How culture misunderstands manhood
Last Thursday, at promptly 1:30 p.m., I was reading the latest edition of The Chimes, hot off the press, as I am wont to do. I stumbled across an intriguing article entitled “SMU Leaders Exhort Men to Get Involved.” As you may have guessed, this article was about Student Missionary Union leaders exhorting men to get involved, especially encouraging men to take up more leadership positions within SMU. The article shed light on the fact that the majority of those involved with SMU and specifically those in leadership positions are women.
This isn’t unique to Biola. For years and in numerous ways the church has dealt with the issue of absent men. Unfortunately, the church has largely failed to address the root of the problem and has only dealt with the issue peripherally. Similarly, the article last week addresses the symptom but fails to really address the heart of the issue. I believe the heart of the issue is that following Jesus is essentially emasculating. This is because our culture’s ideal of manhood, as well as the world’s ideal of success, is in stark opposition to the ideals of Christianity.
Culture's misunderstanding of masculinity
Being perceived as masculine by others is incredibly important to guys. Even if a guy knows that participating in what society deems unmanly doesn’t make him less of a man, at a more basic emotional and instinctual level, it still matters immensely that society views him as manly. This is made evident by the fact that the desired effect of most insults used against men is emasculation. Regrettably, our culture holds that the virtues of masculinity are strength, self-reliance and superiority over other men and women.
These virtues clearly contradict Christian virtues. Christianity is about surrendering, understanding your own powerlessness and relying on God for his strength. Any good deed that we do that is of eternal significance according to Christianity is not our own doing or any reason to be proud. Rather, it is God who enables us to do good by surrendering to him. We can’t take glory for good deeds because that glory belongs to God. Living here on earth, though, the world tells us that it is all about our own glory, especially in the case of manhood. Unfortunately, Christians often try to deal with this disconnect between Christian virtues and cultural masculinity by simply baptizing cultural expectations and Christianizing culture.
We see the Christianization of culture constantly in youth group material, Bible study materials and Christian industries in general. It is evident in John Eldridge’s “Wild at Heart,” the Promise Keepers ministry, the GodMen ministry and don’t even get me started on Mark Driscoll. Seriously, though, don’t get me started. I’m afraid of what he will do to me if I offend him and his big-biceped Jesus. Brotein-fed Rambo-Jesus aside, all of these demonstrate ways to fulfill both the ideals of Christianity and the ideals of the world’s perception of manhood. Unfortunately, you can’t have your brewsky and drink it too. In other words, culture’s ideal of manhood and the ideals of Christianity are mutually exclusive conflicting ideas.
Focusing on God's perception of manhood
Here’s the deal: If you’re going to be a Christian, the world is going to view you as weak and emasculated. If you’re focused on appearing strong and masculine, the world will give you recognition as a man and that will be your treasure here on earth, but you will miss out on treasures in heaven. At least, I like to believe that that’s why nobody recognizes me as very masculine.
So yeah, step up and be leaders in SMU. Well, I guess really I should say step down and be leaders in SMU. Because leadership means humility and servanthood — and there’s no glory from that in this world. Don’t become leaders because it’s an opportunity to become “God’s champions” — as the article last week stated. Become leaders because it’s an opportunity to be humbled, to serve others and to give God glory. You may not enjoy any reward right now, but just wait till eternity.
Your Turn. Post a Comment
-
Kyle
Read any biography on Jim Elliot, Hudson Taylor, William Carey, Adinirom Judson, or a host of other men who lived and died, having taken their caskets with them to the Mission Field, and having lived such intense and noble lives that your world will never be the same... Read Hebrews 11 and tell me that being a Christian is emasculating...
No. Being a "christian" is emasculating, Matthew.
Being a nominal believer who writes articles to take the speck out of their brother's eye while they have a fat log sticking out of their own is a luxury you afford because you don't even have to worry about being anything but a "christian." And that is when Christianity looks emasculating... but TRUE Christianity is far from emasculating... Tell Peter that when he died upside down on a cross as a martyr that the world looked at him and said "look at that sissy girl!" No, these were men of whom it was said "They are flipping the world on its head!" (Acts 17)
So before you get too far... think.
Is it Christianity that looks emasculating?
Or is it "christianity" that looks emasculating?
Luke's article was a call to Christians.
Not "christians." -
Matthew Beckwith
Kyle,
I appreciate your feedback, but before I give a full response I think we need some definitions of terms so we can have a coherent and fruitful conversation. First off, I don’t think I fully understand what you mean by “christian” vs. Christian, could you clarify that?
Second, “nominal believer” is pretty self-explanatory, but I want to be sure that’s what you meant to say. The implication is that I’m not actually saved; is that what you were getting at? If not, help me understand what you did mean by that.
Thirdly, when you say I have a fat log sticking out of my eye, what are you referring to? Is there something specific you are pointing out or are you more generally referring to the fact that nobody can rightfully pass judgment because nobody is perfect?
And lastly, I think we are operating off of different definitions of “masculinity”. I probably should have been clearer, but in the article I am referring to cultural gender ideals. My main complaint is that our culture’s gender ideals are against Christianity. My assumption (I know I shouldn’t make assumptions, so correct me if I’m wrong), is that your definition of masculinity is much more in line with Christianity than it is with American culture. Could you give a concise and clear definition of what you think masculinity is though, so we don’t just talk past each other.
-
Kaitlin Patton
Dear Matt and Kyle,
After reading the article in-print in the Chimes by Matthew Beckwith, "Jesus Never Calls us to Be Masculine", I was encouraged that a man was wrestling with the cultural ideals of emasculation and masculinity within the Christian mindset. While the subject of masculine ideals and Christianity is broad and multifaceted, beginning to engage these topics is at the very least a worthy pursuit. I am not sure if either of you are aware of some of the findings in gender research of cultural understandings of masculine and feminine identities, but, sadly, many of the character and personality qualities that are associated with Christianity are often attributed solely to women. For instance, list the Fruits of the Spirit and many of them have been shown to classically be associated with feminine character-ideals, not the ideal man. So, due to cultural presuppositions of what gender is supposed to look like, there is a huge need to define what masculinity is within a Christian context -- both so that we, as Christians can speak into our surrounding culture with truth and have a correct understanding for what should be striven for as Christians (whether nominal Christians or Christians who are fully-assured of their faith, even if arrogantly so). In such a way, I respect Matt's ambition to comment thoughtfully on such a serious topic.
I don't think I would have ever commented on this article if it were not for your comments, Kyle, so thank you for sharing your thoughts. Seeing your response of throwing scripture without explanation reaffirms in my mind that there is a serious need for thoughtful conversation, especially for those who seem to know their Bible so well. How do those Biblical passages and their content translate to real life? Isn't that our task as Christians to redeem culture by correct understanding?
Perhaps my initial reading of Matt's article is plagued by lack of comprehension on my part, but to me, it was clear that Matt was not saying that Christianity is truly emasculating, but when Christianity's understanding of masculinity is placed side-by-side with a secular understanding of masculinity, two different pictures are painted -- Christian understanding may seem emasculating to one outside the Christian community. Kyle, as you cited in Acts 17, the Christian message is guilty of "flipping the world on its head" -- so, do you not think that we should understand where the world may see these issues of masculinity as upside-down? I feel like that is what Matt is trying to communicate.
Dear Chimes,
This is not my full comment, I got a little carried away. Sorry. I will post the rest below. -
Kaitlin Patton
I think that your comment, Kyle, that according to Matt's view Paul would have been a "sissy girl" is quite interesting. I don't think that those who may have hung Paul upside down would have called him a "sissy" (which is a really interesting negative comment -- it associates women with negative character. Maybe we should talk about your ideas of women and their roles after we figure this whole masculinity topic out, but I digress) -- the men who hung Paul may not have called him a "sissy", but I do imagine that they would not have understood why he was doing what he was doing. To the world, the Christian understanding is often madness. A madness because it seems so opposite of the world's understanding. I think there is a verse that talks about this whole, "The world does not understand" -- maybe you can tell me the Bible verse that will support that, because you seem to have such you a commanding understanding of scripture.
Lastly, regardless of the arguments made on the topic of gender, I am confused by the comments of Kyle -- so I will ask so that I do not assume the worst. Are you calling Matt a nominal Christian? Are you questioning his faith? Are you really doing that? I hope not. I would really encourage you to do what you encourage Matt to do ... think. Think really hard before you start throwing around accusations to puff up your own argument.
I hope that this conversation continues. Hopefully it will continue with more tact on the behalf of some of those involved, perhaps even on my behalf. I think I have tried, unsuccessfully, to communicate my thoughts well, but the passion with which I feel these things must surely cloud my writing. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, both of you. Look forward to hearing more.
**An Observation: Kyle, on the topic of identity, why didn't you put your last name? Is that something that the computer system deletes, the last name? I would love to know who you are. It's funny -- it seems kind of shady to not put your full name, but you are modeling yourself off of the great men of the Bible, so I am sure the computer must have hidden your full identity.
-
Kyle Lundquist
Matt I appreciate your thoughts. Our call as men is ultimately a call to humility, service and submitting. It is a call to decrease, so that He can increase (as John the Baptist says). Really, to be a man is to mimic the life of Jesus - to walk, and love, and serve as He did. To lay everything down for the sake of loving others, and glorifying God.
And you are very right to point out that if we cannot fuse our cultures definition of manhood with the depiction of manhood in the Bible. I think the world's view of manhood basically boils down to the idea that men should "have it all together". They should be independent, self-sufficient and strong enough to handle anything. The Bible really clearly reveals that the greatest men in the Bible understood that they were totally dependent on God, were sufficient only in Christ and had no real strength apart from God.
Thanks for the encouragement Matt. I appreciate it. You are a rock solid brother :)
Kaitlin your thoughts are also really appreciated. Keep thinking and sharing :)
Kyle, you are very right to point out that the world has the incorrect perception of what a man is. I think you and Matt actually agree more then you think. Following God doesn't actually make you less of a man (as far as God and His word is concerned), but in the eyes of the world - it often does. That is why it is so important that we don't look to our culture to define what manhood is, as Matt thoughtfully articulated.
Oh and you should check out my friend's thoughts on manhood here, I think you'll like it.
http://matttimms.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/biblical-manhood-a-caution/ -
Austin Ranson
The bottom line is that EVERYONE should come to my Senior Show on May 14th!
I will have all of the answers. -
Alicia Miller
Great conversation going on here. For more food for thought in exploring masculinity, check out these posts:
http://soulation.org/breakfastreading/?p=578&utm_source=Be+Human&utm_campaign=0f90880e81-Be_Human_04_10_20124_8_2012&utm_medium=email -
Austin Ranson
Sorry, “Kyle” I couldn’t help but respond to your comments...
“Read any biography on Jim Elliot, Hudson Taylor, William Carey, Adinirom Judson, or a host of other men who lived and died, having taken their caskets with them to the Mission Field, and having lived such intense and noble lives that your world will never be the same...”
Not really sure how this says anything about masculinity... are you saying that only men can lead “noble lives” or be sacrificial?
“Read Hebrews 11 and tell me that being a Christian is emasculating...”
Half of the people in that chapter are women.... so....
“Being a nominal believer who writes articles to take the speck out of their brother's eye while they have a fat log sticking out of their own is a luxury you afford because you don't even have to worry about being anything but a ‘christian.’ “
Now that’s just rude...
And then everything else you said didn’t really make sense... No one’s calling anyone a “sissy” we’re quite obviously just confronting secular ideas about masculinity that have been roped into pop theology, which is where the ideas behind the SMU article seem to stem from. -
Tiffany Gilmore
Matt, thank you greatly for your humble attitude while approaching this sensitive topic. The Christian culture's idea of masculinity not only affect the way men live their lives, but it has serious implications for the way women are treated and expected to live the Christian context. To know that there are men who are willing to look at this topic outside of how we were traditionally taught in the Christian church is very encouraging.
I noticed that Kyle gave examples of men who were Christian martyrs and I am curious as to whether or not I should read those biographies as well? Should I as a women seek to use those men as a model in my own life? Kyle uses them as a call to masculinity, but if I were to learn from them I suppose I would be essentially defeminizing myself. If I were to live a life that modeled after the “noble” men mentioned I suppose one could make the argument that I was trying to assume a masculine role. I wonder why women martyrs weren’t mentioned? What about the martyr Esther John, whose statue is outside of Westminster Abbey? Or maybe Anne Askew who was burned at the stake for her faith? To support Biblical masculinity with heroic stories of male martyrdom is absolutely unfair to the legacy of important Christian women.
Courage, strength, and bravery are not traits that men have a monopoly on. Just the same, gentleness, kindness, and meekness are not simply “feminine” characteristics. The culture in which we live, the Christian culture, tells us that half of God’s characteristics are masculine and the other are feminine. How can we put God in that box, though? Is God half male and half female? God is the I AM. We are all crafted and created in his image and Godly traits are non-gender specific. So yes, there are major disparities between Biblical masculinity and femininity within the Christian culture. Men are CALLED to uphold the fruits of the spirit just as women are CALLED to be brave and to live “such intense and noble lives that your world will never be the same (thank you Kyle #1 for this quote).”
-
Tiffany GIlmore
Part II
I would never discourage a man from pursuing a leadership role in SMU simply because he is a man. But I would discourage the idea that it is in a man’s duty to pursue leadership positions for the sake of proving his own masculinity. Yes men, learn from men who have gone before you in the faith, but learn from women as well. Mary Magdalene, Priscilla, Ruth, Esther, etc. are not just thrown into the Bible for the sake of women but for an example to all. Let’s be honest, our Christian culture does not encourage men to learn from women or to emulate the lives of strong Christian women who have made a great impact on our faith. If men do choose to exercise their attributes that are culturally ascribed as being feminine, they are looked down upon. When a woman chooses to use a gifting that is traditionally viewed as masculine, she is ostracised and shamed.
Matt, thank you for sharing your own experiences of not being viewed as masculine in the church. Be assured that you are not alone. Shame on those who might question your salvation because you haven’t bought into Christian cultures idea of what it looks like to be a man. Essentially the Bible encourages men to become “emasculated” and for a “defeminization” of women (according to contemporary Christian culture). Our new creation is to be based upon the nature of God, not the culture in which we live. Men and women are called to be transformed by the whole spirit and nature of God. God desires us to look more like him everyday, not to conform to what is socially acceptable for a male or female. My heart breaks for the men and women who have limited themselves to only attaining half of what God has actually called us to because Christian culture has deemed it inappropriate. -
Luke Cheng (The guy who wrote the other article.)
I am glad that the article written last week has stirred a much need discussion on campus. I express no bitterness, but gladness that we are able to hear different perspectives. Yet I believe the discussion of masculinity in this article is addressing a different issue in the last.
This article addresses how we are called to life of humility and servanthood, and how in the world's eyes, this is viewed as weak and emasculating, which I completely agree with. Even in my article addresses this issue, stating that we should not seek earthly masculinity. My article hopefully implies that Godly manhood/leadership does not revolve around prestige, but in the humble places of servitude.
The point of last week's article is to expose the problem that there are not many in men involved on campus compared to women, and to call men into action.
The aspect of manhood I address is that male students on campus need to be moved into action. Instead of bumming around in the dorm rooms playing video games upon hours, we should be investing more of our time advancing the Kingdom of God (I just as guilty for wasting time, and this is is why we need to exhort each other).
***The statement on being "God's champions" is not calling people to claim personal glory, but to humbly submit and recognize the glory of God revealed and manifested in us.*** Meaning it is not in our doing, but solely in God.
The reality is that God has chosen to use us to advance His Kingdom and we are called to respond to this regardless if you are a man or woman, but because men are not stepping up, we must remind men on campus that God explicitly calls men into leadership, showing them that this is not reflected at Biola and in many local churches.
The article also calls men to humble leadership. It's suppose to challenge men to do volunteer work on campus, and to not only want to preach, but also hand out bulletins on a Sunday morning.
So I want to clarify that my article was not to call men to "be strong" and "manly" like the world would say, but to be submissive to God and serve humbly, to be good stewards of our callings and to not waste our gifts and life away. My fear is not God's children are unresponsive.
I hope this post makes sense as I have not spent much time on it but felt the need to share something. I write this with complete humility and hope you receive it.
Thank you Matthew for sharing your thoughts on this issue. I hope this does not divide us, but rather unifies us to seek Christ together, knowing that we do not have everything together. -
Arlin Edmondson
Tiffany,
I would echo your sentiments; yet qualify and add that fundamentally positive Christian Character is neither male nor female and a woman can benefit from the example of the masculine expression of Christian Character and a man can benefit from the feminine expression of Christian Character.
Man is made male and female.
That means both masculinity and femininity are intended as complementary and mutually beneficial expressions of the human state.
Kyle,
Regardless of the validity of some aspects of your statements, implying that your opponent's profession of faith is false for no apparent reason whatsoever is both ungracious and damaging to the body.
Certainly there must be divisions among us, as even the Apostle says: "for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized."
(1 Corinthians 11:19 ESV)
Yet even in division we must speak the truth in love (keeping the other's best interest in mind).
I do not see your comment as having the necessary backing in either reflection or study to really demonstrate that, as you hardly interacted with the actual substantive points of the article! -
Stephen Croft
Part 1
Readers, Matthew, and Luke,
These are two excellent articles. Indeed, as some of the above noted, both authors are championing worthy causes of truth.
Matthew, I do want to affirm you in this, first and foremost. Indeed I would never critically respond on a public forum, as Biblically mandated, were it not for defending Kyle's character (publicly attacked), though I shall also address how he presented his comment in a moment. However. Specifically both mentioning Kyle by name in the paper version of your article, and slamming Luke's article with the inserted "Don’t become leaders because it’s an opportunity to become “God’s champions”" were both inaccurate misrepresentations bound to raise division in the Body of Christ reading the article, and also were simply distasteful.
Kyle, you have been slammed quite enough by the above comments. I love you and know your intentions were filled with jealous desire for the glory of God, although your comments indeed should have been with Matthew one-on-one and not on a public forum - as indeed his personal slams should have been.
It is indeed necessary for each and every bondservant of Christ to recognize the need for the Master in complete humility. The only caution present, in championing humility, and even earthly shame, as implied by the emasculating comments, as a predecessor to stepping into leadership, is missing God's call:
... -
Stephen Croft
Part 2
"Who shall I send, and who will go for us?"
Will we immediately respond, "Here am I! Send me"? As broken creatures, we will never be completely 'ready' to follow God's call. But we should hold God in such regards, having such a holy fear of Him, that we are ready to take on the biggest position of prestige OR the smallest most unnoticeable position for His Kingdom. The point is: We should rally up (or down, as Matthew notes), and GO.
N.T. Wright puts it this way: "Following the disaster of rebellion and corruption, [God] has built into the gospel message the fact that through the work of Jesus and the power of the Spirit, He equips humans to help in the work of getting the project back on track. So the objection about us trying to build God's kingdom by our own efforts, though it seems humble and pious, can actually be a way of hiding from responsibility and keeping one's head down when the boss is looking for volunteers." This is what was at the heart of Kyle's statement, it seems to me.
Indeed, prestige absolutely does not matter, as highlighted by both Luke and Matthew in their articles. Leadership SHOULD be enacted out of love, "in humility, serving others and giving God glory," as you note, Matthew - Amen! But our obedience to God's call is primary.
Philippians 1:15-18 says, "Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice."
A great pair of articles, expressed from two men of God, both seeking God's glory from their deep, and both highlighting beautiful points of truth! Be encouraged and blessed. -
Kyle
Part I
Hey everyone,
I think Matthew was totally right in comment #2... I was extremely caught off guard by definitions.
It is not that it is emasculating to be a Christian... but that the Christianity that Christians have spread around the world is one that Christians (maybe rightfully) should be ashamed of... it IS emasculating.
Our generation is plagued with men who are not men.
I think you're right, Matthew. The call should be to correct men's perception of Christianity as emasculating.
What I was trying to do was to correct definitions.
If Christianity is something that seems emasculating to the world... then is what they're seeing really Christianity? or is it "christianity?"
I think what people in acts saw was Big-C Christianity... True, abandoned, reckless, self-abasing Christianity.
To note the Believers in Hebrews 11 is not to draw a line between women and men... It's not to say that women are masculine, but rather, that while they were hated by the world, let's not invalidate their lives of faith by saying the world looked at them and thought they were weak. The assumption is not that women are supposed to be masculine, but that when it comes to their faith, they are not supposed to be weak. And those, both men and women in Hebrews 11, were not weak (which the word "emasculating" assumes.
The nominal believer comment WAS way out of line.
I suppose what my heart meant was "being an armchair critic" of an article aimed innocently at calling out men to stand up." I appreciate that you called out a weakness - a missing piece - in Luke's article... but think you could have done it less critically... Rather than saying it "fails." You afford a luxury, as a journalist, to sit in a silent corner and write an article that tears apart the hearts of men who are trying to lead honestly, without having to sacrifice anything. Your article seemed less edifying and more attacking - like you were trying to pull a speck out of your brothers eye... and you don't have to put your own neck on the line. You don't have to worry about anyone criticizing your ability to step up as a Christian man at Biola...
-
Kyle
Part II
Of course I am a little more invested in Luke's article than you are.
Maybe if you had been interviewed because of your leadership on the campus you would have filled the article out and it would not have "failed to address the heart of the issue"?
Matthew, I seriously apologize for my brusqueness.
I responded out of a lot of anger.
For me, following Jesus is not about looking manly. If it were, I would look at Christians around me and choose rather to go to the gym and lift weights instead of reading my Bible... because, you're right... Christianity looks emasculating. My only point is:
1. Real Christianity is not emasculating.
2. The question of whether Christianity is emasculating or not should not keep men from living full on for Jesus.
Thank you for your responses.
I really apologize for my harshness... especially since I don't know the author.
Let's live as men and women with such passion for Christ that we re-win the Christian... therein we will rewin the masculinity that is so waning in the Christian Church.
-
Kyle Donn
I realize that somehow I just screwed up that last post... I left out a few thousand words...
If you'd like a full response, just email me :) -
Trevor Gerdes
I was surprised to see John Eldredge's book Wild at Heart used as a negative example of Christianity trying to take on the world's culture of masculinity. That book has been very helpful to me in understanding the distinction between the world's expectations of men and the desires and roles given by design to males made in God's image.
In the introduction to his book, Eldredge explains that Christian men don't need another book telling them how to be "nice guys." What they really need, Eldredge argues, is "permission" - permission to be who God truly created them to be.
I think that many of the world's expectations of men are distortions rather than fabrications. For example, men value superiority when they were designed for strength and leadership. Men were made to like toughness and wildness, but this is distorted into emotionlessness and prideful independence.
Is our culture's masculine ideal messed up? Yes, very much. However, the approach to living out godly manhood that I found in Eldredge's book is one of expression, not suppression. If you've read the book, Matthew, I'd be interested to know what you read that seemed problematic. I thought that it did a great job of reconciling our masculine nature and the need to be surrendered to God. -
Robert Kirkendall
I commented earlier, but it didn't seem to go through...
I wanted to bring something to the table that was lightly suggested by Kaitlin's post, and to me is one of the premier conversations to be had--specifically regarding notions of gender and LEADERSHIP. It seems that a lot of confusion is going on in this conversation because we start talking about masculinity in general, Christianity in general, instead of the root of the original article which was discussing leadership.
It seems to me that one of the harmful notions that is possibly latent in the exhortation to Christian men to "step-up" into leadership roles is that there is something essential to masculine identity that makes them more apt for leadership, and therefore a leadership with more women than men is poor leadership. I realize that the intentions of many of these opinions is likely closer to bringing balance to leadership; however, the way it is phrased seems to suggest that there is something innate in men that makes the "call-able" to leadership, whereas we do not have voices exhorting women to leadership.
I suppose I would just like to question what we think is essential to masculine and feminine identity. It seems that in many evangelical attempts to go sola scriptura and honor God by listening to his word (on our own), it becomes very easy to misappropriate certain passages or words of the Bible and their implications on gender. It may be true that there is a lack in male leadership on Biola's campus, but I think more important than looking at Scripture, seeing men in leadership and patriarchal structures, and therefore calling men to step-up in places where women dominate, we should instead be empirically assessing with the question--"is our leadership worse off because of the gender balance or imbalance?"
In any case, I just think it would be valuable to keep in mind that we are specifically discussing gender and leadership roles, and that men and woman alike receive equally valid "calls" that most of the time do not look like visible leadership positions or romantically adventurous and rugged missions trips. -
Robert Kirke
AND, to clarify one more thing, what I find problematic in current masculine exhortations to Christians (Matt name-dropped Mark Driscoll, e.g.) is an implicit suggestion that there is something essentially masculine/extertive/powerful to the Christian call. We are aligning a masculine call to a Christian call, which is problematic if not chauvinistic. Kyle, like I said, I think I know what the intentions of most of the opinions are, but we need to be cautious about our terms. Saying that Christianity has been emasculated, and therefore should be "re-masculated," is VERY VERY close to saying Christianity is effeminate/girly/sissy, and should therefore be catered more to the gruffness of men. There are many misguided notions of gender within this dichotomy, but the primary problem is the implicit suggestion that feminine=bad/powerless and masculine=good/powerful. I don't really know where to go with this at this point, but I do know that in order to address the problems that Kyle and others are bringing up, we need to push very hard against these assumed dichotomies.
-
Richie Conway
Robert-
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I disagree with the thoughts on current exhortations to male Christians. The implicit suggestion doesn't say that there is something masculine about the Christian call, but instead that there is something masculine about the male Christian call. It's an answer to the problem many people have addressed on this page- that there is an apparent difference in the secular versus non-secular definitions of masculinity. It attempts to help men see and be able to relate to being a Christian male.
For me, and I'm sure many other males not raised in the church, the notion of masculinity was muscles, ego and women. After becoming a Christian, I had to ask myself, what does it mean to be a man now? Because ultimately I was lost in that respect. And that's what those exhortations to men are. It has nothing to do with redefining Christianity as too many people here have proposed, nor does it have anything to do with redefining women roles. It is just for men like me to learn to be men in the Christian context. Because ultimately, being a man is more than just having a male body part. Yes, there is overlap because we are all Christian, but the overlap is still part of who I am as a man and is necessary to redefine how I should live in light of living in the world and not of the world.