The role of the father is increasingly problematic in the context of modern American culture. Fatherhood has been marginalized and the rule and authority of fathers has been depreciated, ridiculed, and continuously redefined. From the Berenstain Bears to The Simpsons, fathers are all too often the object of ridicule or this subject of the laugh line.

Of course, some fathers bring this marginalization upon themselves as they either neglect or forfeit their own fatherly responsibilities. In many sectors of our society, fathers are most noted by their absence. Indeed, millions of American children are growing up without any significant father figure, much less their biological father.

The marginalization of fatherhood can be traced to many developments, but one prime source of this marginalization is the intellectual class and its radical commitment to ideological feminism. Fatherhood is now an ideological category that is inescapably linked to everything from patriarchy (considered to be the original sin) to popular culture (where the intellectual elites exert a very significant, if indirect influence).

Fatherhood has been marginalized in the society at large, and even the biological contribution of a father can now be replaced by a mere "donor" from a sperm bank or a fertility clinic.

Given the marginalization of fatherhood and the confusion about the role of fathers, Father's Day becomes more and more awkward. Nevertheless it still comes on the calendar and journalists, intellectuals, and cultural observers feel the need to say something about fatherhood in June.

W. Bradford Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, warns that much of what is said about fatherhood in connection with Father's Day is nothing less than mythological --- and many of these myths are downright dangerous.

Writing in National Review magazine, Wilcox identifies five myths about fatherhood that are likely to rear their heads in connection with Father's Day. Anticipating a flow of news reports around Father's Day, Wilcox warns: "Some will do a good job of capturing the changes and continuities associated with fatherhood in contemporary America. But other reporters and writers will generalize from their own unrepresentative networks of friends and family members, try to baptize the latest family trend, or assume that our society is heading ceaselessly in a progressive direction." In other words, "be on the lookout."

Beyond this general warning, Wilcox offers some specific myths that are all too likely to appear. First, he warns about the "Mr. Mom surge" that has recently appeared in the media. While the current economic dislocation has had a disproportionate effect upon men, and thus upon fathers, stay-at-home dad's "make up a minuscule share of American fathers." According to the most recent U.S. Census data, stay-at-home dads represent less than 1% of the 22.5 million families in America. Stay-at-home moms, on the other hand, represent 24% of all families.

Brad Wilcox reminds us that most American families still know dad as the primary breadwinner. Indeed, the father is the primary earner in almost 3/4 of American families. Wilcox is right in suggesting that the media focus on the "exotic breed" of the stay-at-home dad obscures the fact that providership is essential to the role of most fathers in most families. This should be honored and respected, not lost in a fog of media attention that distracts from the fundamental reality.

The second myth Wilcox dispels is the claim that most women want a 50-50 distribution between work and family life for fathers. He concedes this might be true for "the average journalist or academic" but not for the average American mom. While moms do want dads to be more involved with the hands-on tasks of parenting and with housework, "most women who are married with children are happy to have their husbands take the lead when it comes to providing and do not wish to work full-time."

Third, Wilcox cites ample research to dispel the myth that cohabitation is as good as marriage. Today, a significant minority of American children will spend some time with cohabiting parents. As Wilcox concedes, this leads many intellectuals to attempt to minimize the differences between married and cohabiting fathers. But, cohabiting fathers are much less likely to stay around and stay significant in the lives of their children. Marriage and fatherhood turn out to be "a package deal" for most men.

Fourth, Wilcox goes after the claim that divorce has not been harmful to children. Besides research indicating that girls whose parents divorce are far more likely to drop out of high school, to become pregnant as teenagers, and to suffer depression. "Girls whose parents divorce are also much more likely to divorce later in life."

We should add that boys, often neglected in so many these studies, experience the loss of father and suffer this loss, often in silence. The pathology often evident in the lives of young males can often be traced directly to this loss.

Last, Wilcox dispels the myth that "dads are dispensable." The phenomenon of single mothers by choice receives a great deal of positive press. Nevertheless, as Wilcox asserts: "this myth fails to take into account the now-vast social scientific literature . . . showing that children typically do better in an intact, married family with their fathers than they do in families headed by single mothers."

Brad Wilcox ends his essay with a call for more journalists "to confront hard truths about the roles that fathers and marriage play in advancing the welfare of our nation's most vulnerable citizens, our children."

Christians have a special stake in this argument, for we believe that fatherhood is not just a social construction but a matter of biblical importance. Though informed by sociological analysis and encouraged by academics like Bradford Wilcox, our confidence in the role of fathers is based in the fact that fatherhood is a role that is honored, dignified, and defined in Holy Scripture. The Christian father is answerable to a far higher calling, but the data surveyed in Brad Wilcox's essay serve as a reminder that fatherhood is a gift to all creation and that the evidence of the Creator's design for fatherhood defies all the ideological efforts of so many to subvert fathers and fatherhood.

Thanks go to Brad Wilcox for dispelling these myths. As Father's Day now approaches, let us all tell the truth about fatherhood and honor God as we honor faithful fathers.

Original publication date: June 19, 2009

Readers of Monday's edition of USA Today were treated to an introduction into the sociobiology of belief. Interestingly, this article appeared in the opinion pages of the paper -- which is right where the article belongs.

Andrew Newberg, associate professor of radiology and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that religion can be a force for good or for evil, depending on the conception of God that is the focus of belief. In its most basic form, Newberg's article can be reduced to his belief that when individuals believe in a God of mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, they are likely to experience benefits from this belief and then have a generally positive outlook on life. On the other hand, those who believe in a God of wrath, judgment, and vengeance are more likely to experience negative consequences in their lives and to demonstrate a basically negative outlook.

Newberg, along with his colleague Mark Robert Waldman, have been working on a psychiatric understanding of religious belief. Their recent book, How God Changes Your Brain, presents a comprehensive version of their argument and model of understanding. Newberg's article in USA Today is something of a distillation of the arguments made in their book.

The USA Today article presents an understanding of religion that is reduced to biological elements. Nevertheless, some readers of Newberg's article are likely to miss the basic biological reductionism and methodological naturalism that marks his understanding of religion and belief in God. Newberg's argument seems to be that we will be better off if more Americans held to an understanding of God that is, by his evaluation, more positive. As he writes:

There seems to be little question that when people view God as loving, forgiving, compassionate and supportive, this more likely results in a very positive view of themselves, and of the world around them. But when God is viewed as dispassionate, vengeful and unforgiving, this can have deleterious effects on one's physical and mental health. Again, the research is clear: If you ruminate on negative emotions, they activate the areas of the brain that are involved in anger, fear and stress. This can ultimately damage important parts of the brain and the body. What's worse, negative emotions can spill over into outward behaviors that generate fear, distrust, hatred, animosity and violence toward people who hold different or opposing beliefs. Thus, it becomes more easy to believe that "I, and my religion, is right and you, and your religion, are wrong." It is this destructive religious rhetoric that atheists are quick to point their fingers at when focusing on the negative qualities of faith.

In other words, Newberg would trace negative emotions and "destructive religious rhetoric" to an individual's conception of God. Beyond this, he attempts to trace this belief in God to biological causation and the specific areas in the human brain.

Writing in How God Changes Your Brain, Newberg and Waldman argue that "God can change your brain." They insist that this is true without respect to the specific belief in God. In their words, "it doesn't matter if you're a Christian or a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu, or an agnostic or an atheist." According to their model, the brain creates understandings of God -- a capacity developed through the evolutionary process. In terms of the neurological process, it really doesn't matter if God does or does not exist. "In fact, as far as we can tell, most of the human brain does not even worry if the things we see are actually real. Instead, it only needs to know if they are useful for survival."

Newberg and Waldman assert that it is the thalamus in the brain that determines what is real and what is unreal. "The thalamus makes no distinction between inner and outer realities, and thus any idea, if contemplated long enough, will take on a semblance of reality. Your belief becomes neurologically real, and your brain will respond accordingly."

This is a remarkable assertion, but it goes hand-in-hand with the reduction of human consciousness to a purely naturalistic reality. Furthermore, this effort at scientific explanation reduces belief to no more than biochemistry and reduces religion to a mere social function. But, if belief in God is nothing more than biochemistry, why believe at all?

Newberg's answer to this is rather straightforward -- he hopes for more Americans to believe in a basically benign deity. He believes that this would lead to a decrease in social tension and an increase in social harmony.

In their book, Newberg and Waldman rely on a study conducted by a team of sociologists at Baylor University. In the Baylor study, done in cooperation with the Gallup organization, four different conceptions of God were presented. These include "the authoritarian God," "the critical God," "the distant God," and "the benevolent God." Fundamentalism is associated with belief in the authoritarian God and this pattern of belief is traced to the limbic areas of the brain. "Envisioning an authoritarian or critical entity -- be it another person or God -- will activate the limbic areas of the brain that generate fear and anger," they suggest.

By contrast, belief in God as a benevolent force is stimulated in the prefrontal cortex and, specifically, in the anterior cingulate. In their words, "We suggest that the anterior cingulate is the true 'heart' of your neurological soul, and when this part of the brain is activated, you will feel greater tolerance and acceptance toward others who hold different beliefs. The God of the limbic system is a frightening God, but the God of the anterior cingulate is loving."

Let's be clear: If religious belief is nothing more than a biological process and if God is nothing more than a concept originating inside the neurobiological process of the brain, then we should simply wish for more persons to hold to what might be considered healthy understandings of God as compared to those which might be considered unhealthy. Of course, it is at this very point that the logic breaks down. Thinking in purely conceptual terms, virtually any sane person would take greater comfort in a God who is both benevolent and judgmental. After all, do we not all yearn for God to bring judgment upon mass murderers, child molesters, and the perpetrators of vast economic fraud?

The functional view of religion reduces belief in God to its potential personal and social utility. According to Andrew Newberg, certain forms of religion can indeed offer positive benefits, while other forms of belief bring both personal and social harms. Newberg and Waldman are at least honest in acknowledging that their understanding of religion is completely independent of the question of God's existence or nonexistence.

Interestingly, both in the book and in the USA Today article, Newberg relates an incident that, to him, represents the form of religious belief he wants to see pass away:

When I was in high school, I dated a girl whose family regarded themselves as "born-again" Christians. It was my first encounter with devoutly religious people who strongly disagreed with my perspective on faith. They were always pleasant to me, but they were quite clear that in their view I had deeply sinned by not turning to Jesus. Oh, and because of this, I was going to hell.

If nothing else, this paragraph serves to demonstrate that to Newberg and Waldman, belief in the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ represents a "negative" form of religious belief. In their book, the authors express hope that such exclusivist forms of belief will give way to "a very slow acceptance of pluralism." As Newberg comments, "But as I have always argued, if God is truly infinite, then God must have infinite manifestations."

Andrew Newberg's article in USA Today offers a fascinating glimpse into what happens when belief in God is reduced to biochemistry, neuroscience, and the evolutionary process. If you accept this worldview, you must hope for humanity to evolve towards a form of religious belief most to your liking.

Of course, Christianity is based on belief in the one true God who is objectively real -- in the God who is the self existent, self revealing, God of the Bible. Based on the Bible, we believe that God is both benevolent and holy, both forgiving and judging. God's judgment is always right, just, and perfect -- and his judgment will be demonstrated in absolute perfection on the Day of Judgment. On that day, God's judgment will demonstrate his righteousness and mercy in the forgiveness of sinners who have come by faith to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. In that same judgment, God's wrath will be righteously poured out upon those who are without Christ and thus without a Savior, an Advocate, or a hope.

And that takes us back to Andrew Newberg's experience with the family of "born again" Christians, who believed that those who do not turn to Jesus are going to hell. So far as he is concerned, this represents nothing more than a regrettable neurological process that erupts as a negative religious attitude. Of course, the question he does not want to answer -- and his scientific model allows him not to answer -- is this: What if they were right?

A teenager I happen to know quite well (seeing that he lives in my house) announced last week that summer is time off for his brain.  Well, nothing fires up the parental learning plans like a teenager who announces his plans to learn as little as possible over the summer.  Suffice it to say that the young man has a wonderfully enriching summer on his way.  And -- I promise you this -- he will enjoy it.  Like I say, I know the kid.

Actually, my wife and I have planned almost every summer as a time of learning, and much of that knowledge can never be learned in a book.  We have dragged our children through museums and libraries all over the world, retraced movements of battles, seen the seats of government power, sat in cockpits of modern supersonic fighters, been into the Everglades to spot dangerous wildlife (boys especially love to find anything that can eat or kill you), and shared a disastrous experience of car sickness while discussing God's creation of the world just after visiting the Grand Canyon.  (HINT: When big sister says little brother is about to blow . . . listen to her, stop the car, and UNLOCK THE CAR DOORS.  That last part turns out to be really important.)

The Washington Post just reported that educators are particularly concerned about what they call the "summer brain drain."  Evidently, educators now believe that almost all students lose between two and 2 1/2 months of math computational skills over the summer.  The good news is that most of the students can recapture that learning quite quickly in the fall.  The bad news is the reminder that a brain in neutral is a brain losing ground.

The data on reading ability are particularly interesting. Children who read over the summer grow in reading knowledge and comprehension. No surprise there. The really interesting part of this research is the suggestion that a wide variety of summer experiences can provide background knowledge that turns out to be indispensable to growth in the understanding of what is read. "Life experiences other than reading can lead to advantages in reading comprehension," advised Daniel T. Willingham, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. "If you don't have a reading problem or a problem with decoding . . . your ability to read a passage is dependent on having some relevant background knowledge."

The gap in rich learning experiences turns out to have much to do with socio-economic factors. Children who are deprived of the kinds of experiences that come through travel, conversations with parents, cultural experiences, and contact with nature turn out to have problems reading that have nothing to do with words on a page and everything to do with missing background knowledge.

This research should encourage parents to think of the summer -- and particularly of summer vacation plans -- as an opportunity to provide invaluable "background knowledge" for the entire family. Summer vacation affords a priceless opportunity for families to learn together. To our shame, many families drive right past incredible opportunities for learning. How did the states get their shape? Where exactly does this river flow? What is this historical marker telling us?

Turning the summer into a fun and enriching learning opportunity is, seen in this light, a parental responsibility. It is also a lot of fun. During the school year, whatever the educational model, children are largely directed to learn what is required by the curriculum and, in many cases, individual learning projects and the interests of the children are left behind. The summer affords an all-too-brief opportunity to let your children learn about what interests them the most -- and become teachers of their siblings (and sometimes their parents as well). Where exactly was the "Little House on the Prairie?" What are the different kinds of bridges and how are they used? Just what is the difference between a frog and a toad?

You do not have to go far to find unparalleled opportunities for learning. While travel remains one of the most intellectually enriching experiences for people of all ages, there are plenty of opportunities close at home. Have you taken your children to the county courthouse or City Hall? Have you plundered all opportunities to visit the museums, libraries, and cultural assets close to home? Do your children even know about the wildlife they can find in the grass outside the back door?

Christian parents are responsible for a particular stewardship of learning, for we are responsible to inculcate a Christian worldview and distinctively Christian patterns of thinking in our children. The summer affords an unparalleled opportunity for this as well, as every event, observation, book, news story, and road trip offers a constant and precious opportunity to turn our children's questions into moments of timely learning.  Take every opportunity to add to the Christian "background knowledge" that leads to a deeper understanding of the Gospel and the Christian faith.

So enjoy the summer and make the most of it, whether hitting the beach, resting in the mountains, climbing the local hill, or visiting grandparents. Just remember to maximize every opportunity for learning and to provide important "background knowledge" for the education of children. Who knows? Parents who pay attention to this might well avoid their own "summer brain drain."

____________________

Christopher kindly gave me permission to use the opening anecdote. I will count that as extra credit.  As always, let me know what you are thinking and send along anything you think I should see.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Don't miss today's edition of The Reading Log [read here].

Some would argue that Twitter hit the big leagues long ago, but the cover of TIME magazine is the ultimate sign that Twitter has arrived at the forefront of our cultural conversation.  As TIME managing editor Richard Stengel commented, Twitter and other social networks "are changing the way we communicate and live."

According to recent reports, Twitter may have over 12 million users by year-end.  Facebook, by contrast, has almost 200 million users.  But, like some earlier technologies and platforms, Twitter seems to have reached a transformational moment.  The question seems to have shifted from "Why do you use Twitter?" to "Why not?."

Most commentary about social media looks like cheerleading.  There is no shortage of voices ready to predict that this or that technology will rule and world and that those who opt out will be -- to use a phrase evangelicals will recognize -- left behind.

Believe it or not, there are faithful Christians who do not even use a computer.  There are pastors who are still using nothing but books, pencils, pens, and paper.  God love them, they are probably not as distracted as the rest of us.  Hold on, I need to post a Tweet.

Ok, back.  We need to be very careful that we do not become overly enamored with any technology.  As observers like Jacques Ellul and Neil Postman reminded us, our technologies shape our lives perhaps more than we realize.  As followers of Christ, Christians have a special stake in this, for everything must come down to what most honors God and serves the Kingdom.

Can Twitter serve the Kingdom?  Can a technology that limits users to 140 characters be used for anything meaningful?  Is my time well spent reading about what someone had for breakfast?  Is all this an exercise in communal narcissism?  Well, my answer is evident in my own use of Twitter.  I find the advantages to outweigh the dangers by far.

Let's admit the obvious -- much of what we read in Twitter is useless, at least from an informational point of view.  It is not the place to find the deepest moral, theological, and spiritual reflection.  On the other hand, it can be used to point to more substantial offerings on the Web.  Like any medium, it is only as worthy as its users.  There is the potential to do great good and the responsibility to do great harm, but this is true of almost any technology.  The potential to do good or evil did not appear only with the Internet.

Is Twitter just a fad?  The specific platform may change, but TIME's Steven B. Johnson answers that question quite well:

Social networks are notoriously vulnerable to the fickle tastes of teens and 20-somethings (remember Friendster?), so it's entirely possible that three or four years from now, we'll have moved on to some Twitter successor. But the key elements of the Twitter platform — the follower structure, link-sharing, real-time searching — will persevere regardless of Twitter's fortunes, just as Web conventions like links, posts and feeds have endured over the past decade. In fact, every major channel of information will be Twitterfied in one way or another in the coming years.

We can see this happening already.  In one sense, anyone who can say something meaningful in 140 characters on Twitter can probably learn to use that skill elsewhere.

I use Twitter because I find it to be a powerful (if sometimes perplexing) means of connecting.  I am able to pass things along and make some points to people who I would otherwise never reach.  I hope this makes a Great Commission impact and serves a wholesome Kingdom purpose.  I'll quickly admit something else -- Twitter can be fun.  In a life of serious endeavor, that is no small gift.  I like how technology writer Clive Thompson defines the experience of Twitter --  "ambient awareness."

Twitter has changed my prayer life.  More than any development in years, Twitter helps me to know what is going on in the lives of many friends and people far beyond.  I have known how to pray in many specific ways.  I have rejoiced with friends and have grieved with others.  Priceless.

I also let folks know what I am doing and thinking as I can.  When I see something interesting that is tweet-worthy, I pass it along.  I appreciate when others do the same. I can let my friends, students, board members know what is going on in my life and ministry, if they care to follow on Twitter.  Facebook limits that reach to 5,000 -- and I struggle with the decisions that forces.  Twitter relieves me of that burden.  Anyone can follow.  All are welcome.

I do not believe that Twitter belongs in worship, but it does belong among the people of God.  Tweet before and after a service of worship.  Every once in a while, take a break.  You really can share a great deal in a tweet.  On the other hand, some things cannot be reduced to 140 characters of text.  So don't try. Tweet on.

________________________

Follow on Twitter both "AlbertMohler" and "MohlerRadio."  We will discuss Twitter on today's edition of The Albert Mohler Program.

See also John Piper, "Why and How I am Tweeting."  Josh Harris, "Should We Use Twitter During Church?"