Wired Mesh

While I dont' agree with Giles on every point, and certainly not with some of his rhetorical flourisheseses...I still think he gets at something true.

What isn't is:

"I mean, life is one tough mother of a struggle, and men should be men and whatnot, but shouldn't we be people first?"

1. Giles point is that life is a struggle and men are whimping out on it and not dealing with it like men, and the church isn't doing much to encourage otherwise.

2. "shouldn't we be people first" ok, I get your point, but the point stands only if you ignore Giles central conceit that there's a lack of proper masculinity in the Church today, and "people first" is, well, just an abstraction that sounds scarily similar to some of Giles rhetorical flourishes. In giles mind, I would surmise, affecting people like Jesus as Men is his point. I think he might be being more subjective than you're granting him...

3. Considering the lack of substantive concerns with giles points, but also a lack of concerns with his rhetorical flourishes (which I'm guessing we'd agree on), and considering that I well, know you I wanna know what really bothered you about the article. I'm not calling BS per se, because I think there's a level of honesty needed 'bout your gut intuitions concerning this article, instead of trying to sound all "I'm a writer" thoughtful about it.

4. Too damn early in the morning to be thinking this intensely. R we doing anything 2nite?

Feh, I knew I should have stuck to snarking and not tried to get all profound. You're right, the "people first" thing doesn't make any sense, and you probably suspect that I have deeper reasons for discomfort with the whole manly-men, "Wild at Heart" movement. I do. (As for Giles' particular writings, I just think he's a loon, if only because he thinks "knuckle-draggers" is a compliment.)

You know that I belive the church was emasculated in the 19th century, and has never really recovered. So I start to get interested whenever some religious leader mentions the restoration of manhood. But every single time I'm disappointed: all they're talking about is the surface manifestations of masculinity, like problem-solving or competition. I think this is insulting, to three different groups of people:

1. "Masculine" men, who are told that they are nothing more than caged warriors, and that Christianity can be their spiritual steriod. Telling them that Jesus wants them to release the beast ignores their real struggles with depravity and grace. It's a cop-out, like watching football when your wife's mad at you.

2. "Wimpy" men, the intellectuals, geeks, nerds, 'tards, and anybody else who doesn't fit the red-meat-eatin' stereotype. I've seen -- and taken part in -- the ways that masculine conservatives quietly shoot down their brothers who aren't up to snuff with a few subtle looks. This philosophy seems like an excuse to do so. ("Boy George" my ass, by the way. What a jerkoff.)

3. Women, who are consigned by all these "masculine Christianity" theories to become prizes to be won or temptations to be ignored. They aren't allowed to take part in the struggle; they haven't the balls. The books/essays I've read on recovering manhood in the church all reek of patriarchial and patronizing attitudes. They demean women. And you know that I think that the one thing the church has always done well is demean women.

Anyway, those are my gut objections. If you want me to get even more personal, ask away...

And I feel like playing baseball tonight, actually. But since that's not gonna happen, poker perhaps?

mesh, i could give you a hug- but perhaps a good gut-punch is more appropriate. you and josiah manage to keep me quite entertained as i go about my librarianish day up in chicago.

anyhow, read the article, and my gut reaction to giles is retching. since when can all the problems of the church and followers of christ be boiled down to a strange brew of sexism, which to me is just as scary as cherub-faced figurines. since when was womanhood or all things feminine the same thing as simpering, mush-minded, weak living? as a woman, this dude would get a piece of my mind if he ever preached something so un-biblical as that from the pulpit.

since when was christ about machismo? and since when did a person's sex have very much at all to do with who they are as a soul in God's estimate? i'm not disavowing differences between men and women, we are, or saying that the church lacks strong men, it does, but if the church were peopled with knuckle-draggers, i for one would convert to catholicism and find a good convent.

visceral hyperbole, but you get my point. i'm sick, as a woman, of being mentally herded into the underwear department of Walmart.

Giles' ranting and raving sounds a lot like Jack Hyles. Scary. And I get the distinct impression that his preaching would be even more disturbing. I get a kick out of these flashbacks of my independent fundamental past, complete with screaming sessions (given of course by the male leadership Giles probably wants to see more of) intended to convict the entire youth group into obnoxious dim-witted zombies for Christ.

On a more positive note--I always appreciate your entries. This a great place you've got here. :)

From the "rushing-in-where-angels-dare-to-tread" dept...

I don't think Giles point is nearly as anti-PC as seems to be assumed thus far. First, on the demographics of the issue he's just right. The church has been growing increasingly female for decades. Women have always tended to make up the majority of the church, but I think the numbers are skewing even farther these days.

Secondly, if you replace his complaints regarding a lack of masculinity with a lack of virtue, it works just as well if not better. I don't think he'd classify intellectuals as inherently being in the same category as the limp-wristed, ragingly androgynous freaks he's complaining about, nor is the lack of grease stains from being under a vehicle or an aversion for physical violence involving one's person central to his point. Essentially, people today lack the virtue of fortitude, and the church is a major cause of this. Fortitude has little to do with whether you're a geeked out engineering professor or a "manly" park ranger, and everything to do with whether or not you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and take one for the team when called to do so. It's assertiveness, a sense of responsibility, and the willingness to take a stand when necessary. It doesn't even have anything to do with being male.

Something I would complain about – with Giles unless I’m drastically mistaken – is the lack of willingness of most pastors to say “This is how it is.” There’s far too much qualification, far too much bet hedging, far too much nuance, far too much sophisticated avoidance of the heart of the matter. There isn’t nearly enough willingness to take a stand on something and take a few hits for it. There isn’t a willingness to be confident enough to risk being wrong. We’ve got mountains of self-doubt, but not much fortitude. And we, as the good post-moderns that we are, really need to hear this because the chief virtues of post-modernism seem to be wisdom and especially temperance. But without fortitude, the quest for wisdom and temperance leads to folly and lust, but an exceptionally passive and comfortable form of each. We’re so used to “living in the tension” that when someone says, “You have to believe this,” we don’t like it. It makes me a bit uncomfortable when my pastor just flat out declares something, because I’m used to people offering radically perspectival and/or qualified assertions. But it’s one of the things I value most about his preaching, because the fact that he is willing to slam home truths I don’t really want to hear lends a truly powerful credibility when he then proclaims the grace of the gospel and the love of God.

The church has long been damaging to the fortitude of its members, especially its men. While a good dose of feminist critique was long in coming and sorely needed, the result has been that when a man attempts to take a stand on an issue, especially when a woman or – horror of horrors – his wife, is the antagonist, he’s automatically an arrogant chauvinist. This is not necessarily true, but we’ve been trained to think that it is. We’ve been taught for so long that discord amongst brothers is so terrible that it is actually unloving to provoke conflict, and so important issues that need to be discussed are ignored in the name of peace. In short, the only people who are still willing to fight for anything are exactly the people who should never be allowed to fight for anything: those whose dispositions would lead them fight regardless of whether or not the issue is worth it (like, at various times, me). Those with the latter two virtues have had the fortitude beaten out of them long ago.

I am confident that it is entirely possible to completely satisfy Giles’ complaints without being an MCP (and if it isn’t, it should be). In fact, you should be able to satisfy most of his claims without even being a gender-essentialist. Women are just as guilty here, and courage is not intended to be an exclusively male trait.

Oh, and on the Wild at Heart issue: my experience suggests that this encourages rather than discourages limp-wristed behavior. Like many of the "men's ministry" type organisms floating around these days, it seems to produce "barrel-chested panty-waists". It has far more to do with feelings than virtue, and is theologically suspect at best, if not downright heretical.

"Manly park ranger"--really? Is that the most macho job out there today? I guess I imagine park rangers as the hippy who wants to preserve the tree. Irony? That the most macho job reminds me of adversion to violence (as well as cleanliness) and adrongyny (who can tell if those long hair hippy freaks are male or female).

As far as the pastor that calls out the church, I agree that this is a much needed thing for the church as a whole. If you want to be in a church where the pastor is not afraid to call out the congregation, try New City Fellowship. Randy Nabors is never afraid to tell the congregation what God has laid on his heart, without equivocation.

To Ryan: it seems to me that the gender stereotyping in Giles' article is not easily replaced by concerns about a lack of virtue in the Church. Giles' consistent denegration of purportedly "feminine" characteristics reveals a misogyny that goes beyond merely surface criticisms. Condsider "little Sally" the feminine whiner, "mommy's haven" and its association with cowardice, and "the wet womb of Wussville" as examples of derisive and hostile depictions of women. Replacing these phrases with constructive attacks on vices does more than simply alter the tone of Giles' attack: it changes its content dramatically.

The problem plaguing the church today, according to Giles' pastoral letter, is that it has abandoned its "masculine base" (see the letter's 12th paragraph). This is not an insignificant criticism, Ryan, and I'm surprised that your anxiety about excessive nuance in the church would lead you to miss the danger in what is being stated here, however boldly.

It is likely that you and I disagree about the role of women in the church. Regardless of how this plays out in our approach to ecclesiology, however,I feel confident that we DO agree that the church's base ought not to be viewed as exclusively male. It seems to me that this shared view should bring us together in combatting the appalling picture of the masculine Church that Giles presents.

To alter Giles' prose: I would argue (and I would expect you to agree) that the Church needs BOTH women AND men "who start a ministry, start a business; get involved in politics, the arts and education, and who are not afraid of the secular thugs and pimps who try to keep Christians marginalized in a religious ghetto." If this isn't recognized as crucial to the church's life, then the virtues of a "masculine" revival seem more like derivations of phallocratic zeal than correctives for weak-minded Christians.

Mesh, thanks for your graciously-articulated yet solid responses.

One observation I have about this paragraph ---

"we’ve got to draw the knuckle draggers back to church. Masculine men are pretty easy. Toss in reason, competition, initiation, struggle, fun and a problem to spiritually throttle, and we’ll be there like stink on a monkey"

--- is that if we stoop to appealing to the caveman in a man, then I'm not real sure how he makes the connection that a plethora of women would be a deterrent to that kind of target audience. Seems like the more women, the merrier -- even more merrier than church that's reminiscent of fixing a car -- if we're truly desirous to tap into this primitive ("stink on a monkey"!?) stereotypical view of man at his basest.

I'd prefer to hold a higher (more biblically derived?) view of BOTH genders and their complementary roles within the Body of Christ.

P.S.
I SO love this line --
"Shouldn't we affect people by being like, oh, Jesus, not Robocop?"

Reminds me of Rich Mullins' posthumously-produced Jesus demos record, how "the whores all seem to love Him and the drunks propose a toast; and they say, 'Surely God is with us...'"

That guy has a way with words. "That Boy George feeling." I'm going to start saying that phrase from now on.

For Mesh and Josiah, thought you might like .

"Phallocratic"? I'll have to remember that one. Katie, I have to agree with you on this.

Woah, missed alot. Jess:

Hey, I'm glad you find us quaint. What I'm bothered about is that the article wasn't about men oppressing women, both historically or currently, and it certainly had nothing to do with your feelings of being herded into the underwear department of Wal-Mart, not that I don't think thats' true, valid, legitimate, etc.

What is true is that alot of men these days feel emasculated in some sense, more than just in a shallow pissed off Fight Club sense (which is a good example of it expressed in a broad cultural swatch), but in a specific "what does it mean for me to be a Christian man?" sense. We've got fathers & grandfathers & heroes who fought wars, struggled through the depression, and in general lived the American dream. What am I as a *priviledged* white guy supposed to achieve?

And of course, you could call bullshit on the whole angst & tension, or you could be sympathetic. Lord knows I feel guilt, both personal and general over very real male oppression against womean, I'd like to think you could at least grant us the leeway to publically try & fail in the discourse and dialogue necessary in struggling towards a proper relationship with my Savior as a man.

Now where we might disagree, fundamentally, is that men and women are, well, fundamentally different. I think they are, in very real terms. What that means practically? I have no idea. I know it doesn't mean men be asshole tyrants oppresing their wives & daughters nor do I think it means insane things like women shouldn't get jobs or be outside of the home etc. etc.

And dangit, i wanted to stop this comment 2 paragraphs ago, but since I know their are philo readers who are gonna jump on things I feel the need to tie up some loose ends. No, I wont argue that men & women are different solely because of my marriage and my personal *experience*, that is, extending my personal experience to a metaphysical level. It doesn't follow absolutely, I know. But I don't think the metaphysical level, the formal level, is all that "real" in a very real sense. Personal experience in a very real and practical everyday sense suggests very strongly male & female differences. Whether those are culturally or contextually mediated, so what? Its still true and that's still the hand we've been dealt.

I'm out...