.

And, for the record, my dad never taught me to fish, either. But don’t cry for me: I learned thatfrom my mom.

image

James Cone and Frederick Douglass on the Cross and White Power

image

[Image via FoxCarolina.com]

“The cross was God’s critique of power—white power—with powerless love, snatching victory out of defeat.“ James Cone

I’ve been staring at the faces of the nine people killed in Charleston, and thinking about the fact that they invited their killer in and sat with him for an hour. And I’ve been reading about the incredible grace of their families’ responses to the apprehension of the shooter.

I’ve also been thinking about the (justly derided) Fox News suggestion that what happened in Charleston was an anti-Christian attack, not a racist one. That suggestion was shameful, because it was a naked attempt to tie this tragedy to the religious right’s dumb persecution narrative. At the same time, as Robin Boylorn points out at Salon, it’s not exactly wrong to say that the shooting was anti-Christian. Chalk it up to the broken-clock-that’s-right-twice-a-day phenomenon.

Boylorn explains:

For generations, black folk have turned to their religious faith and to the church for comfort during times of social injustice (as evidenced in the rich and storied history of Emanuel Church). … Roof’s targeting of a place of worship is an attempt to compromise the safety and sanctity of the black church. Before Wednesday night, the black church seemed to be one of the few places left where black folk could assemble in public and feel seen, recognized, heard, loved and welcome.

“I believe it was both,” Boylorn writes. “The shooting was not only an assault on black humanity, it was an attack on black faith, which is one of the few things black folk have left in the face of so much loss, despair and ongoing oppression.”

Two essays from the indispensible hashtag #CharlestonSyllabus brought home the implications of this for me last night. The first, from Frederick Douglass, is “Slaveholding Religion and the Religion of Christ;” the second is James Cone’s “The Cross and the Lynching Tree.” Both essays describe Christianity in America as a divided force, and both locate real Christianity in the black faith, the faith that fostered revolts like that led by Denmark Vesey. Douglass, in particular, is scathing on the falsehood of America’s “civic” religion, practiced by white people seeking to maintain their privilege while mouthing the words of the Gospel. Cone, in turn, forcefully ties the cross to the image of the lynching tree and, in doing so, to resistance against white supremacy. “The cross,” Cone writes, “was God’s critique of power—white power—with powerless love, snatching victory out of defeat.”

The point is, whether the Charleston shooting was an attack on blackness or an attack on Christianity is not an either/or question. Both Cone and Douglass would argue that it was an attack on Christianity because it was an attack on blackness.

Both essays are pretty revolutionary, but then an event like Wednesday night’s shooting shows that we have a lot of overturning to do. And in a nation where Christianity holds significant influence over our ideas of morality, one of the first things we need to overturn is our concept of Christianity. That is, we need to see Christianity not in the God Blesses and prayer requests that show up on our Facebook feeds, not in things politicians say when they want to show they’re part of the tribe, but in the nine men and women who were murdered by a stranger they welcomed to their table. Conversely, we need to see blasphemy not in honestly questioning authority, but in the truly scandalous idea that we should be bringing guns to church. We need to see that while of course what happened in Charleston was an attack on the black race, it was not an attack on some “others” for whom we should feel dutiful sympathy. It was an attack on Christianity, on the core of our values, on goodness itself. If we call ourselves Christians, then it was an attack on us. And if we can’t see it as an attack on ourvalues, as an attack on us, then we need to change our values and our definition of “us.”

Quote for the Day

image

[Photo from www.newstatesman.com]

From feminist writer Glosswitch, at The New Statesman:

“The casual blending together of what capitalism has destroyed with what feminism has achieved – some semblance of freedom for women, thereby rendering them as unreliable as one’s short-term contract or pension fund – is insidious. The right to control one’s family becomes just another thing added to the list of ‘male certainties now lost’, with scant attention paid to the fact that this is about other people’s needs and certainties, too.”

She was writing about a specific (and horrific) murder case in England, but those lines have come back to me over and over in the past two months, especially as I’ve read all the recent talk from religious writers about the “Benedict Option.” In one sense, I understand the feeling that culture is running (has run) awry, and I get the desire to turn away from parts of modernity–which, whatever it’s proponents say, is what the Benedict Option entails. I read Wendell Berry, too. But we can be smart about our cultural critique–we can make distinctions where they need to made.

Specifically, I’ve been infuriated (that’s the only word for it) to watch those same Benedict Option-ers link feminism and gay marriage to bad things like unbridled consumerism using vague rubrics like “autonomous eroticized individualism.” In fact, feminism is about respecting the autonomy of others, and marriage equality is about making a lifelong gift of self to someone else. Insofar as culture has embraced those things, it has moved away from solipsism and self-centeredness.

As Timothy Kincaid puts it, the corporate world has been giving the finger to anti-gay politicians and organizations recently. Unfortunately, folks like Patrick Deneen and Rod Dreher are using that as evidence of the wickedness of gay marriage. Corporatism and gay marriage are natural bedfellows, says Deneen, ominously. Which is kind of like suggesting that because Nike supports women’s soccer, women’s soccer must therefore be bad.

And this is not bad:

Three Things for a Summer Sunday

1) Farewell to Ornette Coleman.

I’m writing a longer piece about this, but for now, I have to mark here the passing of one of America’s musical giants. Ornette was from my hometown, Fort Worth, and when I was a teenager, just learning about him–and driving by I.M. Terrell High School, which he attended with Dewey Redman, Prince Lasha, King Curtis, and Charles Moffett (!!!)–forever changed my view of both the city and the state of Texas. Here’s what Richard Brody wrote about him a couple of years ago in The New Yorker:

One way into Coleman’s music is to think of it as avant-gutbucket. Hailing from Fort Worth (which figures prominently in the film, as in the clip above), he got his start in rhythm and blues and the blues are, conspicuously, at the forefront of his achievement. (In the movie, he speaks warmly of another son of the city, King Curtis, who, having made a fortune from a more popular strain of bluesy jazz, picked Coleman up in New York with his Rolls-Royce.) The forbidding harmonic intricacy of bebop sparked several responses in the fifties, but Coleman’s was the most radical. He threw out the chord changes, famously excluding pianists from his primordial groups, thus eliminating “comping,” or chord-prompting that kept soloists in line, and played music that often had the furious speed of bop but lacked its tonal anchors. His melodies and solos were filled with catchy bluesy riffs and soul-chilling cries, but he shifted notes (or, rather, from pitches) without regard for traditionally recognizable relations of consonance.

Coleman was an icon, not just for the jazz world but also for Fort Worth. The piece I’m writing explores what that means in light of the racial dynamics that sparked last week’s travesty in nearby McKinney.

2. Hooray for Tony Campolo!

Lots has been said about leading evangelical Tony Campolo’s strong statement in support of LGBT Christians. I particularly liked Cathleen Falsani’s description of his statement on his website as a cultural tipping point–though we’ve had lots of those already, and I’m looking forward to more.

But here are the paragraphs of his piece that really struck me:

Rest assured that I have already heard – and in some cases made – every kind of biblical argument against gay marriage…Obviously, people of good will can and do read the scriptures very differently when it comes to controversial issues, and I am painfully aware that there are ways I could be wrong about this one.

However, I am old enough to remember when we in the Church made strong biblical cases for keeping women out of teaching roles in the Church, and when divorced and remarried people often were excluded from fellowship altogether on the basis of scripture. Not long before that, some Christians even made biblical cases supporting slavery. Many of those people were sincere believers, but most of us now agree that they were wrong. I am afraid we are making the same kind of mistake again, which is why I am speaking out.

So often, LGBT issues are painted as a debate between younger and older members of the church, but Campolo, who is 80, reminds us that the experience of older Christians can also be a powerful argument for inclusion.

3. Go read Bilgrimage and A Sound of Sheer Silence!

One of joys of writing this blog has been interacting with bloggers Bill Lindsey, atBilgrimage, and Michael Boyle, at A Sound of Sheer Silence. I know, I know, I recommend them all the time, and I can’t imagine that anybody who reads this blog doesn’t also read theirs. BUT! They have both been on fire lately and if somehow you’ve missed their recent posts, do go catch up.

In particular, I recommend Michael’s post “The Substance Behind the Style” on the semiotics of Cardinal Burke’s and Archbishop Cordileone’s outlandish sartorial choices. I have friends who have taught courses at my university on the Rhetoric of Fashion–Michael’s post would fit perfectly on their syllabi.

At Bilgrimage, the conversation on Caitlyn Jenner has been phenomenal. I especially liked Bill’s response to charges that embracing transgender individuals represents a sort of newfangled gnosticism. Bill writes:

People choosing the gender that they experience as their given gender despite the gender assigned to them according to biological determinations are seeking to fulfill their humanity, not to escape from it.

Just as women seeking to live as full, authentic human beings in a world which tells them that women should be thus and so and always subordinate to males are not seeking to escape from their human destiny as women. They’re seeking to fulfill it.

In another post, Bill highlights a reader’s comment on Fr. Jonathan Morris’s Fox News defense of the Duggars: “I guess this is the logical end of First Things’ ‘Protestants and Catholics Together’ project; they band together to fight against culture war issues and look the other way at each others’ abuse cases.” It’s always worthwhile, I think, to point out the fundamentalism–the Puritanism–behind the Catholic Right’s position on sex.

More posts coming this week, including: my new land-clearing project, rethinking “natural law,” and (maybe–no promises!) a return to Anthony Esolen’s Defending Marriage.

Walker Percy’s Gracious Obscenity

image

Walker Percy Weekend is kicking off about now in Louisiana and, once again, I’m not there. I will be pouring myself a bourbon at the end of this post, though, and i did just get back from the Gulf, albeit the Texas part, where I vacationed with my family all week.

So what better occasion to share this challenging (paywalled) article from Lutheran pastor Franklin A. Wilson, published in Renascence 59.3, Spring 2007? After looking through the pencilled-in notes Percy left in his personal Bibles, Wilson connects Percy’s fascination with passages on the obscenity of God-made-flesh to what he terms Percy’s sense of “gracious obscenity,” which, he says, runs through all of Percy’s fiction. That is, Percy seems to see grace as arising especially from low places, from the obscene. Wilson focuses especially on Percy’s notes on John 9:6 (”With that, he spat on the ground, and made clay with the spittle; then he spread clay on the man’s eyes”). Next to that verse, Percy wrote: “Power, obscenity, belief.” As Wilson puts it:

Percy graphically notes the relationship between Christ’s power displayed via the earthy combination of spit and dirt applied as clay to the man’s eyes. This he terms ‘obscenity.’ The obscenity manifests itself in the use of spit and dirt in the communication of divine grace in the form of healing. In the Fourth Gospel, earthy-human stuff becomes the medium of divine power leading to the insight that Jesus is, indeed, the Messiah. Thus, in John 9, divine grace operates within an obscene nexus of human bodily fluid, dirt, blindness, the divine power of a heterodox rabbi, and faith.

More than that, Wilson says that Percy sees grace as inseparable from low places. Which is logical if you take seriously the Bible’s insistence that in the crucifixion all that is high is made low and all that is low is lifted up, an insistence that Wilson ties to The Moviegoer protagonist Binx Bolling’s observation that, in his existential search, “Everything is upside down for me.”

But the specifics! To be clear: Wilson pulls no punches, and when he says obscenity he means obscenity. His article is kind of shocking. He points out that Percy gives one of his characters, Lawyer Barrett, a very low view of human anthropology: “A man is born between an asshole and a peehole. He eats, sleeps, shits, fucks, works, gets old, and dies.” The line actually comes from Augustine (Inter faeces et urinam nascimur) and has been used for centuries as an illustration of our sinful nature. But Percy turns that low state into an occasion for grace. As Wilson observes:

Lancelot Lamar later notes the same scandal [the scandalous continuity between the Holy and the obscene], as he stumbles upon his wife and her lover embraced in an adulterous polarity of blessing-curse (‘God. Sh– God. Sh–’): ‘Who else but God arranged that love should pitch its tent in the place of excrement?’”

What to do with this thesis?

I don’t know.

Is Percy making the mistake that Paul warns against in Romans 6:1, suggesting that we should continue in sin that grace may abound? No, I don’t think so.

But the article does reflect Percy’s suspicion of high places, of self-righteousness: remember that Tom More, in Love in the Ruins, said, “God, if you recall did not warn his people against dirty books. He warned them against high places.” And Wilson does put Percy’s work in line with what Father Andrew Greeley called the Catholic imagination. “Catholics see the Holy lurking in creation,” Greeley wrote. “As Catholics, we find our houses and our world haunted by a sense that the objects, events and persons of daily life are revelations of grace.”

Mostly it just captures why I like Percy. Rather than running from squalor, Percy starts looking for grace in it. To repurpose a phrase from my internet friend Michael Boyle, Percy demonstrates a real version of visceral catholicity: he sees sacramental potential not just in the everyday, the mundane, but everywhere–even in the rejected and abject.

Anyway, cheers, and happy Walker Percy Weekend!