In his post You Will Never Guess Who Is Really Responsible For The Softening of Males In The Church, Mark Sayers shifts the blame for the current “sea of passivity” in modern males from feminism to men like John Newton.

To rescue masculinity in the West we must remember that we stand on the shoulders of giants. One such giant was John Newton, a man whose debauched life as a slave trader ensured that he had inhabited the old world of male violence. Yet Newton was thoroughly transformed by his encounter with the truth of the gospel. Newton operated as a template for the new evangelical mode of masculinity. He chose to champion others rather than simply build his own empire. A committed calvinist, he collaborated with and encouraged other believers who thought differently to him, maintaining a warm friendship and working relationship with John Wesley.Newton was not a prim and proper Georgian dandy, often he was described as uncouth. Newton was passionate and dedicated, his communication of the gospel was uncomprimising. Yet what entranced his contemporaries was that his gospel communication was described as having an almost ‘womanly tenderness’.  Newton was pointing the way forward to a new mode of being male, one shaped by the Gospel not the code of honour and violence. Newton would act as a father figure to a whole generation of evangelical leaders who would not just transform culture’s idea of masculinity but culture itself.

So what are we to do with our current crisis of masculinity? What advice should be given to young men who find themselves looking for male role models, who wonder what it is to be a Christian man in today’s culture of passivity and indecision. I think that if you want to be a man, stop trying so hard. Instead look to Newton’s advice, understand that you are a wretch who has been transformed by a grace that is amazing. Allow yourself to daily mediate upon and live out of that reality and one day you will get up to shave and the face in the mirror looking back at you will be the face of a man.

Great advice. But Newton and those of his time understood that men need a mission, something to construct and some to conquer. With the rejection of Christianity by our culture, that mission was replaced first with the empty quest for wealth, but now has been lost altogether. People, men in particular, are rebels without a cause. With everything else now shown to offer false hopes, the only real cause left is the New Covenant. [1]

Two Women for Every Man

In his post Old style evangelical gender politics, Steve Holmes tries to shore up the gender imbalance with some history of great evangelical women who followed this “transformation of masculinity.”

This evangelical generation changed the world, or major parts of it at least: they broke the international economic system of the day because it was unjust; they reformed prisons, factories, poor laws, and anything else they could think of; they saw major revivals, and huge numbers of conversions; when it came to gender politics, they taught men to be gentle, and women to be active in ministry.

Besides the few radicals he mentions, a lot of good was most certainly done, but how did that lead to the situation we are now in, where many men wouldn’t be found dead in a mainline Western church. Or, in reality, they might only be found in such a church if they were actually dead. Here’s a clue:

Methodist and holiness movements provided a particular intensification of this theme, as a woman who could lay claim to the experience of entire sanctification was in a demonstrable position of spiritual superiority to men who could not, a situation creating a significant pressure to reverse cultural-normative gender roles. Phoebe Palmer’s astonishing evangelistic ministry is the most obvious example of this, but there are many others (Hannah Whitall Smith’s entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals notes that, at the Brighton Convention for the Promotion of Christian Holiness in 1875, ‘[t]he most popular sessions … were those in which Hannah preached her practical secrets of the happy Christian life to audiences of 5000 or more, mostly clergymen who were theologically opposed to the preaching ministry of women’).

There was a deep-seated structural problem in this “transformation.” We might say that well-meaning evangelicals fell off the other side of the horse.

The Stigmatization of Male Traits

My friend Alastair Roberts’ comments after this post are the reason why I am posting this at all. He’s very familiar with the “liturgical” roles for men and women laid down in Genesis. [2] Modern evangelicals either don’t believe Genesis, or don’t know how to apply the Bible’s types, and so are left bumping around in the dark regarding gender roles in the Church, and in the interpretation of their history. Roberts makes a lot of sense, so I’ll post it in full. He writes:

It seems to me that the picture is rather one-sided. More probably needs to be said about the manner in which disempowered women and disempowered clergy joined forces to bring about the reformation of men’s morals, epitomized by such things as the temperance movements of the 19th century. This alliance between women and the clergy was coupled with a sentimentalization and feminization of religion, as in many quarters religion became conformed to dominant forms of cultural sentimental femininity, operating on the assumption that women had a greater affinity with religion and according to the narrative of the woman who reforms wayward men by making them see things more like them.

This wasn’t the only thing that was going on at the time, of course. There was also the ‘muscular Christianity’ of such as Kingsley, with its commitment to an imperial model of masculinity, and the refined and aesthetic masculinity of the Oxford movement. However, this ‘feminization’ and ‘sentimentalization’ trend has had a significant effect upon the worship, piety, theology, image, and demographics of the Church in many quarters.

It led to a stigmatization of many stereotypically male traits, along with a celebration of many stereotypically female traits. Within such a context, Christian spirituality was increasingly colonized by the sort of sentiments that are usually reserved for cheap romantic paperbacks. The agonistic and martial language of much biblical piety was increasingly abandoned in favour of a rather sickly emotionalism.

The problem is that, in the process evangelical spirituality drifted further away from the sort of biblical patterns of spirituality that one finds in the psalms, which do not exalt sentiment and sentimentality to the position of dominance that it often possesses. Churches also lost contact with men, as churches increasingly ordered themselves around disempowered women and children and their forms of piety (in a related movement, Christian piety started to disconnect from the wider world of society, life, and work to focus ever more narrowly on the individual soul and its private spirituality). The expectation that men conform themselves to a culturally feminine sentimental model of spirituality (rather than the expectation that both men and women conform themselves to a biblical model of spirituality) encouraged men to view the Church as emasculating and irrelevant to their lives, or as an unwelcome imposition upon them to be borne grudgingly and passively.

If the full story of the evangelical transformation of masculinity is to be told, we need to take this part of the picture into account. The evangelical church has often tended to neuter its men in order to empower its women. Its celebration and empowerment of women within its walls has gone hand in hand with its cultural marginalization and disempowerment. It has also fallen prey to a gross distortion of biblical piety in the form of sentimental piety, which still prevails in many quarters. This sentimentalized evangelical church has proved more effective at producing milquetoasts, who are culturally ineffective, than it has at producing men and women of firm character who make a powerful impact in the wider society.

The ‘masculinization’ of the church championed by Driscoll and others is obviously not the answer, but the Church is generally ‘feminized’ in a profoundly unhealthy manner, and something needs to be done to address this. What we have at the moment is a culturally marginal or irrelevant institution where there are almost twice as many women as men, where men are more inclined to be passive, and where piety is overly fixated on sentiment and emotion. I hardly think that this this qualifies as a success in terms of the transformation of gender norms and the shape of society…

[I will] explain in more detail what I mean by the ‘feminization’ of the Church here. Gender identities are indeed largely socially constructed (which perhaps should not surprise us if our most fundamental identity as human persons is a symbolic one, rather than one of biological essence, as we are created images of God). The problem comes when a particular social construction of one gender, which has little to do with Scripture and is at odds with it at various points, becomes a norm that is increasingly imposed upon all within the Church. For instance, I think that it is fair to say that Mark Driscoll is attempting a ‘masculinization’ of the Church, without suggesting that the gender norms that he is working in terms of are anything but ones contingent upon the surrounding culture.

I believe that the last couple of centuries witnessed just such a conforming of the evangelical church to norms of a particular cultural gender identity, in the form of sentimental femininity. I don’t see this particular development in piety as having much to do with an attempt to conform to biblical patterns of piety. Rather, it seems to me to arise primarily out of particular set of historical circumstances in which the interests of clergy and women aligned against a dysfunctional masculinity, and men were increasingly expected to conform and submit themselves to a cultural form of femininity, rather than to Scripture.

____________________________________
[1] If you don’t understand Covenant-as-cause, please read my book, Bible Matrix II: The Covenant Key.
[2] See Liturgical Man, Liturgical Woman.

Doug Wilson Interviews Mark Driscoll | Part II – Spiritual Gifts & Cessationism from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

“But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing…” Matthew 6:3

When it comes to doctrine, Mark Driscoll defines all issues as either closed-handed or open-handed. The non-negotiable fundamentals are held with a closed hand. In the open hand are issues that can be debated without shafting a church’s faithfulness to the apostles’ doctrine.

The Tabernacle was a metal man. In His left hand were bread and wine: servanthood, or more correctly, slavedom. In His right hand were the seven stars of the Lampstand: kingdom. The process of maturity, from obedience to wisdom, from slave to son, is the process of binding and loosing, from closed-handed issues to the open hand of the king. A priest is a silent servant in God’s house, and the details of his obedience are non-negotiable. His is an ear to be bored with an awl. A king is a vassal-son in God’s house, and he is counted as a friend, a courtly advisor. [1] His is a loosed tongue precisely because it has been bridled.

Of course, it takes a king to decide which issues should be held with a closed hand and which with an open one.

The true king is the son of the freewoman who was willing, like Isaac, to be bound as a sacrifice in order to free the generations of the people of God, the Bride. Likewise, Paul, the greatest apostle, was bound with a chain, held in the iron grip of Rome, for the hope of Israel. And the faithfulness of the apostolic church led to the binding of Satan–with a chain.

There is great wisdom in pastors requiring young Christians to focus on the fundamental doctrines, not simply in word but in practice, before allowing them, as qualified rhetors, to enter the debating arena. Doctrinal debates are a privilege of the New Covenant Church, but our motives must be pure. If we wish to speak in kingly courts, we must enter the arena from the place of the bondslave. Adam didn’t. Jesus did. The speech of a broken heart is not bitter but fragrant.

The vows of Church membership are, in this sense, a submission to chains for the sake of the gospel. So often, when tongues are afire, the Word of God is hindered, and when we are chained, the Word is loosed. The principle of intercession, of substitutionary sacrifice, permeates every area of ministry.

And soon enough, the chains might be real ones.

“…and most of the brethren in the Lord, having become confident by my chains, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.” Philippians 1:14

___________________________________
[1] See God Chooses His Friends.

or Why Don’t You Come Join My Party?

Mark Driscoll used a combination of conservative doctrine and cultural liberalism to build his church. Some snippets from Mark Driscoll’s book The Radical Reformission:

Reformission evangelism, patterned after the example of Jesus, is particularly appropriate for our current economy, in which people live much of their lives pursuing experiences… Reformission evangelism to our growing experience economy will require Christians and churches to steep the gospel in the culture with increasing creativity, hospitality, and authenticity. This is necessary because lost people living in an experience-based economy are willing to immerse themselves in the life of a Christian community to experience it for themselves and to see firsthand the experiences of people Jesus has transformed.

• Reformission evangelism blurs the lines between evangelism and discipleship, enabling non-Christians to learn a great deal about Scripture and the Christian life before making a decision for Christ.
• People’s conversion to Jesus is also a conversion of their old lifestyles to his mission of reaching lost people. This enables them both to be involved in reformission even before their own conversion—through preexisting relationships with people both inside and outside of the church—and habituates them if and when they are converted to be about reformission.
• Their conversion is not merely a mental assent to facts they believe but is a conversion of the totality of their lives. This prevents them from being carnal Christians and people who live apart from repentance and holiness, wrongly believing they have been saved because they have a few theological facts in order.
• Reformission insists that evangelism is more about a lifestyle for all of God’s people than just a ministry program or department for some of God’s people, and that the gospel is made clearest by the honest words and open lives of those who have been transformed by grace.

In theory, reformission evangelism may sound wonderful. But for it to happen in reality, God’s people must first admit that their own attitudes [towards people] often get in the way.

He does state that it all depends on whom we are trying to reach, and describes his initial hatred of Florida people when visiting there and being unable to find—in a dire emergency—any diapers besides adult ones. Does anyone have any experiences or opinions on this that they’d like to share?

I was expecting to be shocked by this book, but perhaps we’re all Driscoll-desensitized now. Sounds like Mark was just what Seattle needed. Lots of wisdom from hard knocks, teachability, but above all, persistence for Jesus. There is also a lot of structural / organizational advice which doesn’t apply to me, but great for pastors. Biggest lesson at the end for me was his hatred of the comfort zone. As soon as things get comfortable, it’s time to look for, or pray for, a new challenge to keep people focussed, united and trusting in God. If we fail to do this, we drop the ball and our decline begins. A good read.



View all my reviews

Grace Agenda Conference Trailer from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

This looks like good medicine. Guess I will have to settle for the MP3s again. You know Doug and Mark. Ben preaches at Doug’s church and his messages are simple yet profound. They really stick with you. I’ve read Nate Wilson but not heard him speak. I hear he’s also very good.

THE TALKS

Masculinity and the Gospel | Mark Driscoll
Modern society is in the midst of a fatherhood and masculinity crisis and getting the Gospel right on this point is the only solution to the crisis. To do this we must understand the Gospel as the sort of message that demands that those who receive and present it be people who have a spine and understand its potency. This is a fundamental issue and affects everything from the integrity of our political leaders to the growth of modern atheism to the effectiveness of our evangelistic mission. Not to mention the health of our families.

Pomosexuality | Douglas Wilson
We live in a time when many of the older standards of “traditional morality” have come completely unstuck. Too many Christians think that this is just something that “happened,” that somebody “did,” and that if we get mobilized we can undo it. But this is actually a theological issue, a problem with our worship. There will be no return to biblical sexuality without a return to Jesus Christ.

The World and its Alternatives | N.D. Wilson
The universe is created, which means it is art. It exists in time, which means that it is narrative art. It encompasses every genre, both discovered and undiscovered, but all of it hangs within the frame of Comedy. Philosophers, poets, artists, scientists, and engineers notwithstanding there is only this strange and comic world — here it stands, and it can be no other.

Godlust | Ben Merkle
The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But you are led by the Spirit . . . So act like it.

The Manifesto for the Grace Agenda | Douglas Wilson
It is too easy to think of grace as that “little extra” that gets us over the finish line. We do what we need to do, and God does the rest. But this is not grace at all, it is the heresy of the Galatians. If we want to counter it (as we should), we must learn to see that God’s grace is all of Christ, for all of life, for all the world.

This sermon continues our emphasis during the Lenten season on spiritual discipline. Last week’s sermon by Mr. Miller focused us on helpful images that call us to our battle with the world, the flesh and the Devil, this text takes us toward one of great trenches of our daily warfare—the battle of our desires for things, for control of people and for cultural dominion. None of these items are evil in and of themselves—in fact they are good—but they can become idols and so enslave us.

The intro doesn’t do it justice. Like many others, Fischer puts his finger on a big reason for the church’s failure in the west. But he tackles it in a big picture context.

“A study from Hartford Seminary found that the presence of involved men was statistically correlated with church growth, health, and harmony. Meanwhile, a lack of male participation is strongly associated with congregational decline.”*

A quote from David Murrow at churchformen.org :

A business guru once said, “Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you’re getting.” Christianity’s primary delivery system, the local church, is perfectly designed to reach women and older folks. That’s why our pews are filled with them. But this church system offers little to stir the masculine heart, so men find it dull and irrelevant. The more masculine the man, the more likely he is to dislike church.

What do I mean? Men and young adults are drawn to risk, challenge and adventure. But these things are discouraged in the local church. Instead, most congregations offer a safe, nurturing community – an oasis of stability and predictability. Studies show that women and seniors gravitate toward these things. Although our official mission is one of adventure, the actual mission of most congregations is making people feel comfortable and safe – especially longtime members.

If you want to turn around congregational decline, target men. That means making church more attractive to the average male – and I don’t mean seeker sensitive. Jesus constantly threw up challenges beginning with ‘If…”, barriers and hurdles, which includes being tough on doctrine, holiness (the male kind), accountability and comradery. A challenge for us all, men and women.

____________________

1  C. Kirk Hadaway, FACTs on Growth: A new look at the dynamics of growth and decline in American congregations based on the Faith Communities Today 2005 national survey of Congregations. Hartford Institute for Religion Research, http://hirr.hartsem.edu.

On the one hand, loud-mouthed, offensive Christians might not make unbelievers think, “Gee, I want to be like you.” But on the other, are Christians to woo the world using only the vocab of a Rick Warren calendar? When is it OK to be offensive?

In the Bible the ‘offensive’ language was (mostly) used by God’s attorneys, the prophets, who were speaking to a culture which had already heard the truth and should have known better (whether that be Israel or the nations immediately surrounding her). God reserves such scolding for those who were in high-handed (conscious) sin against the truth, and the prophets concentrate more on the nature of the sins than on ridiculing the sinners. Jesus does the same thing in Matthew 23-24. As mentioned here a few days ago, He even swings Isaiah 13 like a knife and infers that Judah is a new ‘Babylon.’ Now, that is some insult to a nation without a Davidic king since the captivity.

I guess, today, such ‘housekeeping’ would include dealing with those within the church advocating a wholesale sellout. Sarcasm aimed at two-faced liberal theology or theistic evolution would be an example. Richard Dawkins reserves his greatest spite for the latter and he is right on the mark.

Spurgeon was a wooer, and yet he wasn’t above using cutting remarks:

“As for sensible men, and especially the sturdy workmen of our great cities, they utterly abhor foppery in a minister . . . It is a pity that we cannot persuade all ministers to be men, for it is hard to see how otherwise they will be truly men of God . . . A hundred years ago the dressiness of the clergy was about as conspicuous as it is now, but it had no doctrinal meaning, and was mere foppery . . . Molasses and other sugary matters are sickening to me. Jack-a-dandy in the pulpit makes me feel as Jehu did when he saw Jezebel’s decorated head and painted face, and cried in indignation, ‘Fling her down.’” (Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, pp. 300-301).

Such rudeness exposes the rudeness of the sin. It is self-deprecating rudeness, or ‘rudeness with tears.’ And when we keep our own house as good stewards by showing the world how to repent, some out there might just want to be like us.