Why are Men So Insecure?

I was planning on taking today off from blogging. I really should thing about a sermon for Sunday and all that stuff, and maybe acknowledge the existence of my children. I was all set to do these great things until I checked out my Twitter account (don’t bother following me – I am boring, borrrrrrrrring!) and I saw a link to the following blog.

The blog post is about John Piper’s call for a masculine Christianity and a masculine church. Normally I would ignore such rants, but Piper is a fairly popular and influential person who has the potential to screw up many Christians. Blogger Rachael Evans smartly asked for guys to respond so she would not be labeled as some angry feminist. My straight, white, male guilt kicked in and here I am writing.

I’m not going to rehash Piper’s argument – I suggest going to Evans’ blog to see a good summary or go here for a more complete text.

So I’m not just rehashing feminist’s arguments I’m going to try to avoid using some great theologians.

Thus I suppose I should avoid mentioning Catherine Mowry LaCugna’s chapter, "God in Communion With Us," in the book Freeing Theology where she points out that the idea of Complementarity (the idea that a woman reaches her fullest existence through a relationship with a man) does not speak to the notion that a man does not have to have a relationship with a woman to reach his full potential as a child of God and in no way reflects the Trinity, i.e. God, i.e. the one in who’s image we were created.

I guess I shouldn’t mention Elizabeth A. Johnson who makes the simple change of talking about God by starting with the Holy Spirit rather than God – creator, and notes many of the feminine aspects of the Holy Spirit and how those aspects are found in God – creator and in Christ.

No, I will resist using these theologians because they just are not masculine enough. I will instead address Piper’s claims myself.

First, he describes Masculinity as:

Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus."

Take out the “godly male” part and I don’t see what makes it masculine. This describes my mother (as well as my father) and many other women and men that I know. Seems to just be a convenient definition that is not grounded in any studies of sociology, psychology, anthropology, or anyone who may actually know what it might mean to be “masculine.”

Second, Piper references scripture saying that all the priests in the Old Testament were male – I guess he forgot Deborah – and all of Jesus’ apostles were male which is only if you us a very specific understanding of the apostles that emerged through time. I’m not going to respond to his Biblical arguments with other Biblical arguments. What I see is a convenient reading of scripture. That is, Piper wants to make an argument about masculinity and then find all of the information he can use in scripture so he can back it up while ignoring anything that may suggest otherwise. I have never encountered the Bible as so crystal clear on one topic. Piper is employing poor scholarship at best and a dangerous hermeneutic that can lead to many other dangerous assumptions like slavery is ok, and polygamy is necessary, and it is appropriate to kill your children or at least sell them into slavery when they act out. If I want to use scripture to argue any of these points I can by using the same method Piper uses – find the passages that work and don’t mention anything else.

Third, Piper is neglecting a large part of the feminist nature of the church in church history. Granted I’m not sure exactly what feminine means, but I’ll work off the common assumptions for now. With that in mind Bernard of Clairvaux’s great sermon On the Song of Songs talks about a holy kiss that we have on and with Jesus. Hmmm….

Jonathan Edwards pushes the idea of religious affections, a whole-body experience of religion. It is emotional and spiritual (disclaimer – I am not an Edwards’ scholar so I may be missing some of the nuance). I don’t know if this is feminine, but based on what Piper is suggesting I think it is.

Finally, I do want to refer to my sister theologians, specifically about the idea of the nature of God. If Piper is a Trinitarian, and I am sure that he would claim that he is, then the nature of God is one of equal, relational, indwelling where one aspect of the Trinity is not above any other nature of the Trinity. If one aspect of humanity is deliberately placed above another, then we are not reflecting the nature of God, but the broken nature of humanity. The church, then, should be a place that strives not for a masculine feel or a feminine feel, but one of mutuality and equality.

End this post with your own bit of angry rants and explicative that this is still an issue with people. We should be well beyond this…. AHHHHH

Sometimes Its Nice to be Needed

I’m moving on from the last two posts. This one will actually be a positive post. No rants. Really.

First I want to plug this link to a website put together by one of the kids in the church I serve. It is about bullying in Rhode Island and sets a good example for others to consider in their own state. Unless you are pro-bullying (i.e. capitalist?) then you should support such an endeavor.

Second, I attended a Christian Unity service at the CopticOrthodox Church of St. Mary and St. Mena sponsored by the Rhode Island StateCouncil of Churches. Really neat form of worship. We were vividly reminded about the persecution of Christians in Egypt. It is not a good thing and we need to tell others about these atrocities; we need to spread awareness.

Finally, I read a good article from Alban, one that surprised. The article seemed to be about church growth and elicited a loud grown from me. Everyone in the coffee shop stopped what they were doing, stared at me in wonder, and I looked back and said:

Do you have a problem?

One more advancement for Christianity in the world.

Anyway, as I read more of the article I was pleasantly surprised. In this article the author talks about his efforts to prepare one particular church for a time with no pastor. He was looking at the dearth of youngish pastors and the abundance of pastors in their early 60s and saw that it there would be a time when there would not be enough pastors for churches. So he began to prepare his church. That is positive thinking at its best.

What he found was that the spirituality of the congregation grew through these efforts. Nice!

I think there is something to be said for a congregation that can provide spiritual guidance, minister to each other, be present for each other, and exist without a pastor. Now I would argue that there would always be a spiritual need for a pastor, for someone who believes he or she has been called by God to preach, pastor, and lead the congregation. I’m not just thinking of my own sense of job security, but thinking of ecclesiology – this may be something for another post.

Yet we want churches to be healthy and not dependent on one leader. We want churches that can walk aside the pastor, and even lead the pastor from time to time (we are human after all). Perhaps what people in my profession should be working towards is a day when his or her presence is not necessary on some levels and then is appreciated on a deeper level.

So I guess I should start to try to work myself out of a job. Don’t tell my wife or children.

What I Meant to Say Was...

It is now confirmed that not everyone likes me… or at least the stuff that I write. I think this is good because the conversation generates better thoughts and articulation of those thoughts. Here are some of the things people said in response to my last article:

Mock, malign and marginalize the spiritual but not religious all you want. They're our fish. They've had spirituality commoditized for them and need to see that a) spirituality involves work and b) that work bears amazing fruit (b before a, really).

Sorry, but I completely disagree with this essay. You're equating lazy with not doing what Christianity and other organized religions prescribe. To me, that kind of logic is lazy and elitist.

Spirituality comes in all forms.

You can read two other comments on my blog.

It seems that some see my previous post as a big ole’ push for organized religion. Granted that is my bread and butter, but it wasn’t my intent. Based on the way I wrote the entry I can see how many reached that conclusion – I really could have said things in a different and maybe more positive way, but then I wouldn’t be so much fun, would I?

I think what I meant to say was that it is important to find and be a part of a community however that looks. Last week’s podcast of Philosophy Bites featured Alain de Botton speaking about Atheism 2.0. He spoke about the importance of a community as a place where not only morals are taught and carried on, but also as a place where ideas of importance, values are tested, shared, and celebrated. De Botton stressed that it was not faith so much that was important (as an atheist that would be weird for him to celebrate faith in God) but the rituals and liturgy of the community stressing the values and morals of a community.

I am not suggesting that Atheists form a church with a liturgy and all that. I don’t even know what that would look like. It is the community that is important and the type of community.

Those who get together on a regular basis have rituals and liturgy and in large part rituals and liturgy express the ideals and values of that group of people – even if it is a group of people gathering around to talk about God over beer, or to talk about beer over God.

It is the individualist spiritual person that I was railing against and I will add to this the individualist Christian, the individualist Jew, the individualist Muslim, and on and on (I’m not attacking groups of people, just individuals). A community requires work. It is work to learn the “grammar” of the community and to participate in that grammar. It is work to share yourself and to share in the life and struggles of others. It is a lot easier to just go to church, say the words proscribed, and then go home without any connection with the people there or any investment in the rituals. It is a lot easier to say you are spiritual but do nothing that considers, expresses, or deepens that spirituality. That is what I meant by selfish spirituality.

For those who are searching – keep searching – that is part of the work. For those who have a community be it an organized religion or not, engage and immerse yourself into that community and push the community to deepen its experience of spirituality however that may be expressed. I guess that is what I meant by being religious – being deliberate about your spirituality.

Of course I really appreciate all of the comments. Well, I kinda appreciate all of the comments – it took me about a week of crying in the shower to find the nerve to write a response. Now I look like a giant white raisin.

Topic closed? Can I move on and blog about Red Letter Bibles and churches with pastors?

Spirituality = Laziness

Today I had a for real “coffee shop” conversation. I was sitting, minding my own business, looking mousey, when someone asked me if I was a writer. If I was smart, I would have said, “yes,” but I’m still slow to the uptick and said, “nope, I’m a minister.” I even think I felt proud about this declaration. In response, this person told me how he is very spiritual, leaning towards the Zen side of faith and views everyone religious as prophets on equal ground. Yawn.

To be fair, this individual seemed to really know his stuff, knew what he was talking about so he may be the exception to the rule. The rules are:

1. When someone says, “I am spiritual” that person does not put any real time or energy into his or her own faith and wants to avoid any sense of guilt for sleeping in on Sunday mornings. 
2. When someone says, “I like Zen” (or any other Eastern religion) it means that he or she wants to seem radical, enlightened, or beyond Christianity but still spirituality grounded to some kind of tradition. Again, it is most likely to avoid the guilt thing.

I want to stress one more time that the person I was talking to seemed to take his stance kind of seriously (or I may just be writing this in case he happened to be reading this right now and I can’t bear the thought of someone not liking me). Yet by in large the rules tend to stand. Why is this a problem? For me it is the same as saying, “I like Italian food” and only eating Chef boyardee or only eating out at Olive Garden. Or saying, “I’m into art” and stocking their house with all of the five dollar artwork that is sold at local auctions (what I term ‘Hotel Art’) or Thomas Kinkade (I am holding the vomit back as I write those words).

First, if you are into Buddhism, Zen or not, then really be into it. Meaning, join a community, go to regular worship, and become fully immersed into the tradition. It only works if you are fully into it and make a commitment. This is actually true of all reputable faith traditions – you have to go all in or don’t go at all.

Second, try to get a clue what “spiritual” means because I really have no idea and think you (the universal you, that is) don’t have an idea as well. If it means finding peace in nature than read some of the transcendentalists, hug a tree, and go to a Unitarian Universalist church. After all, you can’t have enough Emerson and Thoreau in your life.

If being “spiritual” means seeing good in everyone, then join the Optimist club if they even still exist. I doubt that they do.

If being “spiritual” means believing in Jesus, believing in God, but rejecting the church and all that it stands for then you are a hypocrite (ha!). If you really believe in Jesus and follow him, and if you really believe in the God that Jesus represents then you will realize that God/Christ calls for relationships and community. You can’t be a believer or follower without being a part of a community or you are rejecting the relational aspect of God. Yup, pretty harsh, but there it is.

So, get your lazy, “spiritual” a** off the sofa and do something, get involved, even if it means joining a Unitarian Universalist church. Shudder.

Its All About Me!

I’ll admit that the last two posts were kinda lame – what I have watched and what I have read? Really? Who cares?

They were just easy posts to write, compiling data from the past year, but now it is back to business – no more slacking off, no more fluff, no more …  I guess no more of what I usually write.

I have recently been sloughing through War and Peace (I’ve finally gotten past page 1,000 but still have about 700 pages to go). I have to admit it is a very good book that really captures a great deal of the horrors of war and the indifference of the upper echelon of society (among about a billion other things). While a great battle is waged just outside of Moscow, a married woman is flirting with two men, promises to marry both of them, and becomes Catholic in order that she can have her marriage annulled. How’s that for a twist? Become Catholic to end a marriage. In the book the whole scenario is very interesting for many people – it is the gossip of Moscow and Petersburg.

I think the connection between tabloid entertainment and the horrors of reality is obvious. News is made when McDonald’s re-releases the McRibb or when someone’s marriage doesn’t last very long but not when people starve to death, etc. This is fluff, bread and circus kind of entertainment that appeases the masses so as to avoid the festering wounds of society. Yuck.

However, no one likes a dour, sour-puss kind of person. This is the person who is so involved in all of the suffering of the world that just to be in their presence is its own kind of suffering. Know anyone like that?

Activists, tree-hugging kind of Christians (and other do-gooders) again and again remind us that we need to consider the other (in a Lacanian, Buber kind of way). I agree that if we are only focused on ourselves then we are not fully living. Yet I don’t think I would argue that those who focus on pulp news are not focusing on themselves. We have a lot of distractions, crappy, enamoring distractions that keep us from knowing ourselves. So then the guilt comes that we need to help others and we don’t even know who we are and all we have to talk about is the soft-core snuff that passes for television.

Take some time to figure out who you are. Take care of yourself, get to know yourself in a substantial way and then start to consider others. Go for a walk. Read a book. Bake a cake. Etc, etc. This is a selfishness that isn’t so bad and may actually lead to something good. Hmm, maybe it is time for me to think more about myself…

Book Reports!

Well, I've listed the movies I watched and now the books that I read in the past year. I have to be honest, I am a little disappointed that I did not read more. Twenty-two books, 6,586 pages does not seem like a lot. This year I will see if I can do better - it doesn't help that I am only on page 631 in War and Peace and I keep reading a lot of journal articles.


A Fortunate Life - A.B. Facey
The Wizard of Oz and other Narcissists - Elanor D. Payson
Dishwasher - Pete Jordan
The Foucault Reader - ed. by Paul Rabinow
The Art of Reading Scripture - ed. by E. Davis and R. Hays
The Coming of the Body - Herve Juvin
A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology - William Hordern
The Secret of Overcoming Verbal Abuse - Albert Ellis and Marcia Grad Powers
Middlemarch - George Eliot
The Magician's Nephew - C.S. Lewis
Freakonomics - S. Levitt and S. Dubner
A Bief History of Christian Worship - James F. White
The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe - C.S. Lewis
Children of the Self-Absorbed - Nina W. Brown
After Virtue - Alasdair MacIntyre
Prize Stories 1993: The O. Henry Awards - ed. by William Abrahams
Autism, Asperger Syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Barbara Quinn and Anthony     Malone
The Nature and Purpose of the Church - World Council of Churches, Faith and Order Commission
The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History - John M. Barry
Revisioning Christian Unity: The Global Christian Forum - Hubert van Beek
The Girard Reader - ed. by James G. WIlliams
Fusion: Turning First-Time Guests into Fully Engaged Members of Your Church - Nelson Searcy with      Jennifer Dykes
Twilight of the Idols - Friedrich Nietzsche