Last night I watched "Courageous", a movie about a group of cops who rediscover the true meaning of fatherhood. It's not a bad movie, as far as Christian movies go; in fact, there's quite a bit of good stuff in there about relationships and responsibility. We've been talking a lot about family relationships in our small group; there's a family that is going through a rough time. It's one of those all-too-common situations where their son fathered a child outside of marriage and now the mother is holding this family "hostage".
Unfortunately grandparents have very few rights. It does not matter how much they love that grandchild--it's the mother's show, it's her body, her choice, her child. No one else need be concerned. The fact that the grandparents have gone far more than the extra mile to show her love, to try to help her and their son work things out as a couple--none of this matters, not in her eyes or the eyes of the law. And so they are dragged into a never-ending drama. Their biggest fear is that she could simply take the child and go--and she can.
To me this is outrageous. Children are not conceived in a vacuum. Are we cats, that the tom just mates with the female and then leaves her to raise the kittens alone? Because we are sure heading that way. MY body, MY choice, MY, MY, MY. My mother always used to say, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it." And we are getting it. But is it REALLY what we want?
Which brings me back to "Courageous". We were discussing that movie the other day because it deals with father-child relationships. And I think that men need to be more involved with their families. Why is it that women have been traditionally encouraged to think of themselves primarily as wives and mothers, to the point of putting that role up on a pedestal, but men have not been encouraged to think of themselves as husbands and fathers in the same way. And now many men are abdicating that role. Like tomcats, they see no problem with having sex but what happens afterwards, that's HER problem. After all, HER body, HER choice. So, ladies, I think we have to admit that we have in a way brought this problem on ourselves. Because the men are listening and they are only too happy to let us have OUR bodies, OUR choice--afterwards and alone.
But "Courageous" errs in the opposite direction. The men take center stage and the women are mainly in the background. It is the men who think up a pledge to become better husbands and fathers and they do so without seeking input from their wives. Now most of the things in this pledge are very worthy indeed--for BOTH parents. The men and women in "Courageous" may live together but they inhabit parallel universes. There's a lot said about men taking their rightful role of spiritual leader in the home. But why does there have to be a leader? Why can't marriage be more like the Lewis and Clark Expedition where BOTH shared in the leadership?
It reminds me of the time I was in the home church and the men got together and decided that the women should no longer share at the common meeting. They were so sure that this is what God was showing them to do through the words of Scripture that they forgot or overlooked one essential thing. They did not ask the women how they felt about it. And that is what upset me most about it. That if you are going to impose a rule on one-half of your group you should at least get that group's input on it. The men in "Courageous" do not, for the most part, seek their wives' input. They study the Bible alone or with other men. It never seems to occur to them that marriage and family are joint ventures. They talk about MY family the way some women say MY body. Which is ironic in a film that is supposed to be about relationships.
The Persian prophet Baha'u'llah once said that the two sexes of mankind were like the two wings of a bird: both are needed in order to fly. One wing is not dominant over the other. They must work together as equals. This is where "Courageous" misses the mark.
Unfortunately grandparents have very few rights. It does not matter how much they love that grandchild--it's the mother's show, it's her body, her choice, her child. No one else need be concerned. The fact that the grandparents have gone far more than the extra mile to show her love, to try to help her and their son work things out as a couple--none of this matters, not in her eyes or the eyes of the law. And so they are dragged into a never-ending drama. Their biggest fear is that she could simply take the child and go--and she can.
To me this is outrageous. Children are not conceived in a vacuum. Are we cats, that the tom just mates with the female and then leaves her to raise the kittens alone? Because we are sure heading that way. MY body, MY choice, MY, MY, MY. My mother always used to say, "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it." And we are getting it. But is it REALLY what we want?
Which brings me back to "Courageous". We were discussing that movie the other day because it deals with father-child relationships. And I think that men need to be more involved with their families. Why is it that women have been traditionally encouraged to think of themselves primarily as wives and mothers, to the point of putting that role up on a pedestal, but men have not been encouraged to think of themselves as husbands and fathers in the same way. And now many men are abdicating that role. Like tomcats, they see no problem with having sex but what happens afterwards, that's HER problem. After all, HER body, HER choice. So, ladies, I think we have to admit that we have in a way brought this problem on ourselves. Because the men are listening and they are only too happy to let us have OUR bodies, OUR choice--afterwards and alone.
But "Courageous" errs in the opposite direction. The men take center stage and the women are mainly in the background. It is the men who think up a pledge to become better husbands and fathers and they do so without seeking input from their wives. Now most of the things in this pledge are very worthy indeed--for BOTH parents. The men and women in "Courageous" may live together but they inhabit parallel universes. There's a lot said about men taking their rightful role of spiritual leader in the home. But why does there have to be a leader? Why can't marriage be more like the Lewis and Clark Expedition where BOTH shared in the leadership?
It reminds me of the time I was in the home church and the men got together and decided that the women should no longer share at the common meeting. They were so sure that this is what God was showing them to do through the words of Scripture that they forgot or overlooked one essential thing. They did not ask the women how they felt about it. And that is what upset me most about it. That if you are going to impose a rule on one-half of your group you should at least get that group's input on it. The men in "Courageous" do not, for the most part, seek their wives' input. They study the Bible alone or with other men. It never seems to occur to them that marriage and family are joint ventures. They talk about MY family the way some women say MY body. Which is ironic in a film that is supposed to be about relationships.
The Persian prophet Baha'u'llah once said that the two sexes of mankind were like the two wings of a bird: both are needed in order to fly. One wing is not dominant over the other. They must work together as equals. This is where "Courageous" misses the mark.
