Posted on: June 14, 2010

A Father’s Legacy

A_Fathers_Legacy_thumb

 

Dads, have you thought about your legacy lately?   In case you haven’t, let’s start with the basics: Webster’s Dictionary says a legacy is “something handed down from one who has gone before.”  Fathers, we will eventually be that “one who has gone before”—the leaver of the legacy.  How we live will influence our children and descendants for generations.  Let me share two stories with you that demonstrate the powerful legacy (both good and bad) that fathers create.

Jonathan Edwards was born in 1703 in East Windsor, Connecticut.   He attended Yale University at age 13 and later went on to serve as president of the college of New Jersey (now Princeton).   When he was just 20 years old he wrote a list of personal resolutions.  Among them was “ask myself, at the end of every day…wherein I could possibly, in any respect, have done better.”

In no area was Edwards’ resolve stronger than in his role as a father.  Edwards and his wife Sarah had eleven children.  Despite a rigorous work schedule that included rising as early as 4:30 a.m. to read and write in his library, extensive travels, and endless administrative meetings, he always made time for his children.  Indeed, he committed to spending at least one hour a day with them.  And what if he missed a day because he was traveling?  He diligently made up the hour when he returned.

Numerous books have been written about Edwards’ life, his work, and influence on American history and his powerful professional legacy.  But the legacy that Edwards would probably be most proud of is his legacy as a father.

The scholar Benjamin B. Warfield of Princeton has charted the 1,394 known descendants of Edwards.  What he found was an incredible testament to Jonathan Edwards.  Of his known descendants there were 13 college presidents, 65 college professors, 30  judges, 100 lawyers, 60 physicians, 75 army and navy officers, 100 pastors, 60 authors of prominence, 3 United States senators, 80 public servants in other capacities including governors and ministers to foreign countries, and one vice-president of the United States.

The story of Jonathan Edwards is an example of what some sociologists call the “five-generation rule.”  How a parent raises their child—the love they give, the values they teach, the emotional environment they offer, the education they provide—influences not only their child but the four generations to follow.  In other words, what fathers do in their time will reach through the next five generations.  The example of Jonathan Edwards shows just how rich that legacy can be.

But the five-generation rule works both ways.  If we fail to work at being good fathers, our neglect can plague generations.  Consider the case of Max Jukes, a contemporary of Edwards.   As an adult, Jukes had a drinking problem that kept him from holding a steady job.  It also kept him from showing much concern for his wife and children.  He would disappear sometimes for days and return drunk.  He made little time for loving and instructing his children.

Benjamin Warfield has also charted Jukes’ descendants.  His findings further support the five-generation rule.  Warfield was able to trace 540 of Jukes’ ancestors.  They offer a stunning contrast to the Edwards’ legacy.  Of Jukes’ known descendants, 310 died as paupers, at least 150 were criminals (including 7 murderers), more than 100 were drunkards and half of his female descendants ended up as prostitutes.

Of course this doesn’t mean that people are simply a product of their parenting and that who they are is determined entirely by their ancestry.  There have been many who descended from men like Jukes and overcame great obstacles to succeed.  Others have come from loving homes like Edwards’ only to descend into a troubled adulthood.  But these are the exceptions, not the rule.

The stories of Jonathan Edwards and Max Jukes offer powerful lessons about the legacy we will leave as fathers.  Five generations from now, it is likely that our professional accomplishments will be forgotten.  In fact, our descendants may know little about us or our lives.  But the way we parent today will directly affect not only our children, but also our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren and the generations that follow.

Dads, we will leave a legacy.  What will yours be?

  • TONYTOLAR

    GREAT JOB MARK

  • Alfredo Fernandez

    “ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS… FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING!”
    EDMUND BURKE

  • http://www.FamilyMinute.com/ Mark Merrill

    Alfredo, I've always appreciated that Edmund Burke quote. Thanks for joining the conversation!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Spletzer/522583893 David Spletzer

    as a father of a little girl in a cold world, i hope that all i do for her leads her well in life. Thank you for the work you do Mark, I use all of it every day to do better as a father.

  • http://www.FamilyMinute.com/ Mark Merrill

    Thanks so much, Tony! Please share the new blog with your friends!

  • http://www.FamilyMinute.com/ Mark Merrill

    David, thanks for your kind words! I'd certainly be grateful if you would share this blog with your friends. I hope to reach many more!

  • Inhisgrace1979

    Not to pour water on a good general theses, one has to wonder how much of the ecconomic opportunities that Mr. Edwards was able to provide for his children and their children or the impoverished condition that the children of Max Jukes grew up in.  To simply say that your children will rise to greatness because you spend time with them is a bit simplistic.  Fathers and mothers provide a first line of defence against the things that would hinder our children from achieving their best, but to put the burden of the legacy of a child 100% on their  father is just wrong and unfair.

  • Matthew

    I’m trying to remember where I read of the comparison between “typical” American fathers v. Russian fathers.  The core of the article focused on American fathers spending “quality” time w/ their kids and Russian fathers spending quantity time w/ their kids.  I’d submit that time might be (one of) the most valuable resources a father can give to his child(ren).  Time w/o the TV, Blackberry, internet, newspaper, etc.  At a minimum that investment sends a message of very high value to your kids.
    I’m in agreement w/ you, Mark; it is the father (figure) in a child’s life that best serves to affirm them in their identity and value and release them into adulthood, equipping them to sieze and walk in their birthright.
    Not to raise a quarrel with a previous poster….yet settling for only parenting defensively against hindrances could be compared to solely praying for protection without overtly and intentionally blessing.  The next generation might be best served through very intentionally building a platform for success under them in addition to protecting them.  I’d gently suggest that the impact of economics here is the contrast between the father who chases after money to the exclusion of familial relationships and the father who invests IN his family, including the priceless commodity of time.  Gary Smalley put it well; “Life is about relationships – everything else is details”.

  • Kim

    While I agree that fathers are important and that they can leave a legacy for their children, I must point out that the math appears a little fuzzy.  Of the 1394 Edwards’ descendents, only 42% are accounted for in this article.  That leaves more than half not specifically identified as “blessed”.  On the other hand, more than 100% of Jukes’ 540 descendents are represented, which we know is mathematically impossible, and which would indicate that there is overlap.  If the 100 drunkards and 150 criminals and the half of the women descendent that were prostitutes were all members of the group of 310 that died as paupers (which would make sense), then only 57% of the 340 are accounted for.  That’s only 1% less than the number of Edwards’ descendents not accounted for.  It makes the article appear leading.  I caution my children to read with discernment when they are reading secular articles that are leading, and I would expect better accounting from an organization that I fully support and agree with.  Please be more careful in the future.

  • Expressmother

    The source material for this article appears to be an unscientific study published in 1900 by the aforementioned scholar : http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15623/15623-h/15623-h.htm 

    Unlikely basis for conclusions although the idea of a legacy is certainly apropos to a Father’s Day discussion.

  • Scott

     Kim, I agree we must always read with discernment.  I think we have all seen many of the stories (both good and bad) that get passed around the internet as fact when they are actually a work of fiction.  However, I think you have made some incorrect assumptions in your analysis of these numbers.  The sum of the categories do not need to add up to 100%.  In this type of a study they are counting the people in any category that fits for them.  For instance, in the descendants of Jukes, an individual may be a drunkard, they may be a criminal and a prostitute.  Or, they may just be a drunkard.  Or, they may just be a criminal.  An accurate assumption would be that if they were a murderer they were also a criminal.  So all we really know is that people may fit in one or more categories.  The numbers would only be fuzzy if a single category were greater than the number of descendents.