Roger Olson's remedy for young males

[Bob Hunter]

I really like Roger Olson. He has a very refreshing approach to many issues and I appreciate it.

We've had some pretty tough conversations on NN regarding issues of gender and particularly men who are increasingly absent from the pew. At times it has been frustrating because we have not been able to find answers or areas agreement. Men need ministries that are targeted to them specifically as do women. But pulling that off is not without difficulty.

Roger Olson's article is a thoughtful reflection on violence and society, he addresses God, guns and guts. He deals with the male crisis in a very constructive way and offers some specific proposals. Oslon states that we can treat one gender without being sexist and I wholeheartedly agree. I believe gender specific ministries are helpful and they do NOT have to be sexist or exclusive in any way. Gender specific ministries can compliment an overall goal.

Oslon's article goes beyond that and addresses a male crisis at large. It's worth reading and he also addresses some female issues.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereo...guns-and-guts/

I would be interested in your comments and particularly his proposal that we use our pulpits to speak to the issue.

[Hans Deventer]

Read the blog when it was posted, didn't dare to quote it here. You're brave.

[Bob Hunter]

I'm either brave or glutton for punishment!

[James Diggs]

Bob, I having trouble wrapping my head around this one. It's not that I disagree what we need ministries for men and women, but I am concerned that in our attempts we over generalize and marginalize those who don't fit as comfortably in the stereotypes.

Whether it is eating disorders or violence what may happen to effect one gender more than the other still effects all of us. I don't mean "all of us" just because it is possible for a boy to have an eating disorder a woman to give into violence, but I mean "all of us" because we are in this thing called being human together. I need to know about the dangers of both regardless of my propensity for temptation because I love my neighbor (who is different from me in some ways) as myself.

I have no problem acknowledging our gender differences when it comes to typical leanings (biological and/or cultural) but I am cautious of tailoring such to be the focus of our message. I am very leery of the so called "biblical manhood" and "biblical womanhood" message that some people push as it just seems to want to baptize certain cultural expectations and rolls as the "biblical" ones.

I am not sure how relevant what I am saying is to what you are saying, I am still not sure what you are hoping for. I have no problem with men spending time with men, or women doing the same with women and ministries designed to foster these relationships. I am just not sure what it is you are looking for beyond this.

[Bob Hunter]

Bob, I having trouble wrapping my head around this one. It's not that I disagree what we need ministries for men and women, but I am concerned that in our attempts we over generalize and marginalize those who don't fit as comfortably in the stereotypes.

Whether it is eating disorders or violence what may happen to effect one gender more than the other still effects all of us. I don't mean "all of us" just because it is possible for a boy to have an eating disorder a woman to give into violence, but I mean "all of us" because we are in this thing called being human together. I need to know about the dangers of both regardless of my propensity for temptation because I love my neighbor (who is different from me in some ways) as myself.

I have no problem acknowledging our gender differences when it comes to typical leanings (biological and/or cultural) but I am cautious of tailoring such to be the focus of our message. I am very leery of the so called "biblical manhood" and "biblical womanhood" message that some people push as it just seems to want to baptize certain cultural expectations and rolls as the "biblical" ones.

I am not sure how relevant what I am saying is to what you are saying, I am still not sure what you are hoping for. I have no problem with men spending time with men, or women doing the same with women and ministries designed to foster these relationships. I am just not sure what it is you are looking for beyond this.

You raise some valid points James. I think there is always a risk in addressing one gender or the other exclusively. I think Olson is saying that given the crisis we face among young males, it is worth the risk and doing so does not mean we are sexist.

I would hope your concerns do not give way to inaction. Overgeneralizing and forcing people into a stereotype are certainly things we must avoid. But in avoiding those things, have we avoided the issue altogether?

I'm looking for answers and Olson gives me hope that we can boldly address the issue (and it is largely a gender specific one) without getting sucked into the hyper-masculinity of Driscoll and Piper.

[Craig Laughlin]

I'm not real sure mass shootings are the jumping off point for this discussion. Folks that do this sort of thing are way past male formation issues, they are in my opinion deeply disturbed and psychotic. That being said I do think the violence we see among young men in general probably has some roots in male formation.

I tend to be an advocate of redirecting and focusing over forbidding. Traditionally I think this was done Father to Son. Boys were allowed to express their more "violent" tendencies while taught to focus them toward constructive ends and penalized when exercising them against the weak. (boys rough housed, hit each other and hunted but were taught - don't hurt people weaker than you, never point a gun at a person, don't break things, it is okay to be angry but what you do when you're angry matters, etc)

I think in many ways the problem is the absence of constructive fathering or fathers period. One of the things that surprised me in my current church is when we have a shooting day. Anyone is welcome but it is almost exclusively men and teenage boys that attended. Being the pastor I schoozed a little, shot a few guns then watched. I was amazed that there was this natural bonding going on between older men and teenage boys as they taught them how to use the guns. Every time we do it the relationship and respect, even admiration between our men and our teen boys is greatly strengthened. I am looking for more ways to connected Godly men to our boys who I hope will one day be Godly men but must learn it.

[Nate Pruitt]

There isn't one thing in that article that I wouldn't teach collectively so that, regardless of gender, because it is better for all to be informed and educated for the purpose of collective influence in individual lives. That is to say that if there were a situation where the pleas or encouragement of females in the church were more likely to influence a male (or vice versa) it would be a shame for me to have left them ill-equipped and uneducated about the matter.

Also, I guess I'm pretty special because I have spoken about the things listed in the article. Can I get a gold star sticker or something?

[Craig Laughlin]

There isn't one thing in that article that I wouldn't teach collectively so that, regardless of gender, because it is better for all to be informed and educated for the purpose of collective influence in individual lives. That is to say that if there were a situation where the pleas or encouragement of females in the church were more likely to influence a male (or vice versa) it would be a shame for me to have left them ill-equipped and uneducated about the matter.

Also, I guess I'm pretty special because I have spoken about the things listed in the article. Can I get a gold star sticker or something?

Looks like we need a Gold Star emotican.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'm either brave or glutton for punishment!

Both? Yeah. both

[James Diggs]

Both? Yeah. both

But that sometimes describes those who earnestly, and with a holy reckless abandonment when it comes to protecting themselves, are looking for ways to respond and make a difference in our world for good. I really appreciate Bob for that.

[Paul DeBaufer]

But that sometimes describes those who earnestly, and with a holy reckless abandonment when it comes to protecting themselves, are looking for ways to respond and make a difference in our world for good. I really appreciate Bob for that.

I concur.

[Bob Hunter]

Appreciate the kind remarks. I really do.

[Rich Schmidt]

If the point being made is, "We need to speak up and address these issues that young men face," then I have absolutely no problem with it. Ministry to specific groups (men, women, teens, kids) is a good thing.

Where I'm having trouble is trying to connect this with the kinds of things you've been saying, Bob, about men, women, and the church. If all you were doing was calling us to address the issues men face, I don't think the conversations would be heated at all.

[Billy Cox]

If the point being made is, "We need to speak up and address these issues that young men face," then I have absolutely no problem with it. Ministry to specific groups (men, women, teens, kids) is a good thing.

Where I'm having trouble is trying to connect this with the kinds of things you've been saying, Bob, about men, women, and the church. If all you were doing was calling us to address the issues men face, I don't think the conversations would be heated at all.

I have observed that some people have issues that are on a 'hair trigger'. The thread about men in the Salvation Army is a good example. Just mention gender issues, and some people go on a tirade about women in ministry...and fundamentalist sexism/hypocrisy...and guilt by association, etc.

[Bob Hunter]

If the point being made is, "We need to speak up and address these issues that young men face," then I have absolutely no problem with it. Ministry to specific groups (men, women, teens, kids) is a good thing.

Where I'm having trouble is trying to connect this with the kinds of things you've been saying, Bob, about men, women, and the church. If all you were doing was calling us to address the issues men face, I don't think the conversations would be heated at all.

Rich,

Nope, I don't buy that at all. Not a chance. Billy's response is exactly right one. Moreover, some of the things I have said are not necessary the way I think it "ought to be." I openly confess I am trying to live between the ideal and the real and admittedly the tension is palpable. Besides, my experience has been that it doesn't matter how determined you are to have an "equality" mindset, the minute you propose an agenda that is exclusively for men you get hammered with criticism for doing so (and it is always from the same group). Of course, it doesn't help when you have people like yourself who--in so many words--propose we strive for a "genderless" utopia. And then we have Ryan who proposes we have no gender specific ministries at all in the Church (that will go over real well with women's ministry). You might want to go back and read your comments on the Hyper-masculinity thread from a few months ago-pretty radical if you ask me. So, I very much disagree with you (and Ryan) on this. I do say that respectfully because I believe you are a very fine pastor (as is Ryan) and I appreciate much of what you both contribute on NN.

[Rich Schmidt]

Rich,

Nope, I don't buy that at all. Not a chance. Billy's response is exactly right one. Moreover, some of the things I have said are not necessary the way I think it "ought to be." I openly confess I am trying to live between the ideal and the real and admittedly the tension is palpable. Besides, my experience has been that it doesn't matter how determined you are to have an "equality" mindset, the minute you propose an agenda that is exclusively for men you get hammered with criticism for doing so (and it is always from the same group). Of course, it doesn't help when you have people like yourself who--in so many words--propose we strive for a "genderless" utopia. And then we have Ryan who proposes we have no gender specific ministries at all in the Church (that will go over real well with women's ministry). You might want to go back and read your comments on the Hyper-masculinity thread from a few months ago-pretty radical if you ask me. So, I very much disagree with you (and Ryan) on this. I do say that respectfully because I believe you are a very fine pastor (as is Ryan) and I appreciate much of what you both contribute on NN.

OK, Bob, I just went back to that thread and re-read all my posts. I didn't find anything radical in them. I certainly didn't "propose we strive for a 'genderless' utopia," in those words or any others. (Side note: Did you mean to type "not in so many words?" Because I certainly never used those words.) What did I say that you found to be "pretty radical?"

I did recognize that gender and sex are not synonymous, that gender attributes that fit under the labels "masculine" and "feminine" are socially and culturally defined, which means they change as societies and cultures change. But that's not radical. That's just sociology. Or is it anthropology? Whichever... it's just science. And attempting to communicate clearly, defining our terms, etc.

I stand by my earlier assertion: If all you were doing here was calling for churches to address the issues that men face, I think our conversations would have very little "heat." Most churches and pastors that I'm aware of want to appeal to as much of their community as possible, in order to reach them with the gospel. Most churches and pastors that I'm aware of have no problem with having ministries that reach out to specific groups of people - women, men, youth, etc.

Sure, we may debate what effective ministry to men would look like. We might disagree on what types of men (or women or youth) our churches should be trying to connect with, or even whether those groups are homogenous enough to fit under one ministry umbrella. Can one youth ministry effectively connect with jocks, nerds, and stoners? Can one men's ministry effectively connect with business leaders, sports enthusiasts, bikers, artists, and online gamers? Etc.

But my impression is that you're not satisfied with calling us to do more to connect with and minister to the men in our communities. You make statements that appear to me to go two or three steps beyond that, and those tend to be the statements that draw the heat. That's my opinion, based on the threads you and I have conversed in.

BTW, I'm glad you're calling us to pay attention to this issue. It's an important one that all of us should be thinking about.

[Bob Hunter]

Rich,

What did I say that you found to be "pretty radical?"

You seem to suggest that we discard anything that is culturally conditioned related to gender. My point was and remains that not all cultural conditioning is bad. I used the example of staffing your Church nursery. I doubt you would staff with all men. If you really believe that we can throw out all stereotypes, I dare you to do it. The first new Mom that shows up with her clingy breast feeding 6 month old is going to turn tail and run. I'm saying there are some things that men and women are --by design -- cut out to do and there is nothing wrong with recognizing that. That is not to say we don't have men and women who shatter those expectations and transcend the cultural stereotype. By the same token, I don't see you asking women's ministry to provide volunteers for a community service project that involves giving free oil changes to single moms. Now, you might have a female gear head in the mix, fine let her show up and get her hands dirty- God bless her.

Can one men's ministry effectively connect with business leaders, sports enthusiasts, bikers, artists, and online gamers? Etc.

You are missing the point. Masculine spirituality has the ability to reach beyond interest levels and specifically touch on issues that men are dealing with such as anger, sexual temptation, fatherhood, being a good husband, etc. At that point it does not matter if you have a gear head, biker, business leader, artist, etc. Sure, women deal with anger and sexual temptation. But they do so very differently and I believe the Church ought to be a place where these issues can be addressed in a gender specific way. No harm in that whatsoever, in fact, I'm saying we need to be more focused and this is likely one of the reasons we fail to inspire men, we blanket their issues with a "we're here to love everyone" message --and it isn't working Rich.

But my impression is that you're not satisfied with calling us to do more to connect with and minister to the men in our communities. You make statements that appear to me to go two or three steps beyond that, and those tend to be the statements that draw the heat. That's my opinion, based on the threads you and I have conversed in.

Yes, I drop right down to 3rd & 4th line defenses so it draws more heat, I'm fine with it. At least I'm not ignoring the issue or pretending that everything is fine. Yes, it makes people mad, but don't you think we should all be channeling our anger toward a positive agenda to reclaim men who seem to think the Church is a pretty sterile place and opt to stay home?

BTW, I don't have a specific goal for these discussions, so being satisfied with the outcome of this thread has not really crossed my mind. The real issue I have is with people who either want to ignore the problem or do nothing about it. I would rather stumble into a solution having made a lot of mistakes than let that happen. I'm not sure how far to go with this, I do know one thing, we haven't gone far enough to address the real crisis among us. Mark Driscoll is making us all look like wusses, in the meantime he is succeeding (in some bad ways) but nevertheless.

[James Diggs]

I want to say first I don't see any "heat" in the conversations in this thread- I see some disagreement, but some of that seems to be trying to understand where people are coming from.

Masculine spirituality has the ability to...

What is "Masculine spirituality"? I honestly don't know what that is. I confess I think spirituality has both what we consider masculine and feminine qualities and I can understand perhaps an affinity to what we may relate to easier based on our gender to some of these more than others, but I don't understand it as a different kind of compartmentalized spirituality. Our spirituality reflects our human condition made in the image of God- it is the same whether you are a man or a woman.

Now I said, I don't know what you mean by "Masculine spirituality", so forgive any assumptions I may have made with my response after my initial statment. I am just trying to understand what you are talking about.

Yes, it makes people mad, but don't you think we should all be channeling our anger toward a positive agenda to reclaim men who seem to think the Church is a pretty sterile place and opt to stay home?

Do you think the sterility of the church today is because it is more "feminine" than "masculine"? To answer myself, while I agree our church's seem to have more women then men I don't think this is because of some feminine dominance in the church that marginalizes the masculine. If anything I think even the women in our churches generally only attracts a very narrow sample of what it "means" to be a "woman" in the world (according to what they think is "biblical"). Many women in our culture don't feel comfortable with the kind of "femininity" in what they perceive in the "church ladies" that spend Sundays and Wednesday nights in church buildings.

We might have more women then men in our churches, but largely we are talking about churches that are dying out in our post Christian culture anyway. I just wonder if this is more of a gospel problem than a gender problem because frankly we have not done a good job of preaching mutual submission to one another in the context of all relationships as part of the gospel.

We tend to preach gender rolls and in this our submission is focused on rolls rather than on one another. Rolls are easier, proponents of them say they encourage "order" in the name of being "biblical", but I believe they can, when not negotiated relationally, undermine our call to mutual submission as unto the Lord (which is the the real biblical point).

Bob, I do think men are suffering from a bit of an identity crisis in our culture, but I am not sure the answer is to reach for ways to "man up" our appeal. I think the identity crisis is due to the fact that many men are used to being on top culturally, and that is changing and don't know what to do now that the cultural rules they were brought up in have changed on them. I think this parallels a change for us a Christians who are used to being on top but now find ourselves in a post-Christian culture too in many ways.

I think the gospel is always hardest to receive by those on top, or fighting to stay there. But the gospel is the only thing that can bring real healing to such an identity crisis. I think this is true because men need healing, like all of us, as human beings first and foremost and only after that context is embraced do I think we get any healing as men or women. This is because despite all our difference, as sacred as those difference are, we are complete when we understand the ways we are the same and find solidarity in each other as we are all created (man or woman, Jew or gentile) in the image of God. Understanding this requires a new definition of being "on top" as we engage in a race to the bottom instead for the sake of the other AS ourselves.

In our ministries for men we need to preach the gospel that calls us to lay down our cultural roles of being on top and engage in the race to the bottom. I can see this as being something that wouldn't sit well for many in our culture today we are trying to reach. But even still, I think it is the first step to reclaiming our redeemed humanity and in that context what it means to be whatever gender we happen to be in that context.

BTW, I don't have a specific goal for these discussions, so being satisfied with the outcome of this thread has not really crossed my mind. The real issue I have is with people who either want to ignore the problem or do nothing about it. I would rather stumble into a solution having made a lot of mistakes than let that happen. I'm not sure how far to go with this, I do know one thing, we haven't gone far enough to address the real crisis among us. Mark Driscoll is making us all look like wusses, in the meantime he is succeeding (in some bad ways) but nevertheless.

Well I am glad you don't have a specific goal in this thread, because without being sure of what you were even talking about I picked a direction and just went with it that may take us further away from what you were trying to get at. Forgive me if this was the case or I assumed too much in my response.

What do you think is causing the crisis you speak of, and how is Driscoll making us both look bad while succeeding (in good and bad ways) in the meantime?

[Rich Schmidt]

You seem to suggest that we discard anything that is culturally conditioned related to gender. My point was and remains that not all cultural conditioning is bad.

I'm sorry it seemed that way to you. That's certainly not what I said or suggested. Mainly because it would be impossible. Gender (masculine/feminine) is a social/cultural construct. Throwing out everything that is culturally conditioned would leave us with very little.

I also never said that all of that "cultural conditioning" is bad. But I did say that some of it is, and that I'm glad to be Nazarene because we actively stand against some of it (the idea that women can't lead in the church being the main example).

I used the example of staffing your Church nursery. I doubt you would staff with all men. If you really believe that we can throw out all stereotypes, I dare you to do it. The first new Mom that shows up with her clingy breast feeding 6 month old is going to turn tail and run. I'm saying there are some things that men and women are --by design -- cut out to do and there is nothing wrong with recognizing that. That is not to say we don't have men and women who shatter those expectations and transcend the cultural stereotype. By the same token, I don't see you asking women's ministry to provide volunteers for a community service project that involves giving free oil changes to single moms. Now, you might have a female gear head in the mix, fine let her show up and get her hands dirty- God bless her.

I wouldn't staff my church nursery with all men by choice, no. But if those were the only volunteers available, then I would. My goal isn't to "throw out all stereotypes." But I am a big fan of not allowing them to dictate or limit who God can call or use (which was part of the context of my comments on the other thread).

You are missing the point. Masculine spirituality has the ability to reach beyond interest levels and specifically touch on issues that men are dealing with such as anger, sexual temptation, fatherhood, being a good husband, etc. At that point it does not matter if you have a gear head, biker, business leader, artist, etc. Sure, women deal with anger and sexual temptation. But they do so very differently and I believe the Church ought to be a place where these issues can be addressed in a gender specific way. No harm in that whatsoever, in fact, I'm saying we need to be more focused and this is likely one of the reasons we fail to inspire men, we blanket their issues with a "we're here to love everyone" message --and it isn't working Rich.

I was just tossing those questions out there as possible conversation topics. But you make a good point that there are issues that transcend those differences. I suppose you would say, then, that yes, a cohesive men's ministry is possible with a diverse mix of different types of guys. I think I agree.

Yes, I drop right down to 3rd & 4th line defenses so it draws more heat, I'm fine with it. At least I'm not ignoring the issue or pretending that everything is fine. Yes, it makes people mad, but don't you think we should all be channeling our anger toward a positive agenda to reclaim men who seem to think the Church is a pretty sterile place and opt to stay home?

As long as you don't imply that those who aren't willing to follow you as far as you want to go are "ignoring the issue or pretending that everything is fine," I'm happy.

Remember, too, that we're all participating from within our own contexts. Some here are in churches that are successfully reaching both men and women (or at least reaching them equally well or poorly). Those folks might not agree with you about the magnitude of the problem, but that doesn't mean they're ignoring it. It might just not be a major problem in their churches.

[Bob Hunter]

What is "Masculine spirituality"?

I like what Richard Rohr and others are doing with it and not necessary Mark Driscoll although he contributes to the conversation in a narrow way. Masculine spirituality is a way of talking about the masculine journey with language that men understand. Richard Rohr defines it this way: A masculine spirituality would be one that encourages men to take the radical gospel journey from their unique beginning point, in their own unique style, with their own unique goals – without doubt or apology or imitation of their sisters (or mothers, for that matter).

Rohr is somewhat hard to follow on some issues, but some of his material on masculine spirituality is profound and he is about as far away from chauvinism as you can get.

Bob, I do think men are suffering from a bit of an identity crisis in our culture, but I am not sure the answer is to reach for ways to "man up" our appeal.

I'm glad you recognize the problem, it's an epidemic actually. The so called "unisex" approach is not the solution either. We cannot oversex or undersex the Church, there has to be a balance. But when you see a consistent gender gap it causes you to wonder if corrective measures should be taken. Oh, I know someone is going to quote Gal. 3:28. That's fine, I'm all for us being integrated as one whole body of Christ. Not a problem, it's within that oneness that we find separateness and distinction and I think that is healthy.

What do you think is causing the crisis you speak of, and how is Driscoll making us both look bad while succeeding (in good and bad ways) in the meantime?

Our gospel has not been radical enough for one. The Church has a pinterest problem and appeals to women in their 40's with children (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/tech/w...est/index.html)

I would also add that attractional model programming and evangelism tend to create an impersonal "soft sell" approach to communicating the gospel. We Nazarenes love to preach/teach and conduct meetings where one person does all the talking. We do not mentor people in the context of real life and as a result we have kept the Christian male demographic in an underdeveloped spiritual state. This is why I have invested the last 4 years of my life to one-on-one mentoring partnerships. It has opened the door to some very neat opportunities that include writing curriculum, teaching the concept, and sharing my journey. If I were currently pastoring, I would require my staff (both male and female) to develop mentoring partnerships and model life-on-life experiential learning together. I would ask, who are you mentoring? And, who is your mentor?

Moreover, complimentarianism is a dirty word for most, so we reject what it is has to offer. I think this is wrong. I tried, unsuccessfully, to redeem the best components of complimentarianism and egalitarianism in order to forge a third way of thinking about genders. Epic fail! I couldn't pull it off convincingly...so much for experimental thinking. I like what complimentarianism offers because in some very significant ways it heals the gender dichotomy instead of fueling more dualism. It communicates (or it could) that we really need each other which brings to mind the memorable Jerry McGuire line: You complete me! On the other hand, I like egalitarianism because it secures equal worth and value. Maybe its time to take another stab at deconstructing both of them.

[Bob Hunter]

I'm sorry it seemed that way to you. That's certainly not what I said or suggested. Mainly because it would be impossible. Gender (masculine/feminine) is a social/cultural construct. Throwing out everything that is culturally conditioned would leave us with very little.

You didn't say that before, you never suggested, in earlier posts, it would be impossible so I was left with that impression. It threw me, but I'm cool with these statements.

I suppose you would say, then, that yes, a cohesive men's ministry is possible with a diverse mix of different types of guys. I think I agree.

Yap! That has been my experience. And I am suggesting we encourage it. Let it happen. A spiritual comradery will evolve and transform the Church. I think Kyle's post a while back illustrated this idea extremely well.

A lot of this comes down to a balance of separateness and oneness. I tend to react to the oneness (unisex) approach because it does not inspire men in the least. Some have reacted to some of my separateness... perhaps interpreting it as gender polarization??? Not sure, but I think there has to be a balance. Men have a distinct identity and there is nothing wrong with encouraging them to discover it in the Church. We just need to be more intentional about it and not live in fear of someone crying foul or accusing us of chauvinism.