Over many years of counseling and teaching, I have discovered that one of the most difficult lessons for men to learn is the distinction between guilt and responsibility. I believe that this is a difficult lesson for any man to learn in this fallen world, but our egalitarian generation has made it many times more difficult. This has been done through its resentful revolt against masculinity itself, coupled with its signature reflex move of routinely “blaming the man.”
After a few years of being blamed for everything, it is not surprising that a “manosphere” began to take shape. Some of that was within the normal range of human reactions, making Jordan Peterson popular, while some of it was kind of out there. “You think masculinity is toxic? I’ll show you toxic.” Making Andrew Tate popular.
Given that some have taken my teaching on a man’s responsibility as being simply a pious variant of “blame the man,” I thought it best to dedicate this one blog post as something of “an explainer.” This is what I mean, and just as important, what I do not mean.
Sometimes the guilty party is also the responsible party, and so everything seems pretty straightforward to everyone. But there are other situations where the guilty party is not the responsible party, and this is where the lesson lies. For the former instance, suppose a man gets falling down drunk, climbs into his car, then gets in an accident, and a number of innocent people are killed. In such a case, we can use “who was guilty?” and “who was responsible?” as interchangeable questions. We are asking the same thing—which is, who did it?
But here is an illustration of an occasion where they are not interchangeable. Suppose a man purchases a business from another man, and the seller, through a series of legal but unethical maneuvers, manages to hide from the buyer the fact that there is about $50K owed to various other parties. Who is guilty? The seller. Who is responsible? The buyer. He now owns those obligations.
Suppose a sailor manning the helm in the middle of the night disregards the orders that the navigator left with him and runs the ship aground. Who is guilty? That sailor is. Who is responsible? Whose head is on the admiral’s desk the following day? The captain’s. And why? The sailor is guilty, but the captain is responsible. And this is how God made the world. Responsibility flows upward. This is how it ought to be.
Because we live in an individualistic age, we want to ensure that we not be saddled with the consequences of anyone else’s misbehavior. I just said we live in an individualistic age, but another way of saying this is that we live in anti-covenantal age. This is because covenants necessitate robust interaction when it comes to guilt and responsibility, and an intelligent grasp of covenants requires that we mark and understand the difference.
The great Job exhibited this mentality in a wonderful way. After his grown children had finished a course of celebratory feasting, what did Job do?
“And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.”
Job 1:5 (KJV)
We should not only take note of what Job did, but we should also consider how he is praised in the text for this mentality. “Thus did Job continually.” And three verses later, Jehovah is bragging on Job to Satan. “None like him in the earth” “perfect and upright” (v. 8). And what was Job doing just before this? He was taking responsibility for something that one of his sons or daughters might have done, in their hearts. These grown children might have cursed God silently, in their hearts, and so their father offered burnt offerings—”according to the number of them all.”
What kind of man does this? Here is the beginning of a quick answer, if we want to start narrowing it down. Not 21st century man. Not 20th century man. Job was a covenant man, and he knew how covenants work. Marriages and families are much more than the sum total of the individuals involved. There is a corporate reality that ties them all together, and when one part of that body hurts, the whole body does. When one part is shamed, the whole is shamed.
“He that gathereth in summer is a wise son: But he that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causeth shame” (Proverbs 10:5). “A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren” (Proverbs 17:2). “He that wasteth his father, and chaseth away his mother, is a son that causeth shame, and bringeth reproach” (Proverbs 19:26). “The rod and reproof give wisdom: But a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” (Proverbs 29:15).
A father who is ashamed of a lazy son, for example, is ashamed because he himself is aware of the standard. He knows what hard work is. He is ashamed of his son’s behavior, not because he shares the guilt, but rather precisely because he doesn’t share the guilt. But just because he is not guilty doesn’t mean that he is not responsible. And why is he responsible? Because he is the covenant head. He is the father.
The reason we kick against this is because individualism has seeped deep into our bones. It doesn’t seem fair that a man can be held responsible for the guilt that someone else incurred. But the reason it doesn’t seem fair is because it isn’t. It is covenant unity. Is it fair that when I cut my hand, my whole body has a difficult time of it? No, but that is just how bodies work.
Now the feminist wants to blame the man as a device that enables her to challenge his authority in the home. Mark this. Blaming the man is an exercise in taking the man down a few notches. But urging men to take responsibility is an exercise in establishing the man’s authority in the home. This is because, as I have argued for years, authority flows to those who take responsibility. Authority flees those who seek to escape or evade responsibility.
And this brings us to the ultimate example. I could have begun with this, but I actually wanted to build up to it. The Christian faith has an absolute center, and that center is the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. When He was crucified, what was He doing? He was taking responsibility for sins He did not commit. He was not guilty of any of those sins, but He bore the responsibility for them. This is set before us in Scripture as the greatest act of love that human history knows. And that act of love was one of taking responsibility.
“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit”
1 Peter 3:18 (KJV)
The just for the unjust.
And so here is the final point. Husbands are commanded to love their wives, imitating the Lord Jesus at just this point. Of course, as I never tire of saying, no fallen husband can duplicate what Jesus did. But whether we can duplicate it or not, we are commanded to imitate it. And what are we imitating? We are not just imitating a willingness to die for the sake of another person—although that would certainly be included (John 15:13). We are commanded to be willing to be held responsible for things we didn’t do.
The second Adam did what the first Adam did not do. When Eve ate the fruit, and offered it to Adam, what should he have done? Two things. First, he should have refused the fruit. And second, when the Lord came down to walk in the garden in the cool of the day, Adam should have sought Him out, and said, “Take me instead.” We know he should have done this because that is what the final Adam did do. He turned to the Father, and said, “Take me instead.” Husbands, love your wives that way.
So there it is. Christ assumed responsibility for things He didn’t do, taking them all upon Himself. What should husbands therefore do? They should take responsibility for the state of their marriage. And if you immediately translate this into a statement that makes the man out to be blamed, then you have slipped off the point. Many times the man is the guilty one, but whether or not he is guilty, he is always the responsible one. And why? Because he is the husband.
So if he does this, we are not blaming him. Rather, we praise him. Authority flows to those who take responsibility. Authority, and honor, and glory, and blessing.
But it is very easy for husbands to writhe under this. They live in a generation that blames them for every thing, and then the alternative is this? Yes. This is the only alternative. Love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. The just for the unjust. If you complain that this is impossible, then you are merely revealing what you find distasteful and difficult. What? Will you not love your wife the way Moses loved the Israelites (Ex. 32:32)? Will you not love your wife the way that Paul loved the Jews (Rom. 9:3)?
Will you not love her as Christ did the church (Eph. 5:25-26)?