LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1983, Page 128

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

130 OTHER PRESENTATIONS

The most vivid illustration of how far the notion of
fatherhood has eroded is evident in the fact that it is
now unnecessary for a mother to obtain the consent of
or even notify the father of their unborn child before she
ends its life through an abortion.

Having in theory the right to beget children, no man,
married or otherwise, has any way, under law, to secure
that right. He has been divested legally of his natural
and real claim to fatherhood.

If the family is to reclaim its integrity, the impor-
tance of fatherhood must be reinstated. If the family is
to regain its ability to effectively ward off secular
attacks against it, the authority of fathers must be
recognized. ~

But what a gigantic task! As we think of how the
whole fabric of the family has disintegrated, as we think
of the complexities of any solution, it is easy to be
immobilized by the immensity of the crisis. Of what
significance is one man in one family who in one home
attempts to function as God ‘would have fathers func-
tion? In terms of the big picture, what good does it do?

Some months ago one of the evening news programs
did a segment on soup kitchens that were forming and
operating through efforts of individual citizens. The
reporter found himself in a crowded, steamy room in a
run-down part of a major city, interviewing a man who
had, on his own initiative, undertaken such a project of
food distribution. There he stood, perspiration running

down his face, grease from cooking all over his clothes,
as he methodically ladeled out food.

The impeccably dressed interviewer said in a skepti-
cal tone, “Well, you’re to be admired for what you’re
doing, but in the long run, well, how effective is it in
terms of the big picture?” And the man, feeding the
hungry who stood before him said, “What big picture?”

Part II—Focus on Mothers

I confess a lifetime addiction to mystery novels.
From the time I was a child, trying to figure out
“whodunits” has been for me a great source of enjoy-
ment and relaxation. And I remember when, in more

simple and less militant days, behind every criminal |

mastermind there was a femme fatale. In the movies we
would catch a glimpse of her in a flowing cape anda
black floppy brimmed hat as she disappeared into a
crowd, while the police inspector dramatically shouted,
“Cherchez la femme!’ —“Look for the woman!” Yes, the
woman in the thriller was always “the one to watch.”

Modern society, unfortunately, has provided us with
a not-so-thrilling nonfictional mystery, claiming as its
corpse THE FAMILY. Scattered about the scene of the
crime are some hazy clues as to who did the family in,
but those of us who share a concern for changing the
conditions which militate against the well-being of the
family might do well to follow the instructions of the
fictional police inspector and “cherchez la femme”—
LOOK FOR THE WOMAN!

Find her—who she is today; what she is expected to
be; what she wants and needs and is trying to do—and

perhaps we will have a vital key to our contemporary
mystery. .

When we look for the woman, we first of all find her
in the first society in history to decide that raising
children isn’t “meaningful” work (Dr. David Riesman,
Harvard sociologist). Research notes that the more
spiritual a culture, the greater appreciation there is for
women and for their unique gifts and abilities. It is not
surprising then, thatin our not-so-spiritual society there
is a public demeaning of the roles of mother and wife
and homemaker.

I recall being sent by the Synod some years ago as an
observer to a meeting of women sponsored by th
National Council of Churches. In the initial session th
40 of us present were asked to identify ourselves. W
were introduced to women holding high positions ii
their denominations—some ordained women; sor
women who carefully detailed their accomplishme
credentials, power, and prestige. But when, toward t]
end, I began my introduction by saying that I was th
wife of a Lutheran minister and the mother of fot
children, I could tell from facial expressions and bi
language that, from their perspective, somewhe
that first sentence was a bit of heresy.

They had described themselves in terms of what
do, while I described myself in terms of what I av
wife, mother, and homemaker—which today i
“meaningful” to do.

That was not Luther’s view. Whatever womé
failings and deficiencies (and he did not hesitate
point them out and sometimes with a vengeance!)
was led to proclaim that the great “glory of mothe

should rightly cover and take up all the weaknes
woman” (WLS, #4704, p. 145).

He wrote almost poetically about how
“dandle” babies: “It has often been a great delig!
wonder to me to see how the whole body of a w
adapted and formed for the care of infants. How
ingly even little girls carry infants in their a
how appropriate are the gestures with which
dandle the little ones when they husha crying
lay it in the cradle! Let a man do these things,
will say he acts like a dancing camel, so awkwar
his motions” (WLS, #4705, p. 145).

To Luther, motherhood was natural for w
indeed, in most cultures throughout the ages:
and nature have been intimately associated
speak of Father Time but always of Mother Na!

Yet today, when we look for the woman,
in the second place, in an era which has wii
ever-increasing estrangement between her .an

Woman, wanting to keep pace with thi
progressive forces of this day, science and
becomes incensed at the suggestion that sh
by nature. Even nature-rooted concept!
“maternal instinct” or “woman’s intuition”
causing some women to be so insecure they h
classes to learn something long accep"
tive—how to bond with their own children :

Weare offered a liberation from whatis