Date posted: January 24, 2012
Wow. Lots of responses to my last article on masculinity and evangelicalism. A number of people have asked for some further clarifications. I noticed also that a number of people slightly misunderstood what I was attempting to say.
I was saying that evangelicalism of the 18th century saw one of its missions as challenging the aggressive, arrogant and violent code of machismo that dominated the public imagination of what it was to be a male.
By the beginning of the 20th century the public consciousness of what it was to be a male had radically altered, the code of machismo was on the whole consigned to the past. This is evidenced in the way that fascism in the early 2oth century saw contemporary modes of ‘the soft male’ as an obstacle to its goals of recreating society. Hitler lambasted the state of pre-war German masculinity, accusing it of passivity, weakness and effeminacy. Thus Hitler took a page out of Mussolini’s book and reached back into history for an alternate model of masculinity that predated Christianity’s softening.*
So what I am saying is that evangelicalism softened masculinity and that was a good thing. I think this re-envisioning of masculinity can be counted as one of its great achievements. This move created much of the social spaces of freedom in our culture today that we take for granted.
Yet in our day this softening has intensified, moving beyond the place of balance into passivity and indifference. The social dislocation of contemporary society and the aimlessness of secularism alongside numerous other factors have contributed as well.
I believe that Genesis teaches us that masculinity moves to two extremes in sin. Adam’s silence while the serpent tempts Eve points us to the sin of passivity. Cain’s murderous rage towards his brother illuminates the sin of violence. Masculinity in different cultures will move from one extreme to the other. Sometimes both extremes will be on view. All around us in the comfortable West is the sin of male passivity. The danger is that when we ignore history we attempt to solve today’s sins by ignoring the sins of the past. To return to a mode of machismo to rectify today’s passivity will only again open pandora’s box of violence, anger and arrogance.
What we need more than anything today, is not a new or old model of masculinity, but a biblical model of masculinity. One that is balanced, that does not fall into the extremes of passivity and weakness or it’s polar opposites of arrogance and violence.
Where do we find that balance? Well I think that the last word should be left to one of my readers, Jono Smith a pastor from Melbourne who wrote the following comment after reading the original article.
“Jesus was tougher and more tender than me. I need the Spirit to grow me in both directions.”
Amen Jono.
*(Of course the death of the code of machismo would see the reduction of individualist and small scale outbreaks of violence in the West, but sadly as history progressed the state would become main arbiter of violence. This transition from the medieval code of machismo to the modern mode of state sponsored violence is powerfully communicated in Tolstoy’s War and Peace which begins with aristocratic duelling and ends with total Napoleonic war.)
Date posted: January 19, 2012
There is a line of thought that currently floats around the evangelical world that goes something like this. Within the Church there is an absence of manly men. Young men are dropping out of the church, and dropping out of life. Instead of taking new ground, forthrightly stating their opinions, planting churches and getting the biz done, they find themselves drowning in a sea of passivity and metrosexuality.
Therefore the thinking goes, someone or something must take the blame for this current predicament. The usual suspect named is feminism. Although also often brought in for further questioning is a whole motley crew of suspects ranging from postmodernity, theological liberalism, the absence of male role models, or the death of male initiation ceremonies. But what if the true suspect has never been called in for questioning? What if like all good crime mysteries it is the guy that we least expect? Who is the real culprit?
(Cue dramatic music and shocked expressions please.)
The original culprit behind the softening of males in our culture is evangelicalism.
Ok I am being slightly dramatic. Evangelicalism did not create social passivity or a market for male moisturisers. Yet at one time it did see its mission to soften and pacify masculinity. Evangelicalism came of age on the new frontiers of Western culture during the eighteenth century, a time period in which a new set of challenging social situations confronted the Church. Whole populations were springing up outside of the traditional boundaries of Christendom. The industrial revolution saw millions move from the countryside to the city. New frontiers were opening up in the Americas, the Caribbean and Australasia. Evangelicalism came of age in these emerging and challenging mission fields. The dislocation of cultural change created a dislocation of masculinity.
This dislocation created an epidemic of alcoholism which gripped the Western world. Huge percentages of the male (and female) population were addicted to spirits. From the aristocracy to the working poor, adultery was a way of life. Cohabitation in the new frontiers was commonplace. Staggering numbers of women were caught in the trap of the sex trade. One in five women in London in the eighteenth century was involved in prostitution. The first missionary to Australia the Rev Richard Johnson was confronted with a colony in which historian Robert Hughes estimates that 98% of the female population was involved in some form of prostitution. The levels to which men were caught up in a cycle of addiction and adultery make our current society look tame. Yet one male error overshadowed all other vices, the sin of violence.
The modern world was being birthed, culture was morphing, yet masculinity still operated upon older outdated modes. Modes based on honour, saving face and violence. Evangelical church planters, ministers and missionaries found themselves sharing the gospel in post-Christian societies ruled by a code of machismo. Places and spaces in which the violent alpha male was king.
Whether it was the new urban poor of the UK, the convict settlements of Australia, the Western frontiers of the US and Canada, or the slave plantations of the Caribbean; social life was mediated through male aggression and violence. This violence permeated every strata of society. Between individuals murder, assault and rape were commonplace and domestic violence acceptable. Even amongst the well heeled, disputes were settled through duelling. Gangs were widespread, and mob violence normative.
The ‘terror’ of the French revolution put paid to the rules and restrictions of ‘gentlemenly’ warfare, as the new army of the Republic erased the line between civilian and combatant thus creating the idea of total warfare. Colonisation saw incredible violence unleashed upon indigenous populations. Slavery was widespread. The legal system delivered its own forms of violence. In Britain, female counterfeiters were hung and burnt, Irish rebels charged with high treason were submitted to the almost unthinkable punishment of being hanged drawn and quartered. Violence was endemic to life in the West.
If the evangelicals were to fulfil their mandate to share the good news and make disciples they had to confront violent secular models of masculinity. Historian John Wolffe notes that what was created was a new evangelical concept of manliness. One based on calling, and moral virtue rather than honour and machismo. One shaped by the fruits of the spirit, rather than the code of violence.
The language used to usher in this revolution in masculinity seems quaint to us. There is much use of the term ‘morality’ and ‘manners’, words completely out of vogue today. We all know that William Wilberforce gave his life for the abolition of slavery, but he was as equally passionate about the reformation of manners. What he and countless other evangelical stalwarts of the time understood was that they had to model a new mode of being male. One which was gentle yet forthright, active yet peaceful, dedicated yet humble.
The creation of this new evangelical model of masculinity would in turn create a new social space for women. Evangelical colleges would be amongst the first to offer higher education to women. The family was also transformed, the previous modes of masculinity saw little point in fraternising with females and children. The new evangelical mode of masculinity placed affection over aggression as the dominant mode of relating to ones family. Within a century evangelicals transformed how much of the Western world understood what it was to be male. How did they do this?
The key was pride. Pride is where everything goes wrong. Pride is linked to the idea of honour. For when honour is challenged in the world of the alpha male, violence is the only thing which can satiate. The evangelicals of the eighteen century understood that concepts of pride and honour were key in reshaping what it was to be male, and only one thing could achieve this reshaping, the gospel. Church Historian David Bebbington notes that the idea of conversion was central to evangelicalism. In their communication of the gospel on the new frontiers of the West, the evangelicals, stressed repentance, rebirth and regeneration. In coming to Christ, hardened men were forced to leave their pride at the foot of the Cross. They were invited to follow a Messiah who shunned all of the world’s ideas of honour, who could have struck back with the force of an army of angels, but who chose to die a death that was shameful in the eyes of the world but that brought eternal glory. A Messiah who was a warrior, but a warrior who fought his war in the upside down reality of the kingdom, who declared war not on flesh and blood but on death, corruption, injustice and sin. When a man of the eighteenth century frontiers of Western culture truly followed ‘the Messiah who turned the other cheek’ in open view of his peers, there was little he could do to prevent his machismo being eviscerated in an instant.
In our current crisis of masculinity it is tempting to ignore the past and instead look towards models of being a man which carry the scent of the alpha male. The danger however is that we create a new evangelical concept of maleness, a kind of Christian tough guy, one which attempts to fuse Christlikeness with machismo. Such a re-imagining of masculinity makes the mistake of replacing passivity with pridefulness. This new mode of Christian machismo paves the way for a new climate within evangelicalism marked by abrasiveness, authoritarianism and arrogance, a swelling of the male ego that blocks out others view of the Cross.
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.
Date posted: December 12, 2011
Date posted: December 2, 2011
I pulled up, parked the car, and headed for the door of the Church. Behind the stage whole teams sweated and slaved to ensure a high quality event. The band visibly under pressure rehearsed, their conversation strained. The Pastor was stressed, and moved about the auditorium checking that his leaders were discharging their various duties. The media team buzzed around in a funk of sweaty annoyance.
A giant clock appeared on the screen and began to count down to start time. This device did not seem to affect the punctuality of the attenders who dribbled in over the next fifteen minutes. The next forty minutes was a combination of phenomenal music, amazing media and a lighting and sound system that most secular venues would have been jealous of. The video announcements offered attenders a virtual cornucopia of options, programs, and activities.
I turned around and looked out into the audience as the last song before my talk was being played. The front row comprised the Church leaders, all of whom were engaged enthusiastically in the worship but as I looked deeper into the congregation I noticed that the rest of the congregation stood, at worst not singing, at best half heartedly mouthing the words. Almost every expression was blank as the colored lights flashed across their faces. Arms were crossed, gum was being chewed, the audience were the epitome of passivity.
They were not participants but consumers of a spectacle, not disciples but spectators. In that moment images of Jesus poured into my mind. Jesus walking through the silence of the desert, Jesus walking the dusty paths of Israel, announcing the kingdom of God. Shaping, disciplining and teaching his disciples. Jesus on the Cross giving up his life for the world, Jesus rising on the third day to inaugurate a new world. Instantly I was back in the auditorium, now myself staring at the show on stage like a deer caught in headlights. I shook my head and the disparity of the images in my mind and what I had just experienced.
In the past I would have blamed the Church. I would have with coldness deconstructed the service. Looked down at my nose at the methodology. The problem is that I now have seen the same look of detachment in Reformed gospel preaching churches, hip emerging churches, and polished Pentecostal services. I have seen the same bored eyes in liturgical heavy high churches and casual, organic house churches. The people who were running this church were great people, they were passionate about Jesus and sharing his mission with the world. They were dedicated to creating disciples. Yet something had fundamentally shifted. The balance of power had moved, but everyone was too busy trying to get the punters in the door to notice what had happened. My friends at the Church faced an almost impossible task, satiating the hungry beast that is the twenty-first century citizen of the West. Church was not the problem, we were.
FAITH HAS CHANGED
Listen to how differently we describe faith today. Yes, we still adhere to Christianity but our language has changed. We use terms like journey, feeling, and experience. The word awesome is everywhere, not so much describing a transcendent idea of God, but a transcendent experience; which in the current language of faith can be used interchangeably between a worship service and an skiing tour of New Zealand. Our language exposes a new way of holding to faith. One which is short term, feelings based, and fragile. Something has fundamentally changed.
REFUGEES OF FAITH
Today our religious lives are dominated by a kind of traveling, a search to find the right church, right expression of faith that delivers the right lifestyle. To contemporary sensibilities it seems ludicrous, but in the past people attended Church through a sense of duty and responsibility. A decision to attend Church was not made with individuals wants, desires and needs in mind. Rather Church attendance was part of the fabric of spiritual discipline. Today people without an ounce of shame admit that they are ‘church shopping’. Like good consumers we compare the various attributes of Churches, looking for the Christian community which will best assist us in achieving our predetermined life goals.
Some will note that the culture of transience that we find both in the Church and in the wider culture is caused by an economy in which many move jobs and thus homes regularly. Yet its real engine lies deeper in the human soul. Philosophers Hubert Dreyfus and Sean Dorrance Kelly explain, ‘To say that we live in a secular age in the modern West is to say that even religious believers face existential questions about how to live a life.’
Ours is a culture in which a constant searching for happiness is the ultimate goal, this means that believers find themselves constantly reevaluating their faith. Anxiously reassessing their beliefs, testing faith’s ability to deliver our cultures vision of the good life.
CHRISTIANITY IS NOW JUST A LIFE STAGE
One religious sociologist I heard interviewed, noted that for many young adults Christianity is now just a life stage. An experiment of adolescence explored in the way that many flirt with recreational drugs or promiscuous sexual activity during their early twenties. Christianity then is reduced to just one of many tools that the individual tries during their life in the quest for the good life. These heightened expectations of faith and radical individualism, presents an incredible challenge to faith. Sociologist Wade Clark Roof has observed that, “The real story of American religious life in this half-century is the rise of a new sovereign self that defines and sets limits on the very meaning of the divine.”
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach commenting on the religiosity of contemporary culture, notes that in the West we now have “a generation whose principal desire is to feel G-d rather than worship Him.”
In such a climate, faith becomes just one rest stop on the highway of life. The culture of the Road has subverted Christian discipleship in the West.
Next Time in Part 2 What is the Culture of the Road?
Date posted: November 25, 2011
The Jerusalem Advertising Journal. 33Ad.
By Avram Ben Haim Chief Brand Strategist of the Haaretz Group.
Just over four weeks ago outside of Jerusalem the Roman authorities executed the man known as Jesus of Nazareth. There were no riots, no public uproar, even the majority of his followers stayed away from what was a humiliating end. However this was not just the death of another Messianic pretender, this was catastrophic public relations disaster of the highest order. Thus the purpose of this article is to learn from the mistakes that Jesus and his handlers made, mistakes which ruined one of our nation’s strongest brands.
In an already crowded market of Messianic pretenders, radical Rabbis and Elijah-esque wanna be prophets, Jesus had star power. His emergence around three years ago was like a shooting star in the night sky. There was something magic about him, a point of difference that agents, marketers, sponsors and brand managers like myself see only once in a lifetime.
I remember sitting in a focus group sponsored by the Jerusalem Times, and having to pick my jaw up off of the floor at the responses from the group. Never before had I seen such brand recognition, such identification with a public figure. He cut across the major demographic groups, even appealing to notoriously difficult market segments such as the Samaritans. When I heard the numbers that he was polling amongst the Goyim I knew that we had a sensation on our hands, marketing lighting in a bottle.
Jesus dodged some bad publicity and numbers in his home town to roar into the public’s consciousness like a modern day Maccabee. His message had cut through, amongst his audience could be found liberal Sadducees, socially conservative Pharisees and your run of the mill rural aspirationals. His association with the already strong brand of John the Baptist gave him a sense of authenticity that money cannot buy. A number of brilliantly conceived psuedo-events such as a giant public festival come picnic, some very public healings and his sermon on the mount moved him into top of the Messianic charts. No one appeared more ready, more able, more publicly positioned to usher in the Davidic Kingdom that the prophets had promised. Yet just as we were expecting to see the streets running with Roman blood, and Israel established at the centre of world government and trade, the Jesus brand turned into a car wreck.
The crowd screamed, grown men cried as Jesus headed towards the temple. Riding on the Davidic donkey was sheer genius. It was all going to happen, even this cynical old brand manager stood in the crowd that day felt goose bumps, but then the most public of meltdowns, a temper tantrum of the highest order. The turning of the tables, the yelling, the assault against the poor working people in the temple. Something had gone horribly wrong.
In fact something had been very wrong for a while. It was the usual cocktail, I have seen it countless times amongst those cast into the public glare. Of course everyone has heard the rumours of the parties and the drinking. Yet I believe that the real issue was a power struggle amongst Jesus’ advisors and media handlers. The sensible business acumen of Judas Iscariot seems to have been challenged by the weapon carrying thug Simon (who also goes by the alias Peter), the boy from the country seems to have preferred hometown hoodlums to the wiser, sensible heads. Like so many before him, Jesus seemed unable to handle the fame, the usual signs of mental illness were there, the isolating of himself, the running from the public, the constant talk of death. The morbid and restrictive demands put upon those following him. The last public polling of Jesus conducted just hours before his death produced numbers that were as painful as the execution he was just about to endure.
So the sordid affair ended with a heretic enduring a justified death. In the coming years Jesus will be forgotten, (apart from a small lunatic fringe who have already begun circulating rumours of ghostlike visions and appearances). The man I feel most sorry for most in this horrible saga is Judas Iscariot, who tragically took his own life. I believe that Jesus’ early success was attributable to his careful brand management, then regrettably the lunatics took over the asylum. Prayers and best wishes to his family, he was one of us.
So what can we learn as brand managers? If you want to learn how to massage fame, to position celebrity, to create a much loved brand, study what Jesus of Nazareth did and then do the opposite.
Read more blog posts
