Decayed Institutions
Society today is declining! Morality is going from bad to worse! The Church has failed! Families are falling apart! The end of the world is near! Well. Not really. People need to calm down. Society is declined; it happened in the Garden of Eden. Morality has always been bad; God sent a flood and wiped out the entire earth. The Church has actually survived a rather rough history although it can definitely do better; families have always fallen apart and will continue to fall apart, and the end of the world has been near since Jesus went back to Heaven with the admonishment to look for His coming. The fact of the matter is: humanity is fallen. That is the plain, simple truth. Nevertheless, that does not mean that nothing should be done about it. After all, God sent His Son to redeem humanity, so the very least His children could do is to work at bringing as many people as they can out of declension and into redemption before He shows up again.
The problem with too many Christians is ignorance and a lack of urgency. There is a need within the Body of Christ to be more educated – to better understand the things that are going on in the world, and then to act upon them. There is no reason to be alarmed or to go into a panic; after six thousand years of murder, sexual immorality, debauchery, idolatry, gluttony, greed, etc., it is somewhat strange that sin still surprises people, especially Christians who really should the last people to be surprised. At the same time, that is not an excuse to be lackadaisical. Not much has changed over the course of history. The only difference is that people are constantly finding new ways to sin. The sin itself, however, remains the same. While it may be virtually impossible to bring about revival that would sweep across the entire globe – not to be pessimistic, but realistic – transformation can take place on smaller scales as Christians begin to take on more responsibility for society’s decline by identifying root problems one at a time, and slowly but firmly eliminating each one of them by bringing back the foundations of Biblical truths first into the Church, and then into society. Fyodor Dostoevsky recognized one root problem way back in 1879 when he wrote The Brothers Karamazov and that root problem is still prominent today. All over the world, fathers are failing at their roles as fathers, and although it is not the sole reason for multiple social problems, it is one looming factor that has yet to be resolved.
One does not have to get far into the reading of The Brothers Karamazov to come to the conclusion that Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov was a horrible father. He was also a horrible husband, and really just a horrible man as a whole. However, being a parent is somewhat different from being anything else and has a much longer lasting effect, in that it includes being responsible for the life in which one participated in creating. As little as Fyodor Karamazov cared, the fact of the matter was that four human lives were produced as a result of his actions. Unconcerned, he shook off their dependence on him and was disturbingly comfortable with shirking the upbringing of his offspring and leaving them to Grigory and distant relatives, never once considering the impact his lack of interest and involvement would have on his sons’ lives. At least for Dmitri, Ivan, and Alyosha, he had the courtesy to give them proper names and carry on the name of Karamazov. Poor Smerdyakov, however, had to live without ever getting a proper recognition of being his son, for, while the townspeople readily added Fyodorovitch to his name, meaning son of Fyodor, Fyodor himself dubs him Smerdyakov (99-100) meaning “son of the reeking one,” at once denying him the name of Karamazov and forcing him to carry his illegitimacy in his very identity.
According to Susanne Fusso, “Dostoevsk[y]’s last three novels are devoted to exploring the ways in which the fathers of Russia have failed in their obligations to the sons, and therefore to the nation’s future” (176). It does not take a genius or a social critique to recognize that this problem is not isolated to fathers of Russia in that time and place, but to mankind as a whole in the here and now which would indeed result in detrimental effects on the future generations even as the present generation now suffers from the decisions made by previous generations. Fyodor Karamazov begot four sons, and each one of them reacted to his neglect in their own ways. Only one of them ended up finding a way to positively deal with his fatherless childhood. At the end of the novel as the trial against Dmitri Karamazov draws to a close, defense attorney Fetyukovitch makes the emphatic beseech to his audience not to make enemies of their children (674). Throughout the course of the story, Dostoevsky demonstrates how each of the Karamazov brothers and Smerdyakov suffer the effects of their childhood neglect and how Fyodor Karamazov’s careless parenting leads to his own tragic demise.
First, there is Dmitri. Paul H. Oirnstein describes him this way. “He is in many ways just like his father: hot-tempered, drunken, impulsive, frivolous, a womanizer and gambler, and always in need of money” (n. pag.). Dmitri’s response to his father is quite typical: anger; intense, bitter anger that is fueled by hatred. To make matters worse, Fyodor causes Dmitri to hate him even more when he begins to not only rival Dmitri for Grushenka’s affections but tries to use the very inheritance he refuses to give to Dmitri to seduce Grushenka (Oirnstein n.pag.). It is no wonder that Dmitri would unashamedly blurt out his desire to kill his father. When opportunity presents itself, however, his overpowering desire to find Grushenka keeps him from committing murder. In terms of coping with neglect, Dmitri does not really “cope” the way Alyosha or Ivan do; he just blatantly displays his anger. However, Fusso writes that “orphaned children…cope with their abandonment in two major ways: by finding surrogate fathers who provide the love and moral guidance their biological fathers have deprived them of, and by seeking closeness and solidarity with their siblings (180). While Dmitri does not specifically seek out a surrogate father, he does identify Grigory as someone who “was like a father to [him]” when he was “abandoned by every one” (421). As for closeness and solidarity with his siblings, Dmitri is not particularly fond of Ivan, but forms a rather affectionate relationship with Alyosha. Anna A. Berman claims that “[f]or both Dmitri and Ivan, Alyosha serves as their primary object of love, and he in turn loves both brothers intensely” (274). Indeed, it might be safe to assume that Alyosha’s love for him is the only one he can fully count on. His relationship with Alyosha, in the midst of his other chaotic relationships is the one that is secure and stable throughout the entire novel.
Then, there is Alyosha; the only son of Fyodor Karamazov who does not succumb to the ill effects of his mistreatment. Instead, he is able to “overcome the early traumata inflicted on him by his father through turning to religion and embarking on the path of becoming a monk” (Ornstein n.pag.). However, Alyosha finds more than just religion. Upon turning to the monastic lifestyle, he is fortunate enough to find himself a father figure in Father Zossima who takes him in and introduces him to the concept of “active love” which, as Maire Jaanus states, “can potentially acquire faith.” Zossima’s philosophy is that “[l]ove unbinds us: it gives us a sense of infinitude and eternity.” For Zossima, “[a]ctive love is more than a feeling or a thought; it is a concrete action” (xxiii). Alyosha quickly forms an intimate attachment with Zossima which makes him particularly vulnerable when Zossima dies, but also causes him to take Zossima’s teachings even more to heart and it is for this reason that Alyosha is able to love his father in a way that neither Dmitri nor Ivan could even begin to understand. The earlier precept that abandoned children find refuge in surrogate fathers is clearly displayed in Alyosha’s relationship with Zossima. In addition, Alyosha also forms close relationships with both Ivan and Dmitri. Despite being the youngest Karamazov brother, Alyosha “strives to provide for his brothers the love and caring their father has denied them” (Fusso 181) for in so doing, he not only finds another way to better cope with his father’s neglect, but is also able to apply Zossima’s teaching to “[l]ove all men, love everything” (Dostoesvsky 296), and further strengthen his faith in God.
In contrast to Alyosha, Ivan’s bitter experience with his father’s neglect drives him away from God rather than towards God. Because God is seen as “the ultimate surrogate father” (Fusso 180), instead of being drawn to God’s love, Ivan associates pain and suffering among young children with his own painful childhood and therefore cannot accept the world that God has created even though he knows it exists and actually accepts God (Dostoevsky 218). He parallels the suffering of little children with his own abandonment as a child in which God and his father are not very different as they both allow bad things to happen to their young, innocent children. His struggle with belief in God is a direct result of his unfulfilled childhood in which his earthly father failed to meet to his needs. His natural inclination therefore, is to push back against the idea of the kind of love which allows for pain, eventually leading up to the idea that “if there is no God, everything is permitted” (Ornstein n.pag.), and it is to this very concept that the death of Fyodor Karamazov is owed.
Finally, there is Smerdyakov; the murderer. In Ornstein’s opinion, “Smerdyakov had multiple reasons for killing Fyodor Pavlovitch” (n.pag.). From the time of his birth, “[t]he rejected fourth brother” has been cast aside, scorned and shamed. Even gentle and nurturing Grigory makes him the subject of his wrath (Dostoevsky 121); even sweet, loving Alyosha who loves everyone and everything fails to love Smerdyakov (Bernan 278). Forced to be content with his lowly status despite being every bit as Karamazov as Dmitri, Ivan, and Alyosha, years of resentment has doubtlessly been stored in his shriveled up heart. For this reason, Fusso can boldly make the claim that Smerdyakov hates the three Karamazov brothers (181) and it is with the same confidence that one can say he likewise hates Fyodor Karamazov. However, as much as he hates the Karamazovs, he also loves Ivan. In a strange, twisted sort of way, he genuinely admires Ivan and seeks to please him. Instead of taking to his surrogate father, Grigory, he ends up finding both paternal and brotherly fulfillment in Ivan, even though Ivan does not reciprocate. Maire Jaanus explains that “[i]t is this idea of lawlessness, that all is permitted, that captivates Smerdyakov’s mind because it is the very key to his own existence. Ivan becomes Smerdyakov’s “law,” his father, his god” (xvii). Conceived in illegitimacy, born in an outhouse, and named to forever carry the memory of his stinking mother, Smerdyakov understands lawlessness and worships Ivan for it. Jaanus captures this concept most sunccinctly in saying, “Ivan’s words are law…Smerdyakov is the word of Ivan made flesh.” She then goes on to say that “Smerdyakov’s being is not only porous to Ivan’s words but also affectively attuned to Ivan’s innermost wishes for his father’s death” (xvii), and so when Ivan leaves town and Smerdyakov misunderstands his gesture as his go ahead signal, Smerdyakov sneaks up into the master’s bedroom and executes what he believes to be a favor to Ivan.
It has been said that the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons. The story of Fyodor Karamazov and his offspring is a prime example of this quote. The Karamazov patriarch’s failure to educated, clothe, shelter, protect, provide for, and love his children resulted in three young men getting lost in disillusionment. Had Alyosha not found Father Zossima, four young men would be lost in disillusionment. On the other hand, this does not mean that the children are not responsible for their own actions, for the very much are. During the trial, Futyekovitch poses the question “what is a father – a real father?” and then goes on to say that since Fyodor Kamarazov was never a true father to Dimitri, Dmitri could not be guilty for parricide (672). However, Fusso contends that Futyekovitch’s argument is not valid as it seeks to justify Dmitri’s crime rather than defend his innocence (184). If this were the case in every trial, children would be constantly killing their parents with the notion that their parents had not fulfilled their duties as parents and were therefore subject to murder. Who then is responsible for the murder of Fyodor Karamazov? In many ways, Fyodor Karamazov brought it upon himself, but Ornstein calls Smerdyakov “the actual killer” (n.pag.), Jaanus writes that “the real father murderer is Ivan” (xvi), while William Hamilton claims this:
Each of the brothers is partly guilty of his father’s death – Ivan most of all because he did not prevent the murder which he knew was to happen and because his own “creation,” Smerdyakov, actually did the deed; Dmitr[i], because he wished for his father’s death; Alyosha, because he was falsely detached from the world and did not use the new courage derived from his conversion to prevent the disaster. (246) The reality is this: each of these claims are correct, and therefore the answer to the question “Who is responsible?” would be “Everyone.” The “murderer” – the one who drove the paperweight into Fyodor Karamazov’s skull was Smerdyakov, but everyone else had a part in it.
Bringing this concept back to the twenty-first century, social problems abound, often due to the failure of the father. Numerous issues such as anger/violence, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, abortion, and confused sexual identity which could lead to homosexuality are all issues that could stem from a father’s failure in executing his fatherly duties. However, to say that all social problems are due to a lack of good fathers in society would be an unfair statement. At the same time, fathers do need to take their roles seriously and understand the enormous impact they have on their children’s lived. Children need their fathers. That point cannot be argued. Dr. Ken Canfield writes, “The absence of a father leaves a child at risk. Yet the presence of a dad, particularly one who is responsible and humble, can breathe hope and life into a child” (27). Specific to those within the church, fathers who do not commit to being involved with their children’s lives leave their children with no other choice but to look for advice in other places. When bad decisions are made and problems occur, the only thing that can be blamed in this is the negligent parenting.
Of course, mothers are equally important, but there are roles that can only be fulfilled by the father, and there are roles that the mother should not be left to fulfill by herself. Randall D. Turner writes: “Fathers must assume some responsibility for society's apathy toward fatherhood, because more often than not, men and fathers in leadership haven't recognized their own importance of fatherhood” (n.pag.). On the other hand, fathers could very well make it a point to train up their children in the faith, teaching them to seek hard after God and to live for His glory and honor only to have their children turn their backs on them and walk a different path. Ultimately, the children are still responsible for their own decisions. No father, no matter how “good,” should force his child to do anything he or she does not want to do. However, when children are brought up right, the likelihood of this happening is significantly lower than it would be if children were to be left to fend for themselves. Nevertheless, if it does happen, fathers can say that they had at least done their best and continue to pray for their children.
Society is declined and will remain in the declined state. However, this does not mean that the world is without hope. As much as the societal problems can be drastically lessened with the rebuilding of the family unit, problems within the Church can likewise be tackled with the rebuilding of the family unit. Strong families build strong churches, and strong churches are very much needed to penetrate into society. Like it or not, the father has been and always will remain as God commanded, the head of the family and no family is stronger than when the father is rightly fulfilling his role. Therefore when Fetyukovitch appeals to the crowd, “‘Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath.’ Yes, let us first fulfill Christ’s injunction ourselves and then venture to expect it of our children,” Christians ought not to take that as an offense that all the sins of the children are attributed to the father, rather they ought to take it as a reminder to all fathers to godly and righteous models who will be fit for their children to emulate. Gregory C. Cochran sums this up most succinctly in saying, “Nothing should be clearer to the Christian father than the fact that he has a heavenly father who is perfect. The Father Himself should instinctively be the preeminent source of our attempts to embrace fatherhood” (13).
Works Cited
Berman, Anna A. “Siblings in The Brothers Karamazov.” Russian Review 68.2 (2009): 263-282. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Canfield, Ken. “The Modern Fatherhood Movement and Ministry to Fathers in the Faith Community.” Journal of Family Ministry 1.2 (2011): 26-33. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.
Cochran, Gregory C. “Remembering the Father in Fatherhood: Biblical Foundations and Practical Implications of the Doctrine of the Fatherhood of God.” Journal of Family Ministry 1.2 (2011): 12-22. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Ed. Maire Jaanus. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004. Print.
Fusso, Susanne. “Dostoevskii and the Family” 2002. The Cambridge Companion to Dostoevskii. Ed. W. J. Leatherbarrow. New York: Cambridge, 2006. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Hamilton, William. ““Banished from the Land of Unity”: A Study of Dostoevski's Religious Vision Through theEyes of Ivan and Alyosha Karamazov.” The Journal of Religion 39.4 (1959):245-262. JSTOR. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Jaanus, Maire. Introduction. The Brothers Karamazov. By Fyodor Dostoesvsky New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004. Print.
Paul H. Ornstein. “The Novelist’s Craft: Reflections on The Brothers Karamazov.” American Imago 69.3 (2012): 295-316. Project MUSE. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Randall D. Turner. Drug Free Kids: Why Fathers Make a Difference. Ed. Len Van Nostrand Full Spectrum Recovery & Counseling.2012. Web. 15 April 2013.