tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123966.post8818882046362727449..comments2023-08-07T05:58:59.078-07:00Comments on Random Musings: The masculinization of the church, part 3Rebeccahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847552432061325769noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123966.post-48992561178702680462008-05-20T07:55:00.000-07:002008-05-20T07:55:00.000-07:00Audrey, here are some links which describe the lan...Audrey, here are some links which describe the language being used:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://itodyaso.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/starbucks-is-an-emergent-church-like-entity/" REL="nofollow">This link</A> has the author simply using the word "feminized" to cast aspersion on Starbucks, which he compares to the emergent church. It's just part of the lingo of many men -- everything they perceive as bad is "feminized." And that doesn't refer to feminism, btw.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.the-next-wave-ezine.info/issue95/index.cfm?id=18&ref=ARTICLES_FEATURED%20ARTICLE%3A%20AT%20THE%20TOP_273" REL="nofollow">This next link</A> nails the logical problem on the head, as far as I'm concerned. I simply said it's a false dichotomy between emotional, heartfelt worship and sound doctrine, and the author of this link claims it's a false dichotomy men make between the transcendence and the immanence of God, which might be the case and is worth thinking about. But I agree that the primary problem is a false dilemma, or dichotomy is being made between the relational and the factual, to the point where one gets labeled a "girl" problem and is "bad" and we need to get back to the "boy" stuff.<BR/><BR/>In the first place, it's not a "girl" problem, so the label is wrong. In the second place, what they are complaining about is not always necessarily a bad thing that throws objectivity and the basic facts of the faith out the window.<BR/><BR/>In truth -- both the relational, and the objective, are necessary, and if we must label one pink, and the other blue, I guess we must, but for heaven's sake they are both needed, and are two aspects of who we are in both our cognitive and our emotional and personal relationship to our Creator.simplegifts3https://www.blogger.com/profile/08000500581749760466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123966.post-55767445811905562008-05-20T07:26:00.000-07:002008-05-20T07:26:00.000-07:00Rebecca, I linked to your blog in my post about Ir...Rebecca, I linked to your blog in my post about Irena Sendler, a woman I found out about from <A HREF="http://runwithpatience.wordpress.com" REL="nofollow">Sandy's blog</A>.<BR/><BR/>I said I viewed these latest entries of yours as a kind of "reverse parody" of all the trashing of the "feminization" of the church.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your comment that we need to be the perfect blend of both the masculine and the feminine, and I kind of sort of agree that SINCE what is feminine about the church IS dismissed as evil by men such as the Baylys, then turn about is certainly fair play.<BR/><BR/>However, I'm not going to play by their rules. I think what you have done here is a good job of table turning. But because I don't agree with characterizing problems as "boy" problems" or "girl problems," I can only take this as a parody.<BR/><BR/>Audrey, I don't know what circles you run around in, but from the Roman Catholic church to most Evangelical churches I've been in, the men have been the ones in charge. For the most part, in my current church, they are leading well, and not as Rebecca describes. That doesn't make them less masculine, however, just not into heavy handed authoritarianism, which Jesus condemned in the gospels, and which Peter and Paul (who were manly men) said should not characterize church leaders.<BR/><BR/>But more to the point, what you may not be aware of is there are many places online where men speak of the evils of the "feminization" of the church, and they are <I>not</I> strictly speaking of women becoming pastors/elders/whatever, or doing most of the work in the church, although that may be a point here and there in those discussions. But primarily, they are speaking of what they call "feminized" praise choruses, the emphasis on a heartfelt relationship with God, a sense of community and interpersonal connectedness in the church. These things they label as "feminizing" influences, and the insinuation is always there in the articles I've read that these things are bad. That men shy away from these things and (totally unlike King David, btw), don't like to get into expressing the emotional side of their relationship to God, so it's the fault of the women's feminine influence that the men stay away. Which, when you think of King David (a man after God's own heart) is PURE RUBBISH. <BR/><BR/>The Postmodern and Emerging influences may be described in these terms as well. Never mind that it is the MEN, such as Rob Bell and Brian McClaren, who are primarily leading the way in these matters. Some of the people who oppose Bell and McClaren still have to describe these things as "girl" or "pink" evils that we need to get rid of so the church can become more "manly." By that they mean that it is the women who throw sound doctrine to the wind in favor of the ooey-gooey stuff, and all these influences are bad because they replace sound doctrine.<BR/><BR/>They don't say this in those exact words, but that is the clear implication.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is, it's a false dilemma/dichotomy they make, because heartfelt praise and relationships are the essence of eternal life, according to Jesus -- who said, "And this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." To have one, and to emphasize it, doesn't mean that one necessarily eschews sound doctrine.simplegifts3https://www.blogger.com/profile/08000500581749760466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123966.post-49970895037555032602008-05-19T19:45:00.000-07:002008-05-19T19:45:00.000-07:00hmmm....perhaps you need to send some of those mas...hmmm....perhaps you need to send some of those masculine males this way, because in many churches here its the woman doing most of the work, with little leadership. In fact some might say that the church is mostly a female establishment, with woman filling the seats and men staying at home. <BR/><BR/>We need to remember that God made males very different than he made us females. They were created to see a problem and fix it....I would venture to say that most men step out on this duty more so than those who step up to the plate. We have men who would rather leave all the bill paying, big decisions, etc, etc to their wives instead of taking on responsibility. Where are you finding all these take charge kinda guys...I'll need to know where to look in 20 years for my daughters. <BR/><BR/>I personally would rather have a man with some initiative and backbone (even if he faulters sometimes) than one who slithers away from responsiblity...just my personal preference. <BR/><BR/>An interesting view none the less...one I've never heard before, nor witnessed.Audreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12286535699695282421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123966.post-13681357272724613922008-05-19T13:04:00.000-07:002008-05-19T13:04:00.000-07:00I've seen that problem up close and personally, ha...I've seen that problem up close and personally, have been the victim of some pretty ham-handed handling of "cell groups" that mitigated against the relationships they were designed to support. But I never really thought of it as a masculinization. Though now that you mention it...that does seem like a one-word summary of what's wrong with the cell group movement. <BR/><BR/>I've also seen complaints that the church is too feminine: that men are uncomfortable singing love songs to Jesus and sharing their feelings in small fellowship group meetings or sitting still for a 45 minute sermon about (essentially) relationships. I feel compassionate about that too.Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05921654315127035691noreply@blogger.com