Fatherhood Spin

What is it like to be a father?

How does one approach this new responsibility and what are the many thoughts and worries that come with this role?

Fatherhood Perspective (from a new father...)

You could say the idea of fatherhood has always been front and center in our culture, with people on all sides of the role aiming their side's weapons directly at them. As a new father myself, and a baby girl on the way, I don't take lightly that responsibility and I'm not arrogant enough to say "I got this," like it's not big deal. I at once understand 1) the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding me, the word of God teaching me and directing my steps, and the loving Father who comforts me when I (frequently) fall short, and 2) that being a father is not a "nothin' but net" undertaking that is downloaded into my brain as though I were still connected to the Matrix.

Fatherhood is a role not all can handle, fewer step up to when it comes, and in any case should not be undertaken lightly. Every now and again fatherhood comes up in an interesting way. I feel we're seeing an example of that today.

Recently I've seen a couple articles discussing some comments made by Pat Robertson, and none of them were good. I'm thankful that at least one article I read had the video embedded so I could watch what really happened. Man, first person perspective can make a world of difference! Since I believe it's important to watch the video for yourself, I'll include it here:



This post is, in one sense, also an exercise in controlling media spin -- which could be personal (blog, tweet, etc.) or corporately intentional (Fox, NBC, etc.). I've seen several people post a link and would like to clear up where I believe the ire comes from.

I watched the video and have three thoughts: 1) he didn't tell people NOT to adopt, or even that you shouldn't adopt someone if you know they had a troubled past. 2) he only said a man doesn't HAVE to take on the issues that MAY be a part of a mother-with-adopted-kids' problems, for which he gives an example, and that decision doesn't make him a dog. 3) Pat's comment was a response not to the woman with the problem but to the cohost's comment.

Edwards' article over the video was an inaccurate extrapolation of what he said. The title to the article where I first watched the video is itself misleading. Another blogger gave a nice piece on scriptural evidence toward God's concern for orphans and the brokenness we all suffer from, which was good, but he might have overstepped in saying Pat's comments were of the devil. That's often the kind of phrase that we would do better to think in our heads without actually saying, not least because we can't know that. There have been assumptions thrown at Robertson that could be simply seen as unfair.

Now, let me be clear: I'm not a disciple of Robertson, so I have no stake in his career or how people see him. I would just hope that people would do the same for me if my words or intentions were twisted. I agree, Robertson has definitely said some nutty things before, some of which are recounted in this article... a new one might be the assumption that there is any one among us who DOESN'T grow up weird. Life is weird and we all have damage, pains, and things to work through. I think he would've fared better to say that "if guys don't want to walk into a situation like that, that's their decision," and leave it at that. His dip into a personal story, at best, failed to evoke sympathy for anyone and, at worst, threatened to derail the point he was making in the first place.

The point was this: a man doesn't have to take on the responsibility of children if they don't want to.

Shying away from the responsibility of a spouse and three kids because you know you won't receive any child support for those efforts does not automatically make a single man a dog. That kind of responsibility is no small matter, and I would rather a man admit they can't handle it up front than watch them split later on, after they've allowed children to grow close to them. To my view, the issue isn't what the kids may be suffering from, but the prospect of going from "Bachelor" to "Husband with three children" without the extra income that child support would bring. Speaking as a man who takes providing for my family very seriously, that would concern me, and probably be a deal breaker, too if I didn't feel very strongly like God would make a way to provide.

It sounds like the lady's question -- "Why are the men acting this way?" -- has received its answer but she didn't like it. The answer is 1) no child support and 2) they're not her biological kids. I'm thinking there are a lot of unanswered questions here, but we can't speak to those, only to what we DO know. The men who didn't want to stick around, didn't. No one's saying that's not painful to go through, but there are too many saying it's wrong of the guy on personal or biblical grounds, both of which are a stretch due to how little we know about the situation.

Is the woman wealthy enough to support these children on her own? If she's not, then the problem for me, as a guy, would be evident. She's in a bind and, as a guy, I would feel overwhelmed to help her without some kind of support. If that makes me cowardly or one who appears not to trust God... well, you're entitled to your opinion. If she is, I'd assume the financial strain for the guy would not be cause for him to split, since it wouldn't be for me (see how my response is personal, from my perspective?).

Is the care for three international children currently manageable and/or sustainable? If it is, then I'm out of ideas for why the guys would walk away. It may be calloused to say, but it's possible the guys thought the cons outweighed the pros, though not even that  means they were dogs. If it's not, then those men were likely thinking about what all else they would have to do to financially provide for these children, lest the sole responsibility rest only on the mother's shoulders. That's a huge weight, and I don't fault any guy who decides early that they're not up to the challenge.

All the questions come in, for me, on the "they're not her biological children" side of the coin.

Are the men racist or xenophobic? Welp, there you have it. They're trapped in outmoded ways of thinking, for sure, but it still doesn't necessarily make them dogs. But if not, there's another reason they backed out.

Are the men scared of the three kids angle but just slow about ending the relationship because they're afraid they'll be seen as weak or less of a man for NOT sticking around? If so, they may be cowards but it doesn't make them dogs, necessarily. If not, there's some other reason.

Are the men wondering why a single woman would adopt three kids herself? If so, I think that's a valid question to ask. And if they don't like the answer and they're not committed to the relationship or the kids yet, should they continue on with her as though they are? If not, there's some other reason.

And on and on it goes.

We can continue to assume and imbue and tear down and... (on and on and on)

Or we can ask questions and refuse to vilify another human being.

It's okay not to like another person because of something they've said or done to you (or at least something you're aware of). Jesus didn't tell us to like one another. You can be honest about not liking someone without stooping to the level of slander. It's not okay to tear down another for whom Christ died. Jesus told us to love one another.

And yes, that can be hard when you dislike someone. In fact, it's almost impossible but we're still called to do it, and I've a sneaky suspicion that the power of the Holy Spirit, and Christ in us, is suited to the task of making it happen. In the process, He might just change our heart and give us the means to love the broken with broken-hearted grace.

What if we used these culturally visible moments to share the love of Christ? What if these moments were all but wrapped up by our loving Father as the "in road" to talking to someone about the kind of sacrificial love God has for them, and you, that allows you to give that same love to someone you don't agree with?

What if it's an opportunity to talk about what "tolerance" really is?