The Who: Live in Houston, Texas 1975, Song Three

The great song Baba O'Riley.

Fathers, Sons, and the Reformation, Part I

In November of 2003, I was attending the Cathedral of the Advent in Birmingham, AL and just beginning to understand the Gospel and its implications. During one service, it was announced that the Rev. Dr. Rod Rosenbladt (LCMS) was flying in from California to give a seminar on how the theology of the Protestant Reformation interacts with father-son relationships. My decision to attend was a benchmark in my understanding of Jesus Christ and who He is. I could probably even trace my call to the ministry to Professor Rosenbladt’s presentation (to listen/obtain, visit New Reformation Press - the indispensible online center for all things Rosenbladt- and Reformation-related).

In this post, I wish to discuss the Reformers’ (particularly Martin Luther’s) insight into justification as it relates to masculinity and identity. Later this week, I will discuss the Reformation’s doctrine of justification as it relates to imputation and blessing. Big words that will hopefully make more sense when I'm done.

One of the most striking things Professor Rosenbladt said in his presentation was; “Masculinity is not 12 gauge. It’s .410.” For all you New Yorkers whose idea of comparison is Gucci and Prada, a .410 is a much lighter and smaller bore shotgun than the 12 gauge. Usually, small-in-stature kids who are just beginning to hunt use a .410. I, personally, use a 12 gauge for ducks and turkeys. For the purposes of our conversation, the 12 gauge makes a considerably louder “boom” than a .410.

It’s this loud “boom” in perceived forms of masculinity that manifests itself when a true father is not present. As Professor Rosenbladt quipped, the lack of a father looks like the movie Heat, i.e. Al Pacino and a bunch of .223 AR-15’s. It is a desperate exercise of inventing what a man is perceived to be; the idea that masculinity means actively creating one’s own identity. Asserting itself to the detriment of others, often violently and certainly unethically (as we have seen in the recent economic crisis). It is a mindset of fatherless men that is driven by fear. Fear of accusation, condemnation, failure, and impotency.

What breaks the chain is a driving away of this fear. You cannot be left to create your own identity in a world this big and mean. It is pure futility. You need the arm of a father around your neck. In theological language, you must passively receive your identity rather than actively create it.

This is justification by faith alone. The One who has total control is completely in your corner. And He will never desert you. This is the truth that takes away the terror of one-whistling-in-the-dark and turns a 12 gauge into a .410. This sort of masculinity still has bite but it is a subtle yet confident bite that needs not make a lot of noise. It creates fathers that have a gentle, patient, and light touch with sons who are trying to find their way in this world. The desperation that leads to driving, forcing, and creating a "champion" is assuaged. The father-son relationship can then be enjoyed for the special relationship it is.

This is the Christian picture of fatherhood, and it is a chink in the passing of the curse from the father to the son.

The Who: Live in Houston, Texas 1975, Song Two

"I Can't Explain" is one of the great early songs of The Who from their Mod years (see it played in the natural environment of the Mod here).  It's also quite short and inspired, in part, by The Kinks' "All Day and All of the Night" and "You Really Got Me" (both of which are classics in their own right).  Take a listen and you can hear the influence.  Also, "Thunder Fingers" John Entwistle is very distinct (and awesome) on the bass here as he is for the rest of the show.  If you like rhythm sections, this is your lucky day.

I Heart Wall Street

As one who has been historically affiliated with the Right of the political spectrum, it has been difficult for me to watch a chastened Republican intelligentsia take refuge in the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. At first, I thought it was mentioned by chance in the coverage of Jack Kemp’s death (the underprivileged never had a stronger advocate than Kemp, by the way). I then picked it up again in this article in National Review. It is an article about the CEO of BB&T, a bank out of North Carolina that I actually do business with in my day job. Here is a telling excerpt:

However, simply because Rand doesn’t endorse altruism for altruism’s sake, many people misconstrue her to be amorally selfish. Rand “doesn’t view ethics as self-sacrificial,” Allison says, “she views ethics as a rational means to success and happiness. If you described her in principle, she would say that you shouldn’t take advantage of other people because that is unethical behavior and self-defeating. But you also shouldn’t self-sacrifice. What you really need to do is run your life in relationship to other people in context to what she calls the trader principle. The trader principle is about what I call creating win-win relationships. We trade value for value and we get better together, and we find these common grounds where we can get better together.”

From my study and interest in the anthropology (doctrine of mankind) of the Reformation, it seems to me that the charge of selfishness is quite common and lacks insight. The wrong critique, in my opinion. The real problem with Rand’s Objectivism is her anthropology. It’s not that people (not just free-market capitalists) are selfish. Everyone knows that and it is a fact that does not change. The problem with Rand is that she believed that people are rationally self-interested. In other words, people have free will and the mind is totally in the driver’s seat with regard to moral disposition.

According to the Reformation (and Reformer Philip Melanchthon, in particular), “The will chooses what the heart desires and the mind justifies it.” In this formula, the mind (along with the will) is enslaved to the heart and is tertiary (at best) in importance. According to Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” Romans 3 might also give a clue.

The breakdown of Rand’s high anthropology became evident in this present recession that exposed a foundational rot in the reliance on the market to regulate itself. Even Alan Greenspan- a personal disciple of Rand’s- (in a statement of disarming humility) acknowledged this:

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.... The whole intellectual edifice [of risk-management in derivative markets]...collapsed last summer.” Asked whether his ideological bias led him to faulty judgments, he answered: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”
- Alan Greenspan at a congressional hearing in October 2008

So, do we embark on a massive project of hyper-regulation in response? No, I don’t think so. There is also this cosmic power called “the Law”, but that is another post for another time. Let us simply take the anthropology of the Reformation from the conceptual and apply it as if it is actually true. The heart of man is in the driver’s seat and that makes our self-interest wholly irrational.

The Who: Live in Houston, Texas 1975

Along with some thoughts on theology, I thought I would share some of my musical enthusiasms.  First up is an incredible (and obscure) performance by The Who from their 1975 tour.  John Entwistle (the bassist for The Who) called the 1975 tour the apex of the band's live career.  It is at The Summit in Houston, Texas and I will be posting the entire concert over the next few days.  The first number for this amazing show is "Substitute".

Tim Keller on the Gospel

Do You Have A Zombie Plan? Part II

It doesn't take long in this life to see particular groups of people peeling off the major interstate of human relationships into their own provincial enclaves.  This can be geographical (as in the small towns that recycle their populations) or metaphorical (as in the cliques that arise in schools and morph into adult subcultures).  Everyone within reach of this digital word finds themselves in the midst of some subculture or homogeneous people group.  It could be the good ol' boys in Rayne, Louisiana or the hipster Christians of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  It could be the Old Row fraternity scene at the University of Alabama or the Crips in South Central Los Angeles.

It all goes back to the idea of good ol' bootstraps, self-generated identity.  And identity is always the reservoir of self-assertion and, thus, suffering, violence, judgment, and fear.  As one of the Bloods on a Gangland documentary said, "If you ain't Blood, you're my enemy."  Similar but less ominous attitudes appear in other subcultures.  Imagine walking into a University of Georgia sorority party with an 80's bouffant hairdo and acid-washed jeans.  Even (especially?) the Christian subculture (whatever form that may take in your town) is much more about cultural ethics, politics, language, and subtleties than God's Law.

But, what about the coming zombie apocalypse?  What position do all of these individual members of their respective subcultures find themselves as they realize they are being stalked by the living dead?  Is there something universal here that we will be forced to recognize?  Come to the breakout session "The Zombie Apocalypse in Christian Thought" at the Mockingbird Conference to think about and gird yourself for the coming zombie horde.