Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Tax Extensions, Fatherhood, & Noah

posted by David Klinghoffer

As I prepare resignedly to download and mail off my usual application for an IRS tax extension, I won’t hide from you that in this period of recession money is a worry with our family. Thank God I have a job. And thank you, as well, to the Discovery Institute that values my thought and writing. Still, there’s cause for anxiety. At least in my mind there is.

In fact, this morning I found myself musing about when our oldest boy, 7-year-old Ezra, will be old enough to go work at one of our numerous local Starbucks locations. Does that make me a bad father? Coincidentally, yesterday my wife Nika was reading aloud to me from the back cover of a review copy of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s latest, The Broken American Male:

Why do American husbands come home from work too exhausted to interact with their families? When did a healthy quest for prosperity become a twisted game no one can win?

“Sounds like you!” says Nika, who was half joking but only half.
Surely 9 years old isn’t too young for a Barista?
With such thoughts on my mind, I sat down earlier this morning for a look at Samson Raphael Hirsch’s Torah commentary, opening to the passage following the last one I read. Just “random” Bible study. Sure enough, as so often happens, what I read applied directly to what was on my mind when I opened the book.
Hirsch is writing about the birth of Noah to his father Lamech. “And he called his name Noah, thereby to say: only this can console us from our work and from what our hands have had to renounce from the earth which God hath cursed” (Genesis 5:29).

When Adam and Eve sinned, it wasn’t they but the earth that was cursed because of them. You see the evidence of this in whatever “field” you choose to make your living. As my friend Rabbi Daniel Lapin always points out, that a field can mean either your profession or a plot of land is no coincidence. Making a living then became the source of worry and frustration it has been ever since. There is only one consolation for this: your children. In Hebrew, a son is called a ben, a word that shares a root with the verb “to build.” “Because from him the world is built,” the ancient rabbis suggest.
Hirsch teaches that for all that our worldly plans are likely doomed to frustration, we have the opportunity, in our children, for hope: 

There is only one thing that can console us, only one thing in which we find the goal of all our efforts and that we can, without obstruction, bring to the complete height of its designation, and that is “this,” our child, our ben, the “brick,” the building stone for all the future of the world. For just because no curse lay on mankind, with every human being, in every age, the very loftiest stage in life can be reached, so that children are always, to use the words of [King] David, “arrows in the hand of a mighty man” [Psalm 127:4] which we can aim, give the direction to become “builders of the world.”…

They complete where our hands failed.

That last sentence is really a consolation. I don’t seriously want to send my kids off to work at age 9, though supporting one’s family is a big reason why economically challenged people from ancient times to the present have valued large numbers of offspring. It’s why affluent societies typically experience a drop in fertility.
But in all candor, I don’t often enough think of my children as future builders of an edifice that I am very likely to fail to complete, given the state of the world from Adam down to Obama. That’s not about making money. It’s about whatever mission you or I choose as our own in this world.
What a different conception of fatherhood and motherhood that is from the depraved secular vision of a person like biologist Richard Dawkins who sees people as nothing more than survival vehicles for our genes.
My son has the opportunity to “complete” where I failed, or at least to come closer to completing it than I will have done. But only if I labor to keep in mind the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible, that a child is indeed a “builder of the world,” an “arrow in the hand of a mighty man.” Only if I am that “mighty man” will he be that “builder.”


Advertisement
Comments read comments(4)
post a comment
Steve

posted April 13, 2009 at 5:07 pm


David Klinghoffer wrote: “What a different conception of fatherhood and motherhood that is from the depraved secular vision of a person like biologist Richard Dawkins who sees people as nothing more than survival vehicles for our genes.”
Where do you get that Dawkins “sees people as nothing more than survival vehicles for our genes?” Is there a quote from Dawkins that you have in mind? I’ve read Dawkins’ book The Ancestor’s Tale. And I don’t remember any quote similar to that in it. If Dawkins does believe that people are “nothing more than survival vehicles for our genes,” I strongly disagree with him — at least to the extent that I understand what he means. The vast majority of people are capable of experiencing joy, of having positive relationships and of engaging in good activities. And it is important for people to do those things. I’m an atheist. I believe there are zero Gods. I also believe that it is important for people to experience joy, have positive relationships and engage in good activities.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted April 13, 2009 at 5:21 pm


David Klinghoffer wrote: “What a different conception of fatherhood and motherhood that is from the depraved secular vision of a person like biologist Richard Dawkins who sees people as nothing more than survival vehicles for our genes.”
David, what do you mean by “secular?” And is “secular” a bad thing? I’m an atheist.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted April 13, 2009 at 6:15 pm


Steve–Dawkins writes exactly that in his book “The Selfish Gene.” Perhaps a better word than “secular” is “materialist,” where reality has no spiritual aspect only a material one. Of course not every self-identified atheist agrees with Dawkins but something like that — reductionist and extremely depressing — is where materialism tends to lead when followed to its logical conclusions.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted April 13, 2009 at 8:47 pm


David wrote: “Steve–Dawkins writes exactly that in his book ‘The Selfish Gene.’” I had never read the selfish gene before. But here is a link to part of it online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=WkHO9HI7koEC&dq=The+Selfish+Gene&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=etXjSZGOCJKDmAfvwe2JDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPP1,M1
I just read the very beginning. I’ll read more of it later. But in the part that I read, it does seem like Dawkins is saying something similar to what you interpret him as saying.
Also, you wrote: “Perhaps a better word than ‘secular’ is ‘materialist,’ where reality has no spiritual aspect only a material one. Of course not every self-identified atheist agrees with Dawkins but something like that — reductionist and extremely depressing — is where materialism tends to lead when followed to its logical conclusions.”
I believe that there is no “spiritual aspect” to the universe, at least given what I think you mean by the term “spiritual.” I believe that no one has a soul. I believe that there are no Gods. And I believe that when we die we cease to be conscious. Some people may not find these beliefs to be pleasant, but the pleasantness of a belief is, of course, irrelevant to whether it is warranted or known to be true. Many people have found heliocentrism pleasant, and I’m quite sure that the earth revolves around the sun.
Also, what do you mean by “reductionist?”
Finally, I don’t find the idea of no God or afterlife to be depressing. I know a lot of atheists, and most atheists I know don’t. But even if I did find those ideas depressing, that is, of course, completely irrelevant to whether there likely are any Gods or whether there is likely an afterlife.
On a different note, you wrote: “When Adam and Eve sinned, it wasn’t they but the earth that was cursed because of them.” I’m not sure if you are speaking metaphorically or not. But there was no “Adam” in the sense of a human that God turned dust -– poof! -– directly into. And there was no “Eve” in the sense of a being that God formed from a rib of Adam. All humans descended from self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Some of my ancestors are bacteria, fish and monkeys.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.