November 7, 2013
Michael, I truly appreciate your careful distinction between cultural views of what it means to be a man and how that does not apply to the church. We're not called to biblical manhood or womanhood. We're called to live in Christ. He's a lot more than any human concept of gender will ever comprehend.
( http://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/biblical-womanhood-is-nothing-and-neither-is-biblical-manhood/ )
A couple minor points in the hopes of preventing some misunderstandings. First, is the "Act like Men" tour really reflecting Driscoll's personal views? I don't think we should be fooled by the extreme Dorito commercial graphics or the video treatment--I mean, near end of the video, James MacDonald says "Do all in love" (or something to that effect). I'm not convinced this is all about Mark's views of manhood, especially from knowing a couple contributing speakers, Greg Laurie and Matt Chandler, who are faithful and loving pastors.
Am no expert on Driscoll, but I'm also not convinced he was "praising" David for killing in that clip. It seemed to me that he more trying to make the case that David, for better or worse, fulfilled some gender stereotypes. But regardless, yes, Mark does express some narrow views on what men are. I wonder if he's aware of this and simply heightens his rhetoric with colorful language, but no matter.
I'm failing to contribute much to the great questions you brought up, but I thought I'd raise these side issues to help avoid adding to the confusion around Christian leaders these days. They certainly aren't perfect, but I think it's important--especially with those close to us in creed--to try to understand exactly what they're saying and discern the good and the bad rather than throw the baby out with the bath water.
Thanks for the clarifying comments. I certainly don't think the Act Like Men conference is all about Driscoll's views. I would imagine that many of the speakers would, in fact, disagree with Driscoll on some issues related to masculinity. And I have no doubt that God can do great things through this conference, even if I question its premise.
Any criticism I have for the other speakers at the conference is not based on the problems I have with Driscoll's theology. I simply wonder whether it is helpful or necessary to have a conference that presents a specific image of what Christian men should act like based on their gender. Or what Christian men should act like, as opposed to what Christian women should act like.
One thing I've learned as a Christian is that true strength (or at least true greatness and goodness) lies in submission rather than in overpowering others. It is in being so secure in ourselves and in God's protection of us that we don't need to grasp at what we have, to hold it so tightly because it's all up to us. In some circumstances that will look an awful lot like being a pansy or a pacifist. You will not need to push others down to make yourself feel bigger.
That's not a male/female thing, I don't think. I've always been a tomboy and more comfortable hanging out with the guys as a friend rather than girlfriend, so I was never really socialized to think and act like most girls are. That means I tend to see gender issues more along a continuum than other people might, I guess. But I can't see this understanding of "manning up" being a good way for <i>any</i> Christian to live, personally - if strength is important, then we need to look for a better idea of what it means to be truly strong.
Good thoughts, Michael. Football is a tough man's sport, so it seems reasonable that this sort of thinking might emerge there. Doesn't make it right, however. In the church, that is another story. In the case of M.D., I think he likes to get out there to say something outrageous so his name is mentioned again and again in social media. I always feel that the gospel seems to be about "him" too often. Also, he sells lots of books and this is a good way to market.
As someone who attended Act Like Men in Indy last weekend, I'd say that any attempt to draw parallels between the type of bullying currently being decried in the NFL and the ALM conference is at best misguided, and at worst represents an unfair attack on good people trying to do good things.
"Does a one-size-fits-all definition of â€œChristian manâ€ and â€œChristian womanâ€ exist?"
The answer from the podium at Act Like Men would have been an unqualified "no". I heard every speaker start to finish and at no point was it suggested that stereotypical superficialities make the man. On the contrary, men were challenged to have the love and compassion of Jesus.
"After all, David was a renowned musician and writer of poetry; Jesus wept, turned the other cheek and forgave freely. At the very least, both men offer a more complex picture of Biblical masculinity."
Nothing less was promoted at Act Like Men.
I have visited a lot of churches. I once made it a point to visit every Christian church in Kent, Ohio when I lived there, just for the experience. Every ministry displays a posture and appeals to a certain segment of the population, especially if they do not have the diversity of leadership available to a megachurch (I'm a member at Harvest Bible Chapel in Chicago and consider it one of the most racially and socioeconomically diverse churches I've ever attended).
If we're going to engage in stereotyping, here's the thing: Mark Driscoll and events like Act Like Men reach men who are never going to be able to relate to a minister with manicured hands wearing a tweed jacket with elbow patches and a turtleneck with a conspicuous cross pendant worn on the outside, talking about free trade coffee in front of stained glass windows. I can send Mark Driscoll videos to people who are simply not going to listen to Rick Warren. And vice versa.
500+ men were saved at Act Like Men (including one of our bus drivers). 12,600 men heard the message that they need to stop acting like selfish little boys and instead live sacrificially for the benefit of others. Why not just be grateful for that?
Thank you for the comment and the first-hand account of the Act Like Men conference.
I'm glad to hear that a more nuanced view of masculinity was presented. I'm not all that surprised, as many of the other presenters there (outside Driscoll) do often espouse a broader view. It's also wonderful to hear that so many men were saved. As I said in a comment above, I believe God can work wonders through such conferences, even if I disagree with their premise.
And I am grateful for the positive things that happened (and are continuing to happen) through the Act Like Men conference. However, that doesn't mean I cannot be critical of it, and ask questions about it.
In the case of this blog post, the title of the conference and the presence of Mark Driscoll made it an obvious tie-in to a discussion about prescriptive masculinity in the church. That's really all I meant it to be.
The thing I take stronger issue with is the language Mark Driscoll often employs to describe what Christian men should be. One could argue that he uses such language for shock value or for attention-getting or just to appeal to a "certain kind of man." Whatever the motivation, the fact remains that he has used, and continues to use, those words, and words mean something.
He may say that Christian men should just attempt to be like Christ... but then he writes a blog post claiming that Christ was not a "pacifist," or a "pansy"--words he has also used to deride other men who don't look or act like him. The implication is that if you are a pacifist or a "pansy," then you aren't like Christ, and aren't a real Christian man.
Any frustration I feel is with Driscoll and his continued use of these types of words.
I do also have questions about a conference that titles itself "Act Like Men," which implies that there's a way for a man to NOT act like a man. If all the conference presented was Christ, as the way ALL Christians should act, then I see no problem with that. It's separately prescribing actions/behaviors/emotions to men and women that I take issue with. If the Act Like Men conference avoided that entirely, then it's a huge step forward from previous Christian conference attempts to speak about gender.
I completely understand your taking issue with things Mark Driscoll has said, and I am not a fan of his every remark. There are videos of his that I would not send to anyone. I also think he has probably benefited from some push back and accountability on those things.
Just a response on a specific point, that being that the charge (presumably to men in particular, given the language) in 1 Corinthians 16:13 is to "act like men". It's a direct quote, as translated in the ESV and the NASB (which likely indicates it is the most direct translation). Other translations and paraphrases read "be courageous".
I do think there are many ways in which a man can fail to act like a man. Abusing the weak, cowardice, hiding from difficult issues, refusing to act in defense of others, self-absorption, preoccupation with diversions, promiscuity, lack of will power, laziness, etc.
Please understand, I'm not exactly a grunt. I'm an illustrator and graphic designer who spends too much money on magic markers and colored pencils. I do not believe for a moment that there's only one way to act like a man. But I think our society is replete with examples of men who are failing at it.
Acting like a man does not mean acting like a boor. Victor Lazlo in Casablanca was assuredly manly but he was also a gentleman even to his political and military enemies. The most discourteous thing he does in the movie is to admit that he does not find pleasure in drinking with a Nazi but he is a terror to the whole Third Reich.
Add your comment to join the discussion!