The Burden of Proof

Biblical maturity sufficient to lead at some level in the church.  

A close look at many churches will reveal that a central problem is the lack of biblical maturity among the men of the congregation and a lack of biblical knowledge that leaves men ill equipped and completely unprepared to exercise spiritual leadership.

Boys must know their way around the biblical text, and feel at home in the study of God's Word. They must stand ready to take their place as leaders in the local church.

While God has appointed specific officers for his church — men who are specially gifted and publicly called — every man should fulfill some leadership responsibility within the life of the congregation. For some men, this may mean a less public role of leadership than is the case with others. In any event, a man should be able to teach someone, and to lead in some ministry, translating his personal discipleship into the fulfillment of a godly call.

There is a role of leadership for every man in every church, whether that role is public or private, large or small, official or unofficial. A man should know how to pray before others, to present the Gospel, and to stand in the gap where a leadership need is apparent.

When I read this, I have but one question: Why?

Seriously: What about having external genitals makes a man more qualified or more suited to be a leader, so much so that it becomes a necessary part of his development as a person?

This is the one question no one who espouses gender roles has ever been able to answer.

Of course, there’s the “God made us this way and we’re fulfilling that role in an ideal world,” but there are enough counterexamples (Deborah, Esther, Phoebe, the women at the tomb) and cultural context to argue that God-given gender roles are vague at best and mistakenly and dangerously applied at worst.

I always try to err on the side of grace, especially when it comes to traditional church issues that people I love have been hurt by. To me, it simply makes much more sense for Christians to step back and say “Okay, I don’t necessarily think this is true, and I can see, from the way that this theology has been implemented, that it does not pull people (on the whole) toward a loving relationship with Christ. And so I’m going to stop harping on it, and let people come to Christ as they are, not as I think they should be.”

We seem to forget the role that the Church has played in oppressing and harming marginalized groups in society, and when we subsequently take this oppression as a God-given role for the marginalized to play, we wander into very dangerous territory. We err on the side of “being right” rather than on the side of mercy and grace, which should make us very uncomfortable, as people who claim to have been afforded much mercy.

I will be covering this more fully in a blog post tomorrow, but this must be noted: I have never once been given a suitable response as to why having a certain form of anatomy makes my boyfriend more qualified to be a voice in the church than me, even if it is “is public or private, large or small, official or unofficial …  to stand in the gap where a leadership need is apparent.” And until I do, well, my dear, it appears we are at an impasse.

[caption id="attachment_506" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="It's a battle of wits. Let's begin."][/caption]

Courage and Grace Under Fire

Today, for a change, I decided to just go through Mohler’s original post and put comments in brackets after each thing that irked me. It’s sort of a step-by-step showing of my process when reading these posts, and I thought it’d be good for a change. After that, I address some concerns that have been raised in the comments.  

First, the original unaltered post:

Character maturity sufficient to demonstrate courage under fire.

The literature of manhood is replete with stories of courage, bravery and audacity. At least, that's the way it used to be. Now, with manhood both minimalized and marginalized by cultural elites, ideological subversion and media confusion, we must recapture a commitment to courage that is translated into the real-life challenges faced by the Christian man.

At times, this quality of courage is demonstrated when a man risks his own life in defense of others, especially his wife and children, but also anyone who is in need of rescue. More often, this courage is demonstrated in taking a stand under hostile fire, refusing to succumb to the temptation of silence and standing as a model and example to others, who will then be encouraged to stand their own ground.

In these days, biblical manhood requires great courage. The prevailing ideologies and worldviews of this age are inherently hostile to Christian truth and are corrosive to Christian faithfulness.

It takes great courage for a boy to commit himself to sexual purity and for a man to devote himself unreservedly to his wife. It takes great courage to say no to what this culture insists are the rightful pleasures and delights of the flesh. It takes courage to serve as a godly husband and father, to raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It takes courage to maintain personal integrity in a world that devalues the truth, disparages God's word, and promises self-fulfillment and happiness only through the assertion of undiluted personal autonomy.

A man's true confidence is rooted in the wells of courage, and courage is evidence of character. In the end, a man's character is revealed in the crucible of everyday challenges. For most men, life will also bring moments when extraordinary courage will be required, if he is to remain faithful and true.

And here is the “fixed” post. My comments are in plain type.

Character maturity sufficient to demonstrate courage under fire.

The literature of manhood [humankind: eg., The Hunger Games, To Kill a Mockingbird, Middlemarch, Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Through the Looking Glass, etc] is replete with stories of courage, bravery and audacity. At least, that's the way it used to be. [wait, what? Men AREN’T the heroes? Has Mohler READ any fiction?] Now, with manhood both minimalized and marginalized by cultural elites, ideological subversion and media confusion, we must recapture a commitment to courage that is translated into the real-life challenges faced by the Christian man. [The last time I checked, men still dominate the cultural scene, so I’m not sure what media he’s consuming. Here’s a trick: Think of your top five favorite TV shows. Got ‘em? Now count the number of male leads in each of those shows. Got that? Now count the number of female characters who regularly appear. My bet is that the men outnumber the women 3:1. Now, rack your brain and think about the way women are portrayed on those shows…yeah, pretty sure men are more often allowed to be portrayed as multi-faceted complex characters, while lots of women still end up as either baby-crazy career women (Lily Aldrin?) or shrill harpies with daddy issues (Deb from Dexter?).]

At times, this quality of courage is demonstrated when a man risks his own life in defense of others, especially his wife and children [why especially wife and children? Why is that somehow more noble than risking your life for a stranger you don’t know? Isn’t that, kind of, y’know, what Jesus talked about?], but also anyone who is in need of rescue. More often, this courage is demonstrated in taking a stand under hostile fire, refusing to succumb to the temptation of silence and standing as a model and example to others, who will then be encouraged to stand their own ground. [So we’re getting our manliness models from Jack Bauer instead of Jesus, who…refused to fight back, went silent when questioned, and fell down while carrying his cross.]

In these days, biblical manhood requires great courage. The prevailing ideologies and worldviews of this age are inherently hostile to Christian truth and are corrosive to Christian faithfulness. [Yet, Mohler provides no examples of these ideologies which are hostile to “Christian truth.”]

It takes great courage for a boy to commit himself to sexual purity and for a man to devote himself unreservedly to his wife. [Oh. See, I thought that was just what you DID when you’re in a relationship. Silly me.] It takes great courage to say no to what this culture insists are the rightful pleasures and delights of the flesh. [No examples? C’mon, Mohler – I know you want to talk about it!] It takes courage to serve as a godly husband and father, to raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. [Sure, just as it takes great courage to be a parent in any context.] It takes courage to maintain personal integrity in a world that devalues the truth, disparages God's word, and promises self-fulfillment and happiness only through the assertion of undiluted personal autonomy. [I actually agree to some extent, but I would contend this is a slight contradiction in phrasing: “maintain personal integrity” as an opposite value of “undiluted personal autonomy” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. To some extent, if you’re going to maintain personal integrity, you need the autonomy to do it. I get where Mohler’s going; I just don’t think he gets there with this sentence. A bit more explanation as to what he means by “undiluted personal autonomy” would be extremely helpful – especially as many interpret that as taking control of your own life and taking adult responsibility for the decisions you make, which seems to be a pretty damn good value system to me.]

A man's true confidence is rooted in the wells of courage, and courage is evidence of character. In the end, a man's character is revealed in the crucible of everyday challenges. For most men, life will also bring moments when extraordinary courage will be required, if he is to remain faithful and true. [And yet, at the end of this point, I still don’t have a clear idea of how “Biblical courage” differs from regular old run of the mill courage that we’re presented with every day in pop culture. I mean, is Neville Longbottom’s courage in the Deathly Hallows somehow different from the “wells of courage” that are biblically rooted, as Mohler espouses? Without more specific ideas (and seriously, it takes like four words to add in a specific example or Bible verse for us to look at), I’m really at a loss as to what he means by COURAGE, or why this is a value specific to MEN. Aren’t women confronted with this same issue?]

Last, to address some concerns that have been brought up in the comments:

I’ve been getting the comment that “just because Mohler is talking about men doesn’t mean that women don’t or can’t have this trait.” Let me explain why I disagree:

Go back through this list. Mentally re-title it in your head: "The marks of white-ness." Every time "man" comes up, change it in your head to "white person."

Does it sound a bit off-kilter now?

Now, true, it still wouldn't technically saying that non-whites can’t have these qualities, because that would be outright racist. But, it would be taking qualities that are not necessarily related to race, and putting them under the heading and expanding on them as though race is the first qualification for having these qualities that would be commendable in any person. It puts the biological characteristic first and foremost as the framing context for character qualities that are unrelated to biology.

As a result of the way the discussion is framed, it becomes necessary to point out that said qualities have absolutely nothing to do with biology, and if the speaker keeps insisting that “this is what a man (or "white person") should be!” then he/she deserves to be called out on it, because he/she is refusing to see anything but biology first and foremost.

It’s a fun little rhetorical tool.

“I’m not putting down women! I’m just saying that men are more naturally adept at having these commendable qualities and that to have these qualities, you’re fulfilling your role as a man!” Rephrased: ‘I’m not putting down black people. I’m just saying that white people are naturally more adept and suited to have these commendable qualities, and that to have these qualities, you kind of have to be white first!”

Sounds kind of absurd, doesn't it? Right.

(Also: Pedantic note: "Minimalized" isn't a word. "Minimized" is. It bothers me that I had to have it appear TWICE in today's post because Mohler, again, made up a word.)

In which basic history is ignored

Social maturity sufficient to make a contribution to society.  

While the arena of the home is an essential and inescapable focus of a man's responsibility, he is also called out of the home into the workplace and the larger world as a witness, and as one who will make a contribution to the common good.

God has created human beings as social creatures, and even though our ultimate citizenship is in heaven, we must also fulfill our citizenship on earth. A boy must learn to fulfill a political responsibility as a citizen, and a moral responsibility as a member of a human community. The Christian man bears a civilizational responsibility, and boys must be taught to see themselves as shapers of the society even as the church is identified by our Lord as both salt and light.

Similarly, a Christian man must learn how to relate to unbelievers, both as witness and as fellow citizens of an earthly kingdom.

I love that he’s not even bothering to have real words now. “Civilizational”? What in the WORLD is that?

I mean, I have a few guesses from context, but really, that’s a word only Mohler knows – because he made it up. It doesn’t exist in any dictionary that I know of.

But I digress.

I’ll say this right now: I hate the idea that the man in the family is the breadwinner. With women still making 80 cents to every man’s dollar (for the same work), any implication that this is the way it SHOULD be rankles me to no end. Additionally, as a woman with two higher education degrees, solid writing skills, and an extroverted personality, I get extremely irked at the idea that my “place” is to stay home and clean and prepare dinner and maybe even home school our multiple children (because, as Mohler has already explained, sex is for baby-making!).

I also think it’s incredibly disingenuous to suggest that, simply by virtue of being biologically male, a man is somehow “called” to a greater duty outside the home, as though women do not have similar callings placed on our lives and cannot “make a contribution to the common good” except in narrowly defined fashions.

This gets worse as Mohler’s point goes on – I agree with him that our citizenship is in heaven, and that this concept doesn’t mean that we eschew all earthly duties (my number of political posts and political leanings indicate that I most certainly don’t feel neglecting my citizenship duties is part of the Christian journey). But the sentence: “A boy must learn to fulfill a political responsibility as a citizen, and a moral responsibility as a member of a human community” is total and complete bullshit.

Women vote in greater numbers than men. Women have a tendency to be highly involved in political movements and protests on both sides of the aisle. True, women are less likely to appear as politicians, but a lot of that comes from the massive amount of scrutiny that women face simply be virtue of being women – look at how Hillary Clinton and Michelle Bachmann are both treated by the media in sexist and demeaning ways.

http://youtu.be/g-IrhRSwF9U

AND THEN, Mohler has the gall to say it is specifically men who are “shapers of society.”

I almost don’t have the words to describe how much that enrages me. Behind every major rights movement of the last century, women have been at the center.

Women getting the vote in 1920? Well, duh. We can even step back further in time to what sparked that nearly 100 year battle – moral reform societies run by middle class women in New York and Boston that began to fight for the property and civil rights of widows and prostitutes or “ruined women” in their cities.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s? A lot of it was sparked by a politically active woman who was engaging in a form of civil disobedience – Rosa Parks (In all fairness, though, we could move back a bit further to the murder of Emmett Till but a bunch of white men for the crime of whistling at a white woman, but in the narrative of most people, Rosa Parks is at the center of the Civil Rights movement and there is no doubt that she played a very important role).

The current LGBT movement? Both men and women are represented in almost equal measure in protests and fights over the laws.

Not to mention, there are a number of smaller movements sparked by women and brought about because of the action of women. Women have played an equal role in political movements for centuries – the only difference is that the women in these movements have been silenced by history and credit is given to the men who helped them out (again, look at the set up the moral reform societies to see this on full display – women’s movement weren’t considered legitimate unless there was some man helping out in a leadership capacity).

To say that men are “the shapers of society” is ridiculous, archaic, and ignorant of actual history.

To use that assertion to tell men to become more engaged in the political process and to assert their power over their female counterparts – it is your duty as a man to be involved politically! – is downright disgusting.

Mohler’s last sentence, here, makes little to no sense in light of his first two paragraphs – indeed, it seems almost tacked on. Judging based on what he just described, being able to relate to “unbelievers” would be a no-brainer. If you’re going to participate in the political realm, you have to deal with all kinds – just as you have to do in EVERY SINGLE PART of your life, provided your are not just staying in an Evangelical bubble (which is entirely possible).

But, again, the way he phrases this reinforces an “us vs. them” mentality – rather than relating to non-believers because they’re human and that’s what we should do, we relate to them with an ulterior motive, with the outside idea of witnessing to them, which is never a good way to get to know someone. It turns the person in question back into an object, a thing to be won over to your side, and not a person in of him or herself. And that’s not a good way for any good citizen to operate.

So, to sum up: Men are the “shapers of society” and are therefore called to be involved in “earthly citizenship.” Women, you can stay in the kitchen.

Toward a Communal Understanding of Life

Relational maturity sufficient to understand and respect others.  

Psychologists now talk of "emotional intelligence," or EQ, as a major factor in personal development. While the world has given much attention to IQ, EQ is just as important. Individuals who lack the ability to relate to others are destined to fail at some of life's most significant challenges and will not fulfill some of their most important responsibilities and roles.

By nature, many boys are inwardly directed. While girls learn how to read emotional signals and connect, many boys lack the capacity to do so, and seemingly fail to understand the absence of these skills. While a man is to demonstrate emotional strength, constancy and steadfastness, he must be able to relate to his wife, his children, his peers, his colleagues and a host of others in a way that demonstrates respect, understanding and appropriate empathy. This will not be learned by playing video games and by entering into the privatized world experienced by many male adolescents.

I actually agree with his first paragraph here a lot – as in, I could have written it myself, I agree with it that much.

For those of you who know me, you know that the center of the Christian faith is, for me, the Trinity, and the community that develops from that. In a short summary of this gigantic theological concept, the Trinity, composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is a perfect unity of love and grace and mercy, all created and creating, growing out and into each other – this perfect harmonious circle of God’s love emanating from Father and Son and creating Spirit, which is how we connect.

[caption id="attachment_475" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="This is a common representation of the Trinity."][/caption]

When we speak of being created in the image of God – the imago dei – this perfect harmony of community is what we are referring to, in my theology. Loving God shows us how to love our neighbor, and by loving our neighbor, we show how much we love God. It’s this perfect give and take. As a result – even though I am frequently divisive and controversial and certainly not perfect in creating community – my motivations for calling others out and for responding to bad theology (quite often bluntly and somewhat harshly) is out of a heart for the Christian community. Nothing pains me more than to see Christian brothers and sisters – our neighbors and those we are supposed to love to the point of sacrificing our own selves for them – trampled and oppressed and made to feel like less than human because of something a prominent voice in the church has said.

Which is why I find it so ironic and so hard to admit that I actually agree with the beginning of Mohler’s statement here. Because as much as I agree with the sentiment expressed – that relational and emotional intelligence is just as if not more important than normal smarts – I cannot help but feel that it rings hollow, in light of the oppressive theology he’s been espousing up to this point. Theology that propounds to edify the community of Christ while also marginalizing half of that same community is no theology I want to follow.

So, reluctantly, he has a point. Let’s see how he undermines it.

Ah. Damn. So so close to being good, Mohler. Shucks.

Here, we have a blatant contradiction between the first paragraph and second. In the first, he reminds us that emotional intelligence and being able to respect, understand, and love others is of utmost importance. And then, he ignores everything that makes each of his readers human and paints us with broad strokes according to our physical characteristics.

My own lived experience contradicts Mohler’s claim. One of the hardest things in the world for me to learn (and am definitely still learning) is to not have my immediate reaction to events and frustrations be one of selfishness.

I’m not alone in this.

David Foster Wallace, one of the great minds of our generation who we lost too soon (RIP, DFW), spoke in 2005 to the graduates of Kenyon College, saying:

And the world will not discourage you from operating on your default-settings, because the world of men and money and power hums along quite nicely on the fuel of fear and contempt and frustration and craving and the worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom to be lords of our own tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talked about in the great outside world of winning and achieving and displaying. The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default-setting, the "rat race" -- the constant gnawing sense of having had and lost some infinite thing.

(read the whole thing here)

This constant readjustment, this “EQ,” this ability to refocus our narratives to include the narratives of other people is the center of the Christian faith. Without refocusing and reimagining and readjusting every day – with the help of faithful study and a supportive, edifying community – we cannot call ourselves Christians. This is not a problem unique to men. This is not a goal that is somehow harder to accomplish because of a certain biological structure. This is a day-in-day-out struggle for every human being, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, rich, poor, middle class, extrovert, introvert, whatever.

To reduce us again to our biology, as Mohler does, destroys the recreated narrative, destroys the patterns of thinking that a Christian should be developing. Rather than seeing the world as “man and woman” and expecting people to behave in certain ways or reach for certain goals because of that biological fact, we, AS CHRISTIANS, are called to reform the narrative. Instead of seeing “man,” I see Collin, Clay, David, Josiah, Jim, Justin, Zack – all my different male friends who are all wonderful people in their own, different, myriad ways. Likewise, instead of seeing “woman,” I see Kim, Audrey, Mandy, Kimberley, Joanna, Caroline, Mikhaila, Eydie, Carrie, Melisa, Lydia – all wonderful female friends who are their own people, with their own life stories and their own narratives that I must listen to and attempt to understand in order to really, truly, love them as I should, as Christ does.

Mohler, here, fails miserably in the one great call on a Christian: to understand, foster, and grow community by recognizing, naming, and understanding our neighbors. This is the Great Story, the Good News: that you have a name, that you have an identity, that you are loved, and that you are called to turn around and do the same for each and every one of your neighbors, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or any other identifying labels.

And, frankly, "one who loves my neighbor" is the only role I am interested in having.

The Important Things of Great Importance

Worldview maturity sufficient to understand what is really important.  

An inversion of values marks our postmodern age, and the predicament of modern manhood is made all the more perplexing by the fact that many men lack the capacity of consistent worldview thinking. For the Christian, this is doubly tragic, for our Christian discipleship must be demonstrated in the development of a Christian mind.

The Christian man must understand how to interpret and evaluate issues across the spectrum of politics, economics, morality, entertainment, education and a seemingly endless list of other fields. The absence of consistent biblical worldview thinking is a key mark of spiritual immaturity.

A boy must learn how to translate Christian truth into genuine Christian thinking. He must learn how to defend biblical truth before his peers and in the public square, and he must acquire the ability to extend Christian thinking, based on biblical principles, to every arena of life.

One of the best things I learned in graduate school developed from a Religion and Literature class with Dr. Ralph Wood. We were examining Christian approaches to the modern world, and different ways religious writers have approached the post-modern problem. One of the salient points from the class that has affected me immensely is this:

There is no such thing as a “worldview.”

“Worldview” implies that there are different lenses from which you can view the world, that there is some way that you can be entirely and completely objective and consistent in how you develop a life philosophy apart from your lived experience. It implies that there are pairs of glasses you can use to switch out ways you view the world.

[caption id="attachment_472" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="That's a pretty big book to cull through for what sounds like a simple worldview."][/caption]

That is fundamentally flawed. You cannot separate yourself from your experience, and that lived experience will ALWAYS color the way you view the world. So for me, the phrase “worldview maturity” is entirely meaningless. If, for example, I was raised in India in a Hindu household, and then converted to Christianity, my “worldview maturity” would still look quite different from Mohler’s born and bred American Christianity.

To imply that there is one consistent “Biblical” worldview is intellectually dishonest – there is no such thing. Even within American Christianity, there are massive disagreements (this being a prime example). Additionally, Mohler seems to be thinking in an us vs. them mentality, including the action of apologetics in a “biblical worldview,” which neglects the idea that not everyone is good at apologetics.

There’s a reason apologetics is considered a “field.” It is something people study and focus and put their time into. Not every Christian – much less every Christian MAN – has the time nor desire to engage in us vs. them debates about aspects of the Christian faith. Should we know enough of our own doctrine that we’re able to talk about it when asked? Sure, but that’s not the situation Mohler is discussing – the specific phrasing he uses (“defend biblical truth before his peers”) screams apologetics, not mere “ability to answer questions.” It also implies that a Christian should have all the answers to the questions that face the faith, which is ridiculously immature.

What people need to realize is that having “all the answers” or even being able to "defend your faith" is not a mark of maturity but rather just a mark of having a lot of knowledge. A true mark of maturity (philosophically and theologically) is the freedom and ability to say “I do not know.” Where’s the defense of the faith in that, Mr. Mohler? Asking for 1. A consistent “biblical” worldview, 2. An ability and desire to do apologetics in all situations as though we live in a tense “us vs. them” world, and 3. “the ability to extend Christian principles to every arena of life” is an incredibly untenable burden.

Does any man exist who fulfills Mohler’s oddly specific and yet somehow very vague characteristics? Let’s review. A man must:

1. Be spiritually mature enough to be the guiding light for his wife and children.
2. Have a wife and children and the ability to be a good dad.
3. Be the “provider” for the family and basically a jack of all trades financially speaking.
4. Not get involved in porn, or lust, or temptation, or even look at their wife in a way that doesn't lead to procreation. Also, probably not masturbate.
5. Be physically capable of defending hearth and home, which for many men would be an extremely time-consuming task.
6. Be a moral authority and make “good moral decisions,” despite the natural existence of decisions in which neither choice will be the moral one.
7. Be an ethical, decisive leader, willing to make the “hard decisions” so your little wife won’t burden her tiny brain with them.
8. Somehow still have the time to study Scripture to the point of being able to defend it from every philosophical or theological attack, and maintaining a consistent Biblical worldview at the same time.

I do not envy the burden that this places on men. We’re just over halfway through the list, and already I imagine that men who are trying to follow Mohler’s principles would crack under the pressure (which, of course, must mean that they are not “real” men). Not to mention, many of these things are not exclusive to men, and placing them in the men’s sphere actually turns them into a bigger burden than they should be. Men, wouldn’t you like it if you could not be the tie breaker in a decision every time? Wouldn’t you appreciate being able to pass off the “apologetics” of the faith into the realm of a smart girl like me (wink wink)? Wouldn’t it be nice of you could have discussions about lust and sex and children WITH YOUR PARTNER and not have to cop to someone else’s standards of purity?

Being that girls have similar untenable standards placed on them simply because of being born with a vagina, I can only imagine that some men will look at Mohler’s list and wonder how in the world they can measure up.

Gender roles, as a whole, create this idealized image of what a man should be, with no man actually fitting into that role. They function to guilt people into behaving, rather than encouraging people to figure out who they are and the best way for them to live – which may or may not align with a narrowly defined set of “biblical principles.”

Again, there is no indication of what "biblical principles" means. Does that mean never voting for a Democrat? Does that mean selling your daughter to the highest bidder? Does that men sacrificing your son? Does that mean not wearing clothing made from mixed fibers? Does that mean never divorcing, no matter how screwed up your marriage becomes? Does that mean giving your coat to your neighbor when he asks for it? Does that mean turning the other cheek and refusing to engage an opponent who is trying to trap you in an issue? Does that mean not being violent and not raising your hand against another human? Does it mean having 300+ wives?

Seriously, man, you can’t just say “biblical principles” and expect us to understand!

The man Mohler imagines is both unrealistic and kind of scary, and yet it is a resurgent and prevalent theology in the church today. I suppose I will just have to keep raising my womanly voice in protest, contrary to some "biblical principles."

That's What She Said.

Site news: I will be in Chicago from Wednesday to Saturday of this week, so I likely will not be updating for the rest of this week. I apologize for the silence of the past weekend and the coming week - there's been a lot going on and hopefully I will be able to make announcements about some of it very soon.  

Until then, let's talk about SEX.

Sexual maturity sufficient to marry and fulfill God's purposes.

Even as the society celebrates sex in every form and at every age, the true Christian man practices sexual integrity, avoiding pornography, fornication, all forms of sexual promiscuity and corruption. He understands the danger of lust, but rejoices in the sexual capacity and reproductive power God has put within him, committing himself to find a wife, and to earn her love, trust and admiration — and eventually to win her hand in marriage.

It's critical that men respect this incredible gift, and to protect this gift until, within the context of holy marriage, they are able to fulfill this gift, love their wives, and look to God's gift of children. Male sexuality separated from the context and integrity of marriage is an explosive and dangerous reality. The boy must understand, even as he travels through the road of puberty and an awakened sexuality, that he is accountable to God for his stewardship of this great gift.

[caption id="attachment_455" align="aligncenter" width="250" caption="Photo courtesy of The Wedinator."][/caption]

God, I love euphemisms for sex, don’t you? “This gift.” “Explosive and dangerous reality” (beautiful, if unintentional, pun). I think anyone who thinks Christians aren’t creative really needs to examine the metaphors for talking around the subject of sex and intercourse. I mean, we might as well be talking about “hiding the salami” – we get so creative when we’re discussing things we’re super uncomfortable talking about. This is actually kind of sad, when you think about it, because the church shouldn’t be uncomfortable discussing something that almost everyone will experience.

But that’s neither here nor there.

Mohler’s piece here (aside from the oddly phrased “find a wife…and eventually win her hand in marriage” [if she’s your wife wouldn’t that mean you’re married?]) is about the dangers of (dun dun dun!) PROMISCUITY and THE SEXY TIMES.

I’d like you to notice a couple of things here. First, there is no mention of sex being mutually pleasing to both husband and wife. The wife’s sexuality might as well not exist in this picture – as Mohler paints it, she is a passive being to be won over by the man, and eventually meant to be the carrier for his children. The man “loves” her, sure, but there is no discussion of her returning that love or of sex being a mutual beneficial experience. That's kind of messed up, but then again, the church doesn’t have the best track record on allowing women to enjoy sex – if you do, you might be a slut, and everyone knows how awful sluts are! (that’s sarcasm, for the record. My discussion of “sluts” has occurred here on the blog already).

Second, as he’s already pretty well established in his discussion of family, sex isn’t for fun – it’s “serious business” for “God’s gift of children.” This strikes me as a little sad because if/when I get married, I’m not going to have sex to have kids. I’m just not. Sex is a time for two partners to commit themselves fully and totally in an act of love. It is a big deal, but it not just for procreation. Phrasing discussion of sexuality in any other way (even incidentally, saying that sexual maturity eventually leads to children) says to those who are unable to have kids or who, like me, wish to remain childfree, that they are unable to develop a full and complete sexual maturity apart from procreation, which is just bunk.

Now, as many of my more feminist readers will point out, Christianity and the feminist view of sex often clash and are in conflict. The feminist, being about letting a person be him or her self and developing their choices on their own, is okay with sex – “sex-positive” is the vernacular – whether or not it happens within a marriage. The prototypical Christian, quite obviously, states, as Mohler above, that sex needs to wait until marriage and with the right person.

That said, I don’t think the Christian view is very realistic in this respect, and certainly becomes untenable when it erases female sexuality altogether, as Mohler has done (not to mention erases homosexuality, but that’s a big thorny issue I’m not getting into today). The thing is: There exists very little healthy dialogue about sex in the church and as a result, there is a lot of misinformation and shame and guilt that comes with any sexual experience.

When I was in high school, I attended a church camp out in the Black Hills, and every summer, we’d have the “sex talk,” which usually consisted of telling us to wait until marriage and that if we had sex, we’d be a dirty lollipop and no one wants a dirty lollipop. I remember one particular summer when one of the youth pastors gave his testimony concerning sex before marriage: he had sex with his fiancée a couple of months before their wedding and even so many years later, he still felt guilty about it.

Even then, in my little conservative, Christian, sex-negative bubble, I thought, “Wow, that’s messed up.”

And it is. Rather than spending our time convincing teenagers (and especially teenage girls) that they are dirty and ruined forever if they have the sexy times, even if it’s in a committed, loving relationship and they are doing so safely, we function on the basis of guilt and shame and ostracize people for making mistakes or for doing what almost everyone views as the culmination of a loving relationship at the wrong time, as though saying “I do” in front of friends and families suddenly makes it all okay.

I’ve heard tale after tale from married Christian women who had a lot of trouble in their first few years of marriage getting used to the whole sex thing. It was very hard for them to turn off the idea that “sex is dirty,” even though they were doing it in the “pure” fashion of the Christian church. Rather than the message that “sex is a beautiful thing but a serious decision and should not be taken lightly,” what we get instead is “no no no no no no, oh you’re married, okay then, go for it.” Rather than teaching how to have a healthy sexuality and how to make good decisions about one’s sex life, the Church shames, erases, and guilts people in order to keep them “pure” until marriage, which usually translates to anything but penis-in-vagina sex.

Let it be known from here on out: the marriage bed does not make sex pure. The attitude and focus of the people participating in the act are what makes it holy. It is possible for a man to rape his wife. It is possible for the marriage bed to be defiled, not by sex before marriage, but through a broken relationship between the partners. Marriage is not this cleansing shower that purifies things, though it is likely a better environment in which purifying and growing in sexuality together may occur.

I would contend, again, that a healthy sexuality is not restricted to just men, and men are NOT in charge of their wife’s sexuality – to do so puts far too much control in the hands of the man in the relationship. To be honest, Mohler’s image of a man is sounding scarier and scarier by the day. Sexuality is a conversation between equal partners for the benefit of both and as a way to express their love. It is not suddenly purified by a marriage relationship, but rather likely best brought to fruition in a loving, committed equal partnership, whether or not that includes a marriage license (and I recognize that this is likely my most controversial statement I will make this week).

What matters in bed is not the public declaration of love and fidelity. What matters is not sexing it up because you want to have kids.

What matters, instead (and I would contend most importantly) is whether or not you are committed to a loving relationship with your partner and to honoring them through the experience because you love them and you want to, not because you should or because that’s just what you’ve been told to do. No one can tell you and your partner how to have healthy sexual experiences; only you and your partner can decide where you go on that issue. Let’s stop viewing marriage as a whitewash for all sexual sins and instead start developing a holistic, grace-filled, merciful view of sexuality that honors loving commitment rather than a piece of paper and a ceremony.

I'm here to Pump. You. UP!

I apologize for the relative silence over the weekend. I've had a lot going on, and this week is much the same. But today, we'll dive right back in to Mohler's points of manhood, which is starting to look suspiciously like the cover model on a Men's Health magazine.

 

Physical maturity sufficient to work and protect a family.

Unless afflicted by injury or illness, a boy should develop the physical maturity that, by stature and strength, marks recognizable manhood. Of course, men come in many sizes and demonstrate different levels of physical strength, but common to all men is a maturity, through which a man demonstrates his masculinity by movement, confidence and strength.

A man must be ready to put his physical strength on the line to protect his wife and children and to fulfill his God-assigned tasks. A boy must be taught to channel his developing strength and emerging size into a self-consciousness of responsibility, recognizing that adult strength is to be combined with adult responsibility and true maturity.

I think this, of all of Mohler’s points, is the one that bothers me the most, and I’ve already kind of addressed in this blog space before. But I’ll be absolutely clear here: Having muscles or the ability to react violently to a situation does not make you a man. Physical ability or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with manhood (or womanhood, for that matter). Whether you are in a wheelchair or physically abled, whether you are skinny or fat or somewhere in between, whether you can fend off an attack or are the first person to be knocked out in a tussle: You. Are. Still. A. Man.

[caption id="attachment_450" align="aligncenter" width="217" caption="Whether or not you look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club has no impact on whether or not you are a man."][/caption]

Physical prowess or, as Mohler puts it, “maturity” (I’m beginning to think he has a different definition for that word than I do), has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person is a man. I have male friends who are naturally strong and have an easy time keeping fit, and I have others who, no matter how long they work out, they will never have enough strength to sucker punch someone. I really, really dislike making physical maturity a sign of “manhood.”

Secondly, again, this point is vague to the point of unhelpfulness. What does Mohler mean by “recognizing that adult strength is to be combined with adult responsibility and true maturity”? As he doesn’t explain what physical strength combined with adult responsibility looks like, it’s left up to the reader to come to his or her own conclusions, which is unfortunate because I’m not inclined to be charitable. Mohler makes the mistake of assuming that his audience will be on the same page as him and will have been raised in a church environment where the “Christianese” will be quickly understood and interpreted. Having worked very, very hard over the last four years to break out of that Christianese mold, I am now completely baffled by his expectations for manhood here.

Does he mean that the Christian man should be able to defend his wife and children from any and all attacks? In the modern age, having that sort of physical prowess is unnecessary, and making it a mark of manhood is rather anachronistic.

Does he mean that Christian men should know what to do with their developing size and understand their own strength? That assumes that all men will, at some point, have strength they don’t know how to handle, which is simply not true.

Mohler’s point here appears to be an exercise in erasing the already marginalized: the disabled, the weak, those who are already struggling with society’s image of what a man should look like. Tell me, Mr. Mohler, if the Church is to be “in the world but not of it,” why does your image of a man look suspiciously like a 20^th century knock-off?