Hyper-masculinity strikes again

[Bill Morrison]

People hate this topic, but they can't escape it either. This is where we live. It's a messy and hard to discuss. It's the most view topic in the GD right now. If people didn't care, they would avoid it. As with all threads, it will eventually die out, that's fine and then we can all back to liking each other.

Bob:
My conclusion after following this post for a while: You would probably get less flak if you came out and told us you were gay
Meaningful dialogue is a chore even when you try to do it with your close brothers (and sisters) in Christ on Naznet, isn't it?!

BILL

[Hans Deventer]

Bob:
My conclusion after following this post for a while: You would probably get less flak if you came out and told us you were gay

Makes sense. That doesn't make us gay.

[Gina Stevenson]

Not so sure there is an inference re such a corollary, Todd. Seems a summary might suggest that, whereas women -- while they are productively engaged (far from lazy)/comfortable, therefore, not being discussed -- this thread seems to have begun asking how the church might as readily attract men as they already do women.
(did I understand correctly, Bob?)

Seeing this was overlooked, and some comments yet followed re this man/woman (even gay) "thing," not sure why. Tho't we had, as said, understood the original intent correctly. Discussing what might be needed by men does not mean women's needs are being ignored, or that women are thereby being put down. It"s just for another thread. Seems to be some assumptions are being/have been made that aren't necessarily implied by original post ... ???

Or is it just that my tendency to (usually) see both sides that prompts this post ...unless, of course, something is personally affecting/hurting me (even then can often see the source, while not liking it). Perhaps some of these posts also stem from that ... having a bit of a time letting a "men's" discussion be just that, due to something(s) in one's history? Anyway, do not recall the women-in-ministry thread suggesting there was something wrong with men b/c women were the topic/concern, anymore than this thread was suggesting women were "lazy," tho' it was assumed by some/one that it might be.

Isn't written-only communication fun!? {well, it can be}.

[Bob Hunter]

Seeing this was overlooked, and some comments yet followed re this man/woman (even gay) "thing," not sure why. Tho't we had, as said, understood the original intent correctly. Discussing what might be needed by men does not mean women's needs are being ignored, or that women are thereby being put down. It"s just for another thread. Seems to be some assumptions are being/have been made that aren't necessarily implied by original post ... ???

Or is it just that my tendency to (usually) see both sides that prompts this post ...unless, of course, something is personally affecting/hurting me (even then can often see the source, while not liking it). Perhaps some of these posts also stem from that ... having a bit of a time letting a "men's" discussion be just that, due to something(s) in one's history? Anyway, do not recall the women-in-ministry thread suggesting there was something wrong with men b/c women were the topic/concern, anymore than this thread was suggesting women were "lazy," tho' it was assumed by some/one that it might be.

Isn't written-only communication fun!? {well, it can be}.

Gina,

Great insight and you are right. This thread began discussing John Piper who made some comments that Scott McKnight reacted to. I am a huge Scott McKnight fan as I have heard him speak and read his blogs for some time. I am not a John Piper fan and I do not endorse his version of masculinity. I would be more in the John Eldredge camp, but not completely. This is a hot button issue in the Church today and on NN. What I hear you saying is that we need to differentiate between what is being said about men and what is being said about women. It's too easy to take offense and jump to all kinds of conclusions especially in this format. I'm beginning to see that if you stand on the side of men in the Church and advocate for their development and spirituality you are destined for criticism. But I think we can be for men and for women at the same time. One does not have to preclude the other.

[Rich Schmidt]

I'm beginning to see that if you stand on the side of men in the Church and advocate for their development and spirituality you are destined for criticism. But I think we can be for men and for women at the same time. One does not have to preclude the other.

Of course we can be "for men" and "for women" at the same time. But being "for men" in a male-dominated environment with a history of putting down women feels a little like being "for white people" in a culture like ours, with our history of oppressing and enslaving non-whites and ongoing struggles toward equality.

This doesn't mean you can't be "for men." It just means you have to be very careful in how you communicate about it.

For example, some would read your statement "stand on the side of men in the Church" and wonder why you're taking sides at all and who you're taking sides against. If men are on one side, it sounds like women are on the other. Clearly, that's not what you intend to communicate. Right?

[Kevin Rector]

I have repeatedly expressed the liabilities and limitations of using generalizations. I have also embraced and rejected some generalizations. And I have stated how some generalizations can't be avoided. So I agree completely with what you are saying, but I didn't like the off base part, because it was a generalization that I didn't like and anyone can say someone is off base and feel great about themselves. I will also agree that this is risky business, I accept it. Moreover, I'm not a play it safe kinda guy.

As far as I know, "off-base" simply means, "not quite in the right place." So my saying many of your generalizations are off-base is saying essentially that you haven't gotten to the essence of what you are trying to say by your generalizations because they really don't capture what it means to be manly or masculine. This is of course an opinion of mine - it's not about making me feel great about myself - it's an engagement with the caliber or quality of your generalizations.

I'm beginning to see that if you stand on the side of men in the Church and advocate for their development and spirituality you are destined for criticism.

I think you are inaccurate in your assessment of what's going on here. I am all for engaging the question of how we can reach men with the good news of God's love. Your fundamental problem is that you only appear to stand on the side of a particular kind of man or even a caricature of what a man is (although you are getting better). This is why you receive criticism.

I would love a good full-orbed discussion of masculinity and what "makes a man a man." Things like integrity, hard work, family values, willingness to sacrifice, competitiveness, aggressiveness, etc. are a good place (and that's where you're getting to which is why I said you are getting better). Things like mountain climbing, shooting, pumping iron, and building buildings not so much (for the record I have done and enjoyed all four at various points in my life - well I never did like pumping iron, just the results).

[Bob Hunter]

Of course we can be "for men" and "for women" at the same time. But being "for men" in a male-dominated environment with a history of putting down women feels a little like being "for white people" in a culture like ours, with our history of oppressing and enslaving non-whites and ongoing struggles toward equality.

This doesn't mean you can't be "for men." It just means you have to be very careful in how you communicate about it.

For example, some would read your statement "stand on the side of men in the Church" and wonder why you're taking sides at all and who you're taking sides against. If men are on one side, it sounds like women are on the other. Clearly, that's not what you intend to communicate. Right?

Rich,

So when we stand up for women or advocate for women in ministry and have entire conferences promoting women in ministry, isn't that taking a side? I don't think so... That's not the intent at all. I stand by what I said earlier, one sex does not have to preclude the other. We can advocate for both. Careful communication, well I'm not so sure we're there yet. I don't know as I need to be lectured, been called some pretty bad stuff by some folks on this site. But at least we are having the conversation, that is a good thing. BTW, I'm fine with the criticism, let's just not let the personal attacks get out of hand. Everything John Eldredge has done and written has been met with criticism (some justified). Every time Promise keepers held a conference, the media criticized it as biblical chauvinism. The boy scouts have always been criticized, every male movement that I know of has been criticized. It's a part of the territory. That won't deter me. What are we to do? Give into to beating men up and telling them how stupid and chauvinistic they are?

[Bob Hunter]

I would love a good full-orbed discussion of masculinity and what "makes a man a man." Things like integrity, hard work, family values, willingness to sacrifice, competitiveness, aggressiveness, etc. are a good place (and that's where you're getting to which is why I said you are getting better). Things like mountain climbing, shooting, pumping iron, and building buildings not so much (for the record I have done and enjoyed all four at various points in my life - well I never did like pumping iron, just the results).

If there are men that want to crochete and do crafts with women's ministry at the Church they are certainly welcome to do so. My guess is that will be a very small number.

[Gina Stevenson]

Since you mentioned John Eldredge, tend to like to read him sometimes, too. Have you seen the "Beautiful Outlaw" videos?
Here's a link to them (months ago they had a limited time that they could be DL'd free. Whether they were full videos, not sure. Seems they were,). Anyway, that link is here:

http://www.ransomedheart.com/?q=node/1578

... while a trailer re Jesus' playfulness (yes, we have seen plenty of men who take themselves too seriously, so that men who are like this trailer suggests stand out) is here:l



WHOA! Here are several, not just one!! (ten here, tho' orig 18-19?):

http://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail?pid=24482

Finally, here are some on Hulu, noted in case they picked different ones to highlight than the above site:

http://www.hulu.com/outlaw?src=sem-p...FchpKgodz3hNSg

(we did note, BTW, that there is slme controversy)




The videos are based on this book:

http://www.christianbook.com/beautif...1?kw=beautiful outlaw&event=PPCSRC&p=1018818&cm_mmc=Google-_-Titles-_-outlaw-_-beautiful outlaw&gclid=CIS-kNiptK4CFcPAKgodYUhvOg

[Todd Erickson]

If there are men that want to crochete and do crafts with women's ministry at the Church they are certainly welcome to do so. My guess is that will be a very small number.

Once again. Statements that amount to "my experience is normative, experiences other than my own are thus understood to be of little consequence" does not lend toward discussion.

[Jon Bemis]

Kevin wrote:

I would love a good full-orbed discussion of masculinity and what "makes a man a man." Things like integrity, hard work, family values, willingness to sacrifice, competitiveness, aggressiveness, etc. are a good place (and that's where you're getting to which is why I said you are getting better). Things like mountain climbing, shooting, pumping iron, and building buildings not so much (for the record I have done and enjoyed all four at various points in my life - well I never did like pumping iron, just the results).

If there are men that want to crochete and do crafts with women's ministry at the Church they are certainly welcome to do so. My guess is that will be a very small number.

I'm having trouble seeing how your reply has anything to do with Kevin's statement. I agree with his list of values that "makes a man a man" - things "like integrity, hard work, family values, willingness to sacrifice, competitiveness, aggressiveness, etc." I would add to this faithfulness, compassion, and trustworthiness. Seems to me this should be more about being than doing.

[David Troxler]

If there are men that want to crochete and do crafts with women's ministry at the Church they are certainly welcome to do so. My guess is that will be a very small number.

Bob, this is an example of why people get frustrated with your posts.

It is a caricature of women and womens' ministry. I know some men who like to knit and crochet. Yes, perhaps few in number, but the problem with your post was the shot at women here and not at men. You have lumped into one group a picture of "this is what women do." The push-back against what you have to say is not because we disagree with reaching men, it is because of the tendency to diminish other ministry in the process. Please refrain from doing so.

I repent. I have broken my fast of hyper-masculinity and posted again. I may need to simply fast from even reading Naznet.

Your brother in Christ,
dave t

Edited to add- I can see that I was the third person in consecutive order who found an issue with your post Bob. Perhaps we are all seeing or sensing the same thing. dlt

[Bob Hunter]

Bob, this is an example of why people get frustrated with your posts.

It is a caricature of women and womens' ministry. I know some men who like to knit and crochet. Yes, perhaps few in number, but the problem with your post was the shot at women here and not at men. You have lumped into one group a picture of "this is what women do." The push-back against what you have to say is not because we disagree with reaching men, it is because of the tendency to diminish other ministry in the process. Please refrain from doing so.

I repent. I have broken my fast of hyper-masculinity and posted again. I may need to simply fast from even reading Naznet.

Your brother in Christ,
dave t

Edited to add- I can see that I was the third person in consecutive order who found an issue with your post Bob. Perhaps we are all seeing or sensing the same thing. dlt

You're right. Said something in haste. I have to work today and time ran short. Sorry fellas. We'll play nicer, I promise.

[Ryan Scott]

If there are men that want to crochete and do crafts with women's ministry at the Church they are certainly welcome to do so. My guess is that will be a very small number.

But of course, even the discussion that these are women's activities or the fact that most men don't want to do them likely speaks more to the ingrained cultural understandings of gender roles - something the Church shouldn't necessarily be supporting.

How many men wouldn't engage in these activities, even if they love them, because of how others will view their "masculinity?"

[Todd Erickson]

I want to learn to Crochet. I love to bake things. I write poetry.

However, the answer already given previously by Bob is "then you need to go find the group of men you can go and do those things with. The men that I'm trying to reach, who are fleeing the church, the real men that I want to bring back to God, would never do any of those things, and that's the only conversation I'm interested in."

If it separates the goats from the sheep, it works.

[Gina Stevenson]

I want to learn to Crochet. I love to bake things. I write poetry.

However, the answer already given previously by Bob is "then you need to go find the group of men you can go and do those things with. The men that I'm trying to reach, who are fleeing the church, the real men that I want to bring back to God, would never do any of those things, and that's the only conversation I'm interested in."

If it separates the goats from the sheep, it works.

Did u really say those things, Bob? Missed that before somehow ... "would never do those things," huh? Yeah, that was bad! Oops! .

[Bob Hunter]

I would love a good full-orbed discussion of masculinity and what "makes a man a man." Things like integrity, hard work, family values, willingness to sacrifice, competitiveness, aggressiveness, etc. are a good place (and that's where you're getting to which is why I said you are getting better). Things like mountain climbing, shooting, pumping iron, and building buildings not so much (for the record I have done and enjoyed all four at various points in my life - well I never did like pumping iron, just the results).

I think a good full-orbed discussion includes the areas of interest I have identified. Why would we not want to deal with the whole person? Certainly Jesus did. Are you suggesting we compartmentalize men? So we deal with their character, integrity, work ethic, etc., but forget that they love to golf, swim, fish, and hike? I don't think this is the right idea at all. Let's take Jesus for example. He was very earthly and manly if you ask me. He eliminated the space between himself and his disciples. Jesus was not on shore watching them from a distance, he was literally in the boat fishing with them! And Jesus, a carpenter, was found telling fisherman how to fish! He also cooked fish on a fire. Put simply, He formed disciples in the context of real life. I would take the same approach. If I were pastoring in a coastal town where most of my men were loggers and fisherman, I would get in the boat with them and slaughter some fish. I would get some boots on and cut some firewood. I would disciple them in their context. I would not disciple them on my terms, I would meet them right where they live. If I were pastoring a church of techies, I would have them hook me up with the latest gadgets and tutor me (done it). As soon as I'm done writing this post I have to write a letter of recommendation for a former member who is seeking an IT job. He is a computer geek who loves paint guns, fishing and all forms of technology. We bonded building a sound system together 6 years ago (not my thing, but I did it) and he still keeps contact with me.

Correct me if I'm wrong Kevin, but it really sounded to me like you want to compartmentalize men and their interests. And based on my experience with men, that doesn't work too well. If I get a group of men together from any given Church, it isn't long before they are talking about stereotypical male things without my help. This is a wonderful thing. I would say, yeah, let's go kill something or build a home for a family in need, or go cruising on motorcycles. Anyway, you get the idea.

[Rich Schmidt]

Rich,

So when we stand up for women or advocate for women in ministry and have entire conferences promoting women in ministry, isn't that taking a side? I don't think so... That's not the intent at all. I stand by what I said earlier, one sex does not have to preclude the other. We can advocate for both. Careful communication, well I'm not so sure we're there yet. I don't know as I need to be lectured, been called some pretty bad stuff by some folks on this site. But at least we are having the conversation, that is a good thing. BTW, I'm fine with the criticism, let's just not let the personal attacks get out of hand. Everything John Eldredge has done and written has been met with criticism (some justified). Every time Promise keepers held a conference, the media criticized it as biblical chauvinism. The boy scouts have always been criticized, every male movement that I know of has been criticized. It's a part of the territory. That won't deter me. What are we to do? Give into to beating men up and telling them how stupid and chauvinistic they are?

All I was trying to do was (1) help you understand WHY this might be a touchy topic and (2) encourage you to be careful in your communication.

If you want to toss it aside as a lecture you don't need, that's your call.

[Bob Hunter]

All I was trying to do was (1) help you understand WHY this might be a touchy topic and (2) encourage you to be careful in your communication.

If you want to toss it aside as a lecture you don't need, that's your call.

Thanks Rich, I appreciate your input. You are really a great guy with a lot of wisdom and it has served you well.

[Todd Erickson]

Did u really say those things, Bob? Missed that before somehow ... "would never do those things," huh? Yeah, that was bad! Oops! .

I don't mean it as sarcasm. Bob knows his audience. He wants to find that audience here on Naznet, and speak to them specifically about the issues he sees at hand. He does not want to converse with people who do not agree with his issue. He has found a neat and easy way to separate the folks who want another viewpoint from the folks who want his viewpoint.

At this point, the onus would be on those of us who are either used to, or wanting to, argue about a different aspect. That isn't what Bob is here for, he's fairly busy and has an injured elbow, and wants to cut to the chase.

[Marsha Lynn]

Does everything have to be masculine or feminine? Does describing something as unmanly automatically mean that it applies to femininity? I don't think so. I also don't think that Bob is saying that either. Bob has been accused of being abusive to women and forgive me if I've missed it but I don't see where he states that unmanly = womanly. Laziness may be unmanly... it is also unwomanly. It's not either-or. Just because an attribute is unbecoming to men doesn't mean that attribute is feminine. At least that's the way I see it, and Bob has given me no indication that he doesn't see it that way as well.

I just saw Todd's post and wanted to reply and acknowledge that I can see how saying "feminization of the church" as a negative thing can be offensive. However, I still think it might be helpful to understand that laziness and inhumanity are most likely not intentionally be attributed to women by anyone in this thread.

Good point, Joseph. If I read Bob's comments the same way I have read the Bible for all of my pre-gender-neutral-translation life (substituting "person" for "man" in my personal application), I find more to agree with than not in his most recent contributions to this thread. But I'm certainly not becoming more masculine when I exercise and eat right and tone up my flabby areas. I'm becoming a fit and strong woman in a physical sense. At 5' 4" and 54 years of age, I can't even begin to compete with men physically, but I can certainly become a strong and fit person by embracing the value of physical fitness and activity and commitment to my relationship to God and others.

Taking that back to the discussion of the feminization of the church, would we all find more common ground if we changed feminization to weakness? The offense and error is in associating weakness with femininity. It doesn't take much looking around to discover women with great strength of character and personality. To say that men in the church act more like women than men leads in a strange direction when you acknowledge the strength, commitment, and determination of many women. What does it even mean for a man to act like a woman in that context? Certainly it doesn't mean being lazy and uncommitted.

Bob, you will be more successful in conveying your message if you find a term for sloth and weakness that has nothing to do with gender. If you want to focus your strengthening ministry on men, that's wonderful. Do it! But don't equate laziness with femininity or call a man girly when he is honest about his weaknesses and emotions.

Just some thoughts.

Marsha

[Bob Hunter]

Bob, you will be more successful in conveying your message if you find a term for sloth and weakness that has nothing to do with gender. If you want to focus your strengthening ministry on men, that's wonderful. Do it! But don't equate laziness with femininity or call a man girly when he is honest about his weaknesses and emotions.

Just some thoughts.

Marsha

Marsha,

Thanks, I'm trying revise some of my rhetoric to better explain my views. And of course my thinking continues to evolve on the subject. Although, sloth and sluggard in the O.T. seemed to exclusively be attached to men. I don't know as I equated laziness with femininity. I did state that laziness was less than our best and that it is less manly. I am not saying it is feminine at all. My Mom and my wife are the two most important adult women in my life and they both work extremely hard.

It is disturbing to me that in many of our pulpits men's issues are never addressed exclusively. Our own NN informal poll revealed that ministry to men is pretty much impotent in most of our churches. The statistics reveal men are leaving. I see it with my own eyes, men barely tolerate worship gatherings, they sit in our pews bored to tears. We have a growing problem that needs to be addressed. Losing the next generation of young men can't be good the church and society as a whole.

[Rich Schmidt]

It is disturbing to me that in many of our pulpits men's issues are never addressed exclusively. Our own NN informal poll revealed that ministry to men is pretty much impotent in most of our churches. The statistics reveal men are leaving. I see it with my own eyes, men barely tolerate worship gatherings, they sit in our pews bored to tears. We have a growing problem that needs to be addressed. Losing the next generation of young men can't be good the church and society as a whole.

Not to go around this merry-go-round again, but I'm of the opinion that if we minister to people as people, then we'll cover all the important bases. That means reaching out to the macho men and the not-so-macho men, to the women who like to scrapbook, bake, and decorate and the women who can't stand those things.

If there are people in our congregations who are bored to tears, that's a problem, no matter who they are.

While I won't pretend that our church is doing a bang-up job reaching young people, we do seem to be appealing to and engaging with both men and women. Thank God.

[Bob Hunter]

Not to go around this merry-go-round again, but I'm of the opinion that if we minister to people as people, then we'll cover all the important bases. That means reaching out to the macho men and the not-so-macho men, to the women who like to scrapbook, bake, and decorate and the women who can't stand those things.

If there are people in our congregations who are bored to tears, that's a problem, no matter who they are.

While I won't pretend that our church is doing a bang-up job reaching young people, we do seem to be appealing to and engaging with both men and women. Thank God.

Many of our churches are not very appealing to men at all. It's a problem. I will keep barking about this issue until I see a change.

I think you are a great pastor Rich, I'm sure you have effective leadership and it appeals to men. Just not always the case. For example, I just moved to Mesa, AZ and found a Nazarene Church to become a member of. Our Pastor, Ira Brown, really appeals to me. He's an athlete, a sportsman and drives a jeep. In fact, he's training for an ironman. I think it's great. I can't keep up with him. Thankfully, we have men in our Church, and they follow his leadership. Not because of those things, but he relates to men in a way that helps them connect with God. Of course, I'm a little biased....we all know that.

[Todd Erickson]

Many of our churches are not very appealing to men at all. It's a problem. I will keep barking about this issue until I see a change.

Once again, broad stereotype, may or may not be true. A better statement might be "in my experience, many of our churches..."

Otherwise it's the same as making the statement "many men are rapists, or want to be". Based on what? How many is "many"?

[Paul DeBaufer]

If there are men that want to crochete and do crafts with women's ministry at the Church they are certainly welcome to do so. My guess is that will be a very small number.

I would probably be more comfortable doing those things than being the cage fighter that Driscoll seems to think is necessary to being a "man". If what it means to be a man is defined by Driscoll just call me a girl, I'm good with it

[Hans Deventer]

I would probably be more comfortable doing those things than being the cage fighter that Driscoll seems to think is necessary to being a "man". If what it means to be a man is defined by Driscoll just call me a girl, I'm good with it

Hi Paula! Shall we go shopping? Broke a nail while chopping wood.

[Bill Morrison]

I would probably be more comfortable doing those things than being the cage fighter that Driscoll seems to think is necessary to being a "man". If what it means to be a man is defined by Driscoll just call me a girl, I'm good with it

I don't think Nazarene churches could tolerate too many "cage fighter" type males: church board meetings might become even more difficult than they are now.

BILL

[Bob Hunter]

I don't think Nazarene churches could tolerate too many "cage fighter" type males: church board meetings might become even more difficult than they are now.

BILL

Since you brought up the cage fighting thing, I would just say that I think it is somewhat degrading. This is where I part ways with Driscoll, which is not hard to do. And the whole point of this thread was to in some way distinguish true masculinity from the hyper-masculinity. Cage fighting seems to promote aggression and anger. Not to mention the fact that it is very dangerous and some of these men have life debilitating injuries, additionally, there have even been some fatalities. Anyway, we're way off topic here fellas. And to be honest, I could care less how you attract, encourage and develop men in Christ-like discipleship, just so long as it happens. Again, if you want to sit around and crochet scarfs, I guess I'm fine with that. I doubt many will join your cause, but that's your choice.

[Bill Morrison]

Since you brought up the cage fighting thing, I would just say that I think it is somewhat degrading. This is where I part ways with Driscoll, which is not hard to do. And the whole point of this thread was to in some way distinguish true masculinity from the hyper-masculinity. Cage fighting seems to promote aggression and anger. Not to mention the fact that it is very dangerous and some of these men have life debilitating injuries, additionally, there have even been some fatalities. Anyway, we're way off topic here fellas. And to be honest, I could care less how you attract, encourage and develop men in Christ-like discipleship, just so long as it happens. Again, if you want to sit around and crochet scarfs, I guess I'm fine with that. I doubt many will join your cause, but that's your choice.

BOB:
I hope we can avoid both extremes (crocheting and cage fighting) as we design effective men's ministries in the COTN. I do appreciate your raising this thought provoking issue: it has caused at least some of us to give it consideration. I also appreciate your spirit as you have taken the salvos launched against you (see, I must be a real man since I used a military analogy....wait, women are an important part of our national defense today too....it is so confusing!) You knew you were asking for it as your first post mentioned "swatting the hornet's nest", and the thread has certainly borne that out! As a teacher of an Anatomy and Physiology course, I am well aware that any issue even remotely involved with SEX generates controversy, whether it be in biology, sociology, psychology, or church issues.

BILL

[Steven Burton]

I would probably be more comfortable doing those things than being the cage fighter that Driscoll seems to think is necessary to being a "man". If what it means to be a man is defined by Driscoll just call me a girl, I'm good with it

He must have played with or for my coaches in football.

[Hans Deventer]

I hope we can avoid both extremes (crocheting and cage fighting) as we design effective men's ministries in the COTN.

And that's the very point, Bill. The continuous insinuation is that I'm only a man if I go fishing, hunting, weight lifting, chopping wood or some other "real" manly stuff. And if I don't happen to like that, I must be part of a very small minority that apparently likes knitting at tea parties with the ladies (no political ideas here).

Both are extremes indeed.

[Bob Hunter]

And that's the very point, Bill. The continuous insinuation is that I'm only a man if I go fishing, hunting, weight lifting, chopping wood or some other "real" manly stuff. And if I don't happen to like that, I must be part of a very small minority that apparently likes knitting at tea parties with the ladies (no political ideas here).

Both are extremes indeed.

Hans,

We have some huge differences:

Based on your comments in this thread and others, I get the following message: 1) You don't like men, you don't hang out with them, you don't get the manly shtick. 2) You don't think the Church should change its appeal (even though the church is losing men). 3) You reject traditional masculine stereotypes (and you have a point, there are some things that need to be rejected) 4) Masculinity in the 21st Century is not something you have given much thought to. 5) Promoting masculine ideas must be chauvinistic.

This is not a positive agenda at all, as far as I'm concerned. I'm heading in a different direction:

1) I like the brotherhood of men. 2) I think the Church needs to be intentional and deliberate in an effort to reach men (jocks, geeks, muscles, tattoos, techies...) In addition to other corporate gatherings, we should create a venue where men can gather for the purpose of worship, fellowship and serving together 3) I don't fully reject masculine stereotypes. We can redeem and salvage some of those ideas. Of course, every generalization has a thousands exceptions...I accept that. 4) Being a man in the 21st Century is something I think about a lot. Though it is not an obsession (I'm obsessed with Christ) 5) Promoting a masculine ideas and interests can be positive and healthy for a Church.

Anyway, I'll give you a chance to respond. I accept that many folks don't see things the way I do, and I'm fine with it. We're all still brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we are pretty far apart.

[Todd Erickson]

Speaking for the geeks, most of the activities you subscribe to are held by the jocks, who are our natural enemy, and generally made our lives hell growing up. You say that you want to reach the geeks and techies, but you only want to engage in activities that they have little familiarity with, and which are usually filled by people who have little use for geeks or techies (in my experience). There's a contradiction in there...

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

We have some huge differences:

Based on your comments in this thread and others, I get the following message: 1) You don't like men, you don't hang out with them, you don't get the manly shtick.

Actually, my best friend loves cars. Here you can find pictures of our road trip to the Car Show in Frankfurt, Germany. And he and I hope to visit an oldtimer show in Essen this month. We've done several trips together in recent years.

I've been doing some trips with my son, Edwin, to New York City, to the NazNet Conference (predominantly male, btw).

Have been visiting Ben the other day, liked that a lot.

So I don't have a problem with men in general. I'm not too keen on groups of men though, might be because of the army, I don't know. In general, the level in man-only groups drops quite drastically and you are right, I don't feel at home among sexist jokes and macho behaviour. It does work better when you get them together based on specific hobby. I'm driving a 1986 Mercedes and I do like to attend meetings of interest groups. All in all, I'm critical but not necessarily negative. I do like one on one contacts the best. Less show off, more serious conversation.

2) You don't think the Church should change its appeal (even though the church is losing men).

In our district, I don't see the church loosing men. We're definitely not a mainly female church, there is a good balance. On the contrary, we recently even had two men in my local church come to faith. They are the husbands of women who attend. Could never have happened if we did such a bad job regarding men. Bottom line: in the CotN here, I see problems but not this one. The leadership is still mainly male too. Perhaps too much so.

3) You reject traditional masculine stereotypes (and you have a point, there are some things that need to be rejected)

Yes. Definitely. I hate the continuous suggestion that I'm only a man if I behave according to stereotypes. Never heard my wife complain that I'm not manly enough and I sure don't walk around with a purse and on high heels.

4) Masculinity in the 21st Century is not something you have given much thought to.

True. I try to give thought to problems, not to non-problems from my contextualized view.

5) Promoting masculine ideas must be chauvinistic.

??? Not sure what you mean here.

You know Bob, if you'd like to work in man's ministries, you are more than welcome to do so and please keep it up. The only thing we're asking is to stop going into extremes all the time. If you have a heart for men, see a need, perfect! But please let me be the man I am and don't write me off as a sissie.

[Bob Hunter]

You know Bob, if you'd like to work in man's ministries, you are more than welcome to do so and please keep it up. The only thing we're asking is to stop going into extremes all the time. If you have a heart for men, see a need, perfect! But please let me be the man I am and don't write me off as a sissie.

Hans,

Thanks for the encouragement to continue my efforts reaching out to men. Just for the record, I have not called you a sissy, don't know what you are talking about. You are obviously taking personal offense. I have said the Church (generally speaking) is suffering from a wussification factor (borrowed from Len Sweet). And, of course, I see men acquiesce and it bugs me.

Stop going to extremes, translation: Don't rock the boat, play nice, stay in the box, don't offend anyone, don't risk, etc.

NOPE! You guys play hard ball over here. Basically you are asking me to give it up. And all this time I thought NN was a place where we can vet these ideas and discover through dialouge. So I'm not sure of the basis of your comment.

[Hans Deventer]

Bob, I just tried to give an honest answer because you asked for it and because I like you. What more can I do?