Tuesday, 01 May 2012

  • "Effeminate": Christianity and Gender Shaming

    1)  The Dudes' Club

    As a kid, I was a mama's boy.  An overweight, pudgy little boy who was afraid to touch a spider even with a stick, who was so freaked out by his first week-long trip to summer camp (his first time away from home for that long) that he wet his sleeping bag every night that week, and who was afraid to try new things or meet new people.  Peers quickly picked up on such things, even in elementary school, and no small amount of taunting was the result.

    What's wrong, Russo, afraid?
    Russo runs like a girl!

    Russo's got boobs! 
    Look everyone, Russo's got boobs!

    You're such a girl.


    Things in middle school were worse, of course.  I was a somewhat bookish kid, with my nose in a Stephen King novel more often than not.  I didn't watch football or wrestling.  I didn't automatically know all the rules to every sport we played in gym class (and the teachers assumed that all the boys already knew).  I kept a journal, and worked on art projects, and wrote short stories and poetry.  I kept my sexual fantasies to myself.  I couldn't catch, I ran slow, and I was picked last for pretty much every sport.

    I was not in what Tyler Clark calls the Dudes' Club.  And the names kept coming.

    Queer.

    Freak.
    Faggot.

    Homo. Fat-ass.

    Pussy.

    And while I am quite straight, and while I have since evolved into the manly man you see before you, a big hairy former summer camp counselor with a wife, a large sword collection, a growing stash of homebrewed alcohol, a love of action-adventure movies, and a primitive-camping-and-wilderness-survival hobby... I still am not, and never will be, in the Dudes' Club.

    I'm okay with that, really.  Members of the Dudes' Club are hard to talk to.  When I hang out with them, I feel like I'm constantly being weighed, measured, and found wanting.  If I don't drop enough sports references, or if my voice cracks, or if I use too many art terms, or if I express an awe of beauty, or if I talk about how I love to cook, or if I'm not physically aggressive enough, or if I wear the wrong colors, or if I quote poetry...  I feel as though I'm relegated to a lesser status.  Not a real man.  Not a man's man, anyway.  (It's exhausting, being constantly under that level of scrutiny, always having to censor myself or check myself.  No wonder I have an easier time making friends with fellow geeks than with manly-men.)

    And this Dudes' Club exclusion is no less true in Christian circles than otherwise.  More true, even.

    2)  My Pastor Can Beat Up Your Pastor


    In July of 2011, megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll posted on his Facebook page, "So, what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?"  This under-140-character statement is full of implications: first, that some who are "anatomically male" are presumably not male in any other way; second, that many worship leaders are "effeminate"; third, that those males in Christian leadership who are not masculine enough should be ridiculed.  The firestorm of anger that erupted at this posting prompted Driscoll to take the post down, but although he has since referred to the post as "flippant," he has never apologized.

    In his own words, Driscoll describes the lead-up to the status update as follows:  "I had a recent conversation with a stereotypical, blue-collar guy who drives his truck with his tools, lunchbox, and hard hat to his job site every day. He said he wasn’t a Christian, but he was open and wanted to learn what the Bible said. In that conversation, he told me he’d visited a church but that the guy doing the music made him feel uncomfortable because he was effeminate (he used another more colorful word, but that one will suffice in its place). He asked some questions about the Bible, and whether the Bible said anything about the kind of guy who should do the music. I explained the main guy doing the music in the Bible was David, who was a warrior king who started killing people as a boy and who was also a songwriter and musician."

    All right, so this red-blooded blue-collar American--and Driscoll goes to great lengths to rhetorically establish him as such, right down to the hard hat and tools--is turned off because the worship leader wasn't as manly a manly man as him.  Driscoll didn't do too wrong here, he directed the guy to a different role model found in Scripture, one who the guy might have an easier time relating to.  Now, I don't know what was so effeminate about this worship director--whether he had Mister Rogers hair or a bow tie or a high-pitched voice or what.  I somehow doubt that we're talking someone in full-out drag here.  But whatever the issue our hard-hatted blue-collar friend had was, the post that came out of this took "this wasn't a guy I could relate to" and turned it into "this is a guy to ridicule, to put down, to tell stories about."

    "When you put out a call on Facebook for people verbally attack “effeminate anatomically male” men, I find myself back in high school—shoved against a locker, with the bullies calling me a faggot."  --Tyler Clark

    Not everyone is as vague as Driscoll, however.  More recently, Reformed pastor Douglas Wilson posted the following list: "Your Worship Service Might Be Effeminate If..."  In it, he lists several signs that the worship, sermons, or people in your church might be "effeminate," with items ranging from "One of the ministerial staff has taken to wearing a clerical collar and a powder pink shirt," to "The worship team gravitates toward 'Jesus is my girlfriend' songs," to sermons not calling out sinners in the congregation, to the kind of man the minister is.  Even the chords used in the music are not above scrutiny.

    Chris Rosebrough, watchdog responsible for Pirate Christian Radio, is not above such specifics either.  One of the interruptions for his show begins with a recording of the contemporary worship song "Breathe."  The song is interrupted by the sounds of battle, and a pirate voice saying something to the effect of, "We'll be taking your sissy girlified worship music now... and replacing it with the real thing!"  The music then switches to a militant choral rendition of "A Mighty Fortress."

    Others complain that any worship music that sounds too romantic or talks about loving beauty is effeminate.  "But by the turn of the twentieth century, hymns had taken a decisive move toward the feminine ... Praise music has accelerated this trend. Not only are the lyrics of many of these songs quite romantic, but they have the same breathless feel as top forty love songs.  "Hold me close, let your love surround me. Bring me near, draw me to your side."  "I'm desperate for you, I'm lost without you."  "Let my words be few. Jesus I am so in love with you."  "You're altogether lovely ... altogether wonderful to me."  "Oh Lord, you're beautiful. Your face is all I seek."  --David Murrow

    This sort of thing--church leaders calling out those styles and actions they consider to be "effeminate"--has become widespread enough now that the Internet Monk even has a name for the movement now: "Esau Christianity."  (Named after biblical macho-man Esau, the red and hairy hunter.)

    "They don't look like church boys, you know... wearing sweater-vests, walking around singing love songs to Jesus...  The problem with church today, it's just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickified church boys."

    3)  "Effeminate": What does the term mean?

    The first reaction of many to these Esau Christianity statements is to say (rightly so) that effeminate should not be an insult, because women are not inferior beings.  But Wilson's supporters claim that "effeminate" is separate from "feminine," that the former is the sinful distortion of the latter, and that that term is biblical.

    Is it? 

    We've actually talked about this before.  There is a term used in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 which is translated by several Bibles (including the KJV) as "effeminate."

    "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither  fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

    The word, however, is a difficult one to translate.  Malakos (μαλακός) literally means "soft."  That's all it usually means.  So what is Paul saying, when he says that the "soft" shall not inherit the kingdom?  The only other time this word is used in Scripture is to refer to the soft clothes that rich people wear.  Some have translated this word as "effeminate," while others go with "male prostitutes" or "catamites."

    Personally I side with the ESV's translation, which seems to feel that malakos is paired with arsenokoites to specifically refer to the receiving partner and the penetrating partner of homosexual sex--it's used here in a sense of "soft" as in "penetrable."  Here's a few sources for this understanding of the term (read all the footnotes).

    And so, if Driscoll,Wilson, Rosebrough and Murrow intend their readers and listeners to take a biblical understanding of the term "effeminate," they are literally calling those they apply the term to "gay."  (This is a term that should not be used as an insult, because God loves gays, and to insult is to be unloving.)

    This does not seem to be their usage of the term, however.  Wilson's list contained many things which had no real relation to sexuality at all, except maybe to the trappings of gender roles: worship styles, sermon topics, the role of women in church governance, and chord changes.  Driscoll's comments in the above video complain about effeminate churches in the sense of the clothes that the "church boys" wear, the sort of colors the churches are painted--things that have little to do with sex.

    This extrabiblical understanding of effeminacy has little to do with sex or sexuality at all, and everything to do with gender shaming.

    ma·cho  [mah-choh] 
    adjective
    1.  having or characterized by qualities considered manly, especially when manifested in an assertive, self-conscious, or dominating way.

    2.  having a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate.
    4)  Shame, shame, everyone knows your name.

    Most evangelical Christians fall into one of two camps when it comes to gender roles.  The egalitarian view is that all humans, men and women alike, are equal in God's sight, and that there are no distinctions in role or status--ministry positions in the church and in the home are available to anyone, regardless of gender.  The complementarian view is that, while men and women are of equal value in God's sight, they have different functions and roles which they were created to fulfill.  For complementarians, certain ministries may be intended for a particular gender, such as the role of pastor.

    Theologically, I dance between the two (or hold them both simultaneously in a Chestertonian paradoxical unity), so I at least somewhat understand where Driscoll and Wilson are coming from.  They believe that certain activities and roles, which are intended for the female, should not be performed by the male.  Driscoll comes out against stay-at-home dads, for instance, because he believes that provision is the responsibility of the husband, and a stay-at-home dad is shirking his male gender role for a female gender role.

    However, even if I granted him that (which I do not, not entirely), there is a world of difference between a role, a function (like that of nurturer or provider) and a trapping, a peripheral (like a style of clothing or a style of worship).

    It's interesting that by making their complaints issues of effeminacy, Driscoll and Wilson are both assigning gender "roles" to nongendered aspects of Christianity.  Between them, here is the list of gendered qualities we can find implicit in their statements.

    Masculine:
    --Slaughtering people
    --Battle
    --Blue collar work
    --Judgement, wrath, and Hell
    --Calling out sin
    --Terrifying sinners
    --Calling out the specific sins of congregants
    --The works of a select list of artists.

    Feminine:
    --Transcendent experiences in worship
    --Sweater-vests, robes, and clerical collars
    --Literary Societies
    --Well-trained choirs
    --(By contrast) Intellectual or White-collar work
    --Badly behaving church leaders (?)
    --Nonconfrontational sermons
    --Songs about love, even love for God
    --Songs about beauty
    --Being "tender" or "sensitive."
    --Being offended by lists that call you effeminate.

    I am struggling to see any connection between some of these aspects and the gender attributes they are being assigned to.  After all, why would a change from an E minor to a C major be any more feminine than masculine?  These assignations seem nearly arbitrary.

    Thus my conclusion is, These "Esau Christians" are guilty of using gender shaming as a way to insult those they disagree with on minor issues.  Call someone effeminate, and you can marginalize them.  Nitpick about their clothing, and you can explain them away as part of the problem.  Associate that music style that you dislike so much with womenfolk, and you can get people to reject it.  It's emotional manipulation.

    Faggot. Pussy. Girly-man.

    It's manipulative and it's wrong.  Because God, even if he turns out to be complementarian, embraces a wider and larger view of masculinity than Driscoll and Wilson and Rosebrough do.  There is room in the church for all kinds of men.

    5)  A Boy Named Sue

    The Internet Monk points out, in its article on Esau Christianity, that God ultimately rejected Esau, for all his hairy, outdoorsy manliness, and instead favored his brother--the scheming kitchen-bound mama's boy.  "Jacob the wimp, the mama’s boy, the effeminate one, the scaredy-cat, weak and insecure and ineffective — that’s who God chose to become Israel, the father of his old covenant people. Esau, the man’s man, the outdoorsman, the man of strength and muscle, the warrior who was unafraid of hard work or a fight didn’t make the cut. The very name of God’s chosen community is bound up with the story of an effeminate weakling!"

    I've never felt such an affinity with Jacob before.  The jocks wouldn't have let Jacob into the Dudes' Club either.

    For that matter, I have to look twice at Driscoll's take on David--the man who "slaughtered people" since a young age, yes, but also the tenderhearted poet, the man who wept openly over the death of loved ones, the man who was so excited about the coming of God's Ark that he stripped nearly naked and danced in the streets.  (Talk about a transcendent worship experience?  Do you think the look on David's face as he danced was like "those of guys in the backseats of their cars, having just gotten to second base with their actual girlfriends"?

    Even John Eldredge, foaming-at-the-mouth complementarian John Eldredge of Wild at Heart fame, does not hold as narrow a view of masculinity as the Esau Christianity crowd does.  I may be overgeneralizing, but when I read his books I never had the sense that he was saying that if I didn't conform to his understanding of men that I was a sissy, but only, "This is the cry of my heart--and it may be the cry of your heart too.  Listen."  In his book The Way of the Wild Heart, Eldredge speaks of the various stages he believes every man needs to progress through, one of which is The Lover, in which he believes men are awoken to beauty.  "We must not let the battle become everything.  ...The Celts had a phrase, 'Never give a sword to a man who can't dance,' by which they meant if he is not also becoming a poet, be careful how much Warrior you allow a man to be.  ...that which draws us to the heart of God is that which often first lifts our own hearts above the mundane, awakens longing and desire."  He goes on to link the transcendent experiences he's talking about to the original Jesus-is-my-girlfriend worship song, the hymn "Jesus, Lover of my Soul," written by none other than Charles Wesley.

    His description of God's presence in beauty resonates with the heart of this poet.

    6)  The Multifaceted God

    My God is bigger than all this.

    My God is big enough that he describes himself in both Father imagery and Mother imagery.  He is bigger than gender, bigger than gender roles, bigger than all the silly trappings.  And if in my God there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female--then there certainly isn't any demarcation between the properly manly-men in the Dudes' club and those of us who aren't macho enough to make the cut.

    God, who proudly called himself the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, loves me.  And he does not love me any less because I am bad at baseball, a slow runner, a poet, "soft," "tender," or overweight, and he would not love me less if I put on a sweater-vest or a clerical robe.

    As Rachel Held Evans said of Driscoll's controversial post, "While I disagree with many of Mark’s views on femininity and masculinity, I am convinced that Christians can talk about gender issues with gentleness and respect, without resorting to stereotypes, bullying, and scorn."  This is a conversation worth having, worth disagreeing respectfully on--but that respect must be there, or conversation collapses.  Labeling everyone who disagrees with you "effeminate?"  Yeah, not so respectful.  As it stands, those who have engaged in "Esau Christianity" are in danger of misrepresenting God through their words.

    How do you respond?  Do you see a problem with "effeminate" men in leadership in the church?  Or is the problem the fact that Christians are judging each other?

Comments (41)

  • dustysojourner@xanga

    Ok, I made it to basically #3 before I realized that my time is up and I don't have much time left to respond before I have to get going.  So, I apologize if my comment misses information in the remaining points I didn't get to cover (it almost certainly will)! 


    #1- I strongly disagree with the image that Mark Driscoll and other guys are portraying as masculine, mainly because most of the time their image does not embody holiness, reverence, or dignity.  
    Burly is a mote point in relationship to the definition of being masculine.  
    Most importantly, I think any definition of masculinity that is defined by Hollywood is 100% guaranteed to be wrong and do more damage to the church than good.  
    Masculine in the sigh of God is the reflection of the image He created us to be, and that is a fairly broad and comprehensive reflection for us to learn to fill- and it is revealed to us by Christ and made possible in the Holy Spirit.  
    That's why there have been men of God who have given their lives in the service of the Lord in face of great torture and they did not reflect the "Hollywood man", they reflected "Holy men".  
    #2- I know people will never get anywhere with one another on the basis of greek arguments (unless one has a higher level of education and understanding than I do, at least), but in my knowledge and study of the greek, I have found that I do agree with the (N)KJV rendering of the word to mean effeminate and I do make a distinction between that and feminine.  
    I am closer to complementarian in my views than to any other one in that I do hold roles and equality for genders to be true together.  
    The Word does teach the head of the house is the male, it defines what leadership is (look to Christ- he came to serve, not to be served) and gives authority for leadership to the Husband and men of the church.  
    So a very careful examination of Biblical (not Hollywood) definition of masculinity would be a very beneficial thing.  There's nothing from what you've told me in #1-3 that would not define you as masculine in the Biblical terms.  
    You don't even need the swords-and-survival-camping-hobbies.  lol 
  • GodlessLiberal@xanga

    Just a few thoughts coming from a secular perspective:

    - One can be "anatomically male" and actually be female. (It's a complicated issue, and even having several transgendered friends, it's still a complicated subject...sometimes even to them.)

    - I shared much of your middle school experience (bullied, constantly reading [especially Stephen King]), and I think the absolute worst thing you could be was "gay." This comes from a very strong anti-gay sentiment in our culture, and I think this comes strongest from very religious communities.

  • Amerindian666@xanga

    I see it this way. Have you every been in a relationship with someone, and they kept nagging even though one issue after another was solved; the real problem, that would not be dealt with, the problem that keeps causing all these other problems,  one day  just blow up, blaming the problems on one person or organization of people.  Now looking at one group of people, the people of christianty and more direct those people who allow free of speech,  American Christians, lets say, 100% of America XD and all of them have problems that they deal with and church helps.  Only one person gets thier group to rebel, to say me, me, me, and they want, what they want and they can't control themself.  They had this problems long before any religious organization would accept them, but the people of Christianty said, no repent your sins, they replied I have no sins, and I am happy.  I ask, then why do you need the church, why do we have to deal with your attacks, my problems are dealt with on a personal level and with god.  Your problems are not more important, the thought that I must now be all about your problem sicken me. It like disease of the soul.

  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    I like Mark Driscoll. He gives an unabashed voice to atavistic masculinity in a civilization that is fast becoming feminized.

    Men are in trouble. And Driscoll is saying it's okay to be a man's man.

    Of course, the many panty wastes who suffered bullying as youngsters take their self righteous rage with them into adulthood and lend it righteousness by taking up religion.

    But that doesn't negate the fact that the human race is diverse and that there is a place for everyone and every kind in Christianity.

    If a man's man like Mark Driscoll doesn't speak to you, why then accomodate yourself and listen to someone else.

    And while you're at it, squelch the urge to silence and demonize those voices that you don't agree with.
  • Such_are_you@xanga

    @PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I have to say I absolutely agree with you.  Men are in trouble and Driscoll is saying its okay to be a man's man.  It is his right as an American to say what he likes.  The problem with what Driscoll says is that he claims to be the pastor of Christian church.  The Holy Spirit, through St. Paul, has this to say,   "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1.  Paul doesn't say follow my way of thinking, or get a hair cut like mine.  Paul says follow my example as I follow Christ's example.  The person in control isn't Paul, but Jesus.

    Jesus, himself, says the same thing St. Paul says, "Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

    And again Jesus tells his disciples, “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." 

    If Mark Driscoll were a leader in business or a self-help guru he has the right to believe and do as he likes.  But Driscoll claims to be pastor of a church belonging to Jesus Christ.  The call of Christ and his apostles is absolutely clear:  Jesus is a king, born again people are his subjects, and he alone decides who and what represents his majesty.   Driscoll's American identity ends where Jesus' identity, as king, begins.  Jesus even tells us that those who belong to him are no longer citizens of this world, (and it doesn't matter where on earth that citizenship lies)  "I [Jesus] have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world" 
    "They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. John 17:14 &16.  

    Mark Driscoll's point is rendered moot, Christ's call is to serve at his command, according to his desires and purposes.  Of course IF Jesus isn't really the savior, king, and God then Driscoll is perfectly right to think and say whatever he pleases, as he pleases.

  • OutOfTheAshes@xanga

    @PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - It's funny.  "The human race is diverse and that there is a place for everyone and every kind in Christianity" was the point that I was trying to make.  I have nothing against Driscoll appealing to and speaking to the "man's men."  What I don't appreciate is being called "kind of a chick" or "chickified church boy" and having it implied that I am not worth having in church leadership if I am not a man's man.  Who is doing the demonizing and silencing?

  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    @OutOfTheAshes@xanga - Why do you think you are the kind of person Driscoll is talking about?


  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    @Such_are_you@xanga - The fact that there are literally thousands of Christian sects means that there is huge diversity of ways of looking at, expressing and understanding the truth.

    If what you say is true, then the entire world should be Catholic.

    And you wouldn't have that would you?

    Consequently, your reasoning is unconvincing. 
  • jcravens

    All I gotta say is you can be whoever you want to be everyone is different and God thinks no different from you to him. I have never had a manly christian pastor, but you know what? they know exactly what there doing, the've helped me so much, make things very comfortable talking to them. Theres nothing wrong with it. God has made some people strong and manlier than others but I believe some are meant for other things. But God sees you all the same and thats all that matters. Im sure people dont appreciate the comments about them being girly, there just as much a man as you are my friends. God bless have a great day!

  • OutOfTheAshes@xanga

    @PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - There was a video in my original post which seems to have gotten lost in the transition to Revelife.  Maybe this is what you're missing.

    "These dudes [John the Baptist, Elijah and Paul] seem pretty rough to me.  They don't seem like church boys, wearing sweater-vests, walking around singing love songs to Jesus.  ...The problem with the church today, it's just a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickified church boys.  60% of Christians are chicks, and the 40% that are dudes are still sort of chicks.  When you walk in, it's seafoam green and fuscia and lemon-yellow...  The preacher's kind of feminine, the music is kinda emotional and feminine...  We look around going "how come we're not innovative?" 'cause all the innovative dudes are home watching football, or out making money, or climbing a mountain, or shooting a gun, or working on their truck."

    These are sweeping statements.  So right away, as a "church boy," my masculinity is suspect, I'm "sort of a chick.".  The fact that I enjoy worship music (I run my church's sound board), including the "emotional" "love songs to Jesus" is something that Driscoll specifically describes as "feminine", seems to prove his point.  The facts that I'm not home watching football or working on my truck (I have no interest in football and no car mechanic skills) are points against me.  It's hard not to see myself as indicted in Driscoll's statements here.

    If Driscoll wants, like John Eldredge does, to make a place for man's-men in the church, that's well and good.  But to call out not-man's-men, which he defines by a series of cultural stereotypes, as "the problem in the church today," that's a serious problem.

    And let's not focus exclusively on Driscoll--Douglas Wilson's list was just as bad, if not worse because it's more arbitrary.  The others, Rosebrough and Murrow, are just using the rhetoric of gender-shaming as ammunition in their worship-music wars, so they're not calling out any particular hobbies or lack of hobbies as masculine or feminine, but that was still "below the belt" (pun intended)--there's no reason that worship songs which engage the emotions are intrinsically less masculine than other forms of worship music.  Whatever happened to "Love the LORD your God with all your heart," etc.?

  • RevoHor@xanga

    I like this post a lot. I also like Mark Driscoll, but I know he makes some rash statements... a lot. Still, I know God is using him.

    What people like Driscoll are talking about when they scream about manliness is a very American/Western concept. Christian men in the West need to travel some, spend a month in Uganda, live in India for a while, go to places like China, Thailand, Morocco, the Philippines, and see how men act in those places. They are very different from men in America and what's considered manly in those places would be labelled outright gay in the USA. Things like casual, shared nudity, holding hands, male-on-male affection and cuddling, even men kissing men are all seen as manly, not effeminate, not homosexual. So what are Driscoll and the others saying? That Christian men need to be more stereotypically American to truly know God more?
    What exactly does it mean to be manly? Manly by whose standards?

  • Such_are_you@xanga

    @PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Had the Roman Catholic church been serving God's call and purposes I would be a Roman Catholic.  The fact there are so many sects is proof people care more about serving their own, real or perceived, understanding of God, rather than allow God to express himself as he likes, and serving him as he commands, while allowing God to manage the outcome.  

    If God called me to attend the Roman Catholic church, for a season, I'd go.  I've been a member of churches which held theological positions I staunchly disagree with.  I am currently attending a church which is hard line Calvinist, though I completely disagree with the part of Reformed soteriology called "TULIP".  Actually it is only the "U", "L", and "I" of the acrostic I absolutely oppose. 

    Curtis; "Loborn" is that you? 

  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    @Such_are_you@xanga - Again, you're just expressing your version of how you see things (a mere opinion) and in so doing, invalidating the religious faith of a billion people.

    Effective argumentation requires that a claim stand on its own merit. 

    A further catastrophic problem with your position is that by invalidating the faith of a billion people you are making a god-like judgement.

    Who am I to argue with a god?

    Consequently, you have placed yourself beyond reason and removed yourself from the discussion.

  • Amerindian666@xanga

    Let's talk Porn, anyone want to read a dirty novel like the bible.

  • Such_are_you@xanga
  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    @Such_are_you@xanga - Having no further arguments you resort to "Gotcha" and name calling. That is a common tactic among atheists. 

    Maybe you should go join your brethren in your worship of the Curtis the Troll, the apocalyptic, the cataclysmic focus of evil in the world.

    How sane is it to scream, "GOTCH, CURTIS!" in a gathering of peaceful people trying to engage in meaningful discussion?

    After your session of Curtis worship maybe you should report yourself to the nearest rubber room.

    In the future if you would be so kind as to leave me alone and go play "GOTCHA, CURTIS! with someone else.

  • stuartandabby@xanga

    @RevoHor@xanga - Where is men cuddling with one another considered masculine? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just curious if you could fill me in.

  • Peterso2020@xanga

    The article presents some interesting thoughts. I have often been in restaurants and as the waiter approaches the table the flame of his femininity scorches us. He is a homo my colleagues say by their now brass demeanor and response. I don’t really know if he is I think.     Feminine I am convinced of, having sex with another man, probably but I am not certain. While it is suggestive and the benefits may not outweigh the risk of having a feminine man or the converse a masculine woman in ministry or positions of influence, there is something to consider here.  A lot of men with feminine mannerisms are not necessarily homosexual. And a lot of the men that are gay and feminine, or just feminine are the product of AN ABSENT father, or functioning father. We accept that homosexuality is not genetic, but can we accept the fact that a heavy part of the nurture component that influences it is because of poor fathering? The era of man's man that existed by the hunter gatherer paradigm, was emotionally remote, not relational and often expressed their dominance by his sexual prowess. The rampant homosexuality we are seeing is not because there are not enough men that fish, hunt, grunt or are grizzly, but because they are not like Christ- Balanced in all things. It is because men do not connect with their son’s affirming them, connecting with them emotionally, because their distortion dictates, emotions of any kind, once incarnate in a man is homo.


    I am saddened by the fact that we the great west, the cult that is this modern Christianity is spreading its toxins yet again, as if the prosperity gospel wasn’t enough. With ambition we sent out missionaries to distant tribes, telling them they had to give up their traditional wear and dress like us with jeans and t-shirts to be accepted by God. If they were really blessed and highly favored they would wear expensive suits and drive luxury cars, because the will of God is that we all are rich. Can you imagine how this message would be devastating to an Indian living on less than a US dollar a day?  The cyanide that this message is would mortally poison their faith. We are now working on an emphasis of masculinity that is primarily external, and lacking balance. What is it so hard? Why are we trying to make the word of God suit our agenda or preference, rather just confirm to Christ likeness. He was balanced. If our message our concept of biblical masculinity cannot be transported  to every culture, socio economic, educational context and be relevant, Christ honoring, principled, pure and pleasing to God it is contrary to Christ (anti Christ) and demonic. I have more respect for the person that says I see the truth of what the word of God says, but I won’t obey. I want to do my own thing, but have little tolerance when we try to distort the truth to suit our sin. Christ-like manhood is an issue of lifestyle regulated by the principles of the word of God and not a set of cultural, or self endulging practices. Kissing you on the cheek does not make me less or more masculine than shaking your hand. God looks at the heart. The masculine identifier is that in my choice of action I honor God and I honor you.


    Let’s be balanced- Christ was!!!

  • NightCometh@xanga

    @Such_are_you@xanga - I really don't think that adds anything to the conversation.

  • NightCometh@xanga

    @RevoHor@xanga - He also has pornographic "visions".

  • PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga

    @OutOfTheAshes@xanga - Thank you for the clarification on Driscoll. But I have to say that I am still in total agreement with him.

    I don't believe he is making any sweeping generalizations. He's referring to a very exclusive minority of the male population who have assumed leadership roles in various Church congregations.

    It resembles the 3% gay population who over decades have bullied Western society into thinking that homosexuality is normal and that marriage, human rights, and sexual morality must be redefined according to their way of thinking.

    People like Driscoll are extremely courageous and risk much for voicing ancient wisdom in a civilization that is fast going mad. 
  • Such_are_you@xanga

    @NightCometh@xanga - I don't think Curtis was adding anything to the conversation. 

  • RevoHor@xanga

    @stuartandabby@xanga - From personal experience, I have known men in India and the Philippines to cuddle with each other or seek physical affection with each other and with me as a means of showing brotherly love. I have heard it's the same in many African, Middle-Eastern, South American, and South-East Asian nations as well.

  • KasumiCelesta@xanga

    I didn't even realize this was a 'problem'...I remember there being an "effeminate" pastor at a church I went to; he had a soft voice that most people would associate with being gay, but he was happily married with children. No one had a problem with him. It really shouldn't be an issue of whether a pastor is effeminate or not; as long as he is a good church leader and right in his path with God, as well as true to his own personality. Being a poser isn't necessary.

  • LauraDeLuna@xanga

    i am not a religious person and i do not attend any sort of church but if i did i dont think i would care about how "feminine" a man was.  the truth is that in most religions (not just christianity) a enormous amount of emphasis is put on gender and gender roles as a way to try to explain reasons for gender.  i personally believe in no such distinctions.  a man who is "effeminite" can be just as effective at whatever he is doing as a man who is "masculine" just in the way that a woman who is "masculine" can be just as effective at whatever she is doing as a woman who is "feminine".  what people percieve as gender and the roles that gender play in attitudes, appearances and behaviours have no affect on who we really are as a person.  a people should not be judged based on appearances or even the actions of people to whom they are similar/dissimilar who lived before they were even thought of. 

  • Sign in to Comment

  • Give eProps (?)

About the Author

Who recommended?