In October 2006, I wrote a post about the “Godmen” phenomenon. That post begins:
Godmen is, according to the organizers, “a series of testosterone-fueled Christian men’s gatherings across the country. Their purpose: to reassert masculinity within a church structure that they (the organizers) say has been weakened by feminization.”
Uh huh. Or, in other words, Godmen is about giving men who feel overwhelmed and challenged by a Gospel message of egalitarian justice a chance to worship God without having to let go of the very things that Jesus asks them to surrender.
Now, happily, Christianity Today has a very critical piece up about the Godmen and other similar groups anxious to “reclaim Christ” as a hyper-masculine role model. (Cap tap to reader David, who sent me the link.) Brandon O’Brian, writing in CT, makes good sense here:
The masculinity movement would have us emulate the glorified Jesus—the one who will return on horseback and brandish the sword of judgment. That is certainly the Jesus we worship. But it is not the Jesus we are commanded to imitate. The only times Jesus appears in Scripture as a warrior are in his pre-incarnate debuts in the Old Testament and post-resurrection glory. Our model of behavior, then, is the suffering Son, not the glorified one.
That’s good. And further signs that Christianity Today, the flagship journal of American evangelicalism, is open to genuinely egalitarian principles:
Arguing for common characteristics between men and women is not to argue for identical roles. I don’t intend to downplay the significant differences between the genders or the distinct challenges in discipleship that men and women each face. I mean that if courage is Christlike, then men and women should both develop courage…
…we should mistrust any interpretation of Scripture that simply confirms our instincts. If it is more natural for a man to be aggressive and a woman to be passive, then a genuine encounter with Christ should challenge a man to become gentle (Gal. 5:23) and a woman to become bold (2 Tim. 1:7). The challenge of discipleship is extended equally to both men and women.
A-flippin-men. Bold emphasis is mine. And while I’m not sure how “natural” masculine aggression and feminine passivity really is, the reminder that a relationship with Christ challenges each of us to become fully and completely human is most welcome.
Finally, Christianity Today begins to catch up with Hugo Schwyzer. Here’s the thing: the first theologian was Mary of Bethany (as Carolyn Custis James shows so well); the first evangelist was Ms Steinem of Samaria (okay, we don’t know her name really because her history was written by a man); the first apostle was Mary of Magdala (and we all know what the “Godmen” said about her). Of course the “Godmen” want Jesus to grab his crotch and beat his chest and moan that feminization has weakened them and him.
Is there a conflict or contradiction between “gentle” and “aggressive”?
How does one address difficult issues, issues requiring change in people and institutions if one is not aggressive?
Looks like a (possibly) accidental mix-up between “aggressive” and “violent”. Been done before. Hardly ever works.
If the antonym for “aggresive” is truly “gentle”, then “gentle” must mean “passive”.
If it is really desired that men become passive, I could see why it would be dressed up in other words. If it is not desired that men become passive, then acting as if being “aggressive” is somehow morally equivalent to being violent is counterproductive.
My congregation has a pretty good mix of male and female leadership. Since our higher allowed us to be deprived of a pastor, we have been running our own affairs and a woman running a group gets just the same respectful attention as a man running a different group. Pam says do this, we do it. Paul says do that, we do it.
We’re entertaining a question: Is having a pastor required, or merely traditional?
There is no gender issue in our congregation. I do know, however, of congregations where the men have been marginalized. For whatever reason, they don’t bother. Not to lead, not to attend. The hypothetical of figuring out what to do about it, and attempting to get the current power structure to do it brings up interesting possibilities….