Category Archives: masculinity

Building Connections: Who Do You Call in Tough Times?

Posted on by

I was watching a couple of videos the other day on Instagram, trying to recover and rest a little bit. I had just been very tired, and I was sitting in my chair in the living room watching some videos.

I came across a clip that has been with me since I watched it. Take a look here:

In this video, a young lady asks the question:

“Be honest. Who do you call when you are at your lowest? Who is that one person?”

It was clip after clip of men saying, “Nobody.”

At first I got the impression that they say “nobody” because they’re being macho and they want to show that they’re tough — that they’re going to suck it all up and survive on their own. But then the video moves into a different aspect of the thing, because some of the men start saying things like:

“You mean I can talk to somebody? I can talk about this?”

Other men say things like:

“Nobody cares anyway, so why talk about it? Nobody cares. Nobody cares. Nobody cares.”

And it got me thinking about my own situation and my own life. I realized that I do have people to talk to.

I tend to be a pretty introspective guy — overthinking everything, thinking deeply about certain things, questioning my actions, mulling things over, going back over things I’ve done in my life and regretting them, and keeping my cards pretty close to my chest.

But I realized that even though I’m one of those kinds of guys — which some people might think is a traditional kind of man — I do have people that I talk to.

The People I Talk To

My wife, Eva

The number one person that I talk to in my life, and the one who has helped open me up to understanding who I am and trying to express my thoughts and my feelings, has been Eva.

Without my wife’s influence and impact in my life — without her experience of understanding what it means to be a person who understands their emotions, without her advice, and just telling stories — not telling me what to do but just sort of being who she is—I’ve realized that it’s OK for me to begin to talk about who I am and how I’m feeling about things.

I can basically talk to Eva about anything. Sometimes she pushes back. Sometimes she commiserates. Sometimes she just listens. She is truly the life partner that God intended for me — an ezer — an equal image bearer.

But it’s always a safe space.

My Dad & Mom

One of my biggest supporters through life has been my dad. He has modeled what it means to be a man of God. He has taught me through words and deeds what it means. He and I have spent many hours discussing and exploring pastoral ministry, theology, biblical studies, cultural studies, and leadership. To have a father like him has truly been a blessing.

My mother exemplifies a life lived in the presence of God — a trait she gets from her mother. She always reminds me that God is in control and that God has a plan and that we don’t need to worry here on this earth. But lest you think that she is only concerned about the hereafter, she has a deep ability to connect with people in a caring and genuine way. I am still learning how to do this from her today.

My Closest Friends

I also have a group of friends that I talk to. I have guys such as Steve and Jack and Terry and Cesar and Craig, and we can just talk about anything. 

We can discuss and debate deeply spiritual and theological things. We can explore things together. We can even talk about aspects of theology and life that might be slightly divergent or otherwise, without any judgment or threat, but just working through issues together.

I really appreciate having these men as my safe space.

My Therapist

I also have a therapist. I talk with Charles periodically when I’m needing to understand something about life, administration, leadership, management, something about who I am, something about how to live my life well in the world today.

Charles has been a tremendous help to me in understanding things and helping me see different perspectives.

He is a safe space for me.

My Spiritual Director

I also have a spiritual director. Len and I have been working together for the past year, and we continue to do that.

It’s an opportunity for me to receive some spiritual input and direction or some spiritual guidance into my life to help guide me in where I am and who I should be.

Another example of a safe space.

The Barriers Men Face

In looking at this list of people, I’m as surprised as you are to see so many people on it. This was not something that I started out intentionally forming. It’s something that has developed over a number of years. Because, let’s face it, there are a lot of hindrances to forming these types of relationships, aren’t there? And it takes time to overcome these hindrances. Let’s talk about three of them:

Shyness or personality. I am a shy guy. So shy in fact that I have made that a part of my identity. I recall years ago not even being able to look at a girl in the eyes nor to be able to answer strangers with more than a guttural grunt. And public speaking? Forget about it! Now, thanks to what I can only describe as God changing me, I no longer have a fear of public speaking (but am still petrified if I have to talk with someone one-on-one). However, finding friends who are willing to take up the heavy lifting of moving the conversation along really helps with this. 

Shame. There is sometimes shame attached to expressing our feelings, particularly as men. We may have been told what a “real man” does and sharing feelings isn’t generally on the list. The only legit feeling that we as men can sometimes express is anger. And crying? That disqualifies us in some eyes! I remember how it made me feel when my son, Daniel, mentioned that he had never seen me cry. I don’t remember intentionally not crying in his presence but it was important for him to know that I do cry sometimes. I had a chance at the farewell we had for him before he moved to Canada after High School. I have been blessed by men who have modeled a different kind of masculinity that allows me to make my identity my own.

Previous bad experiences and a belief that others don’t care. It struck me while reflecting on the video that when we say, “No one cares,” it means that we have tried and it hasn’t worked out. We have tried opening up but no one responded appropriately — sometimes it only takes one attempt to make us gun shy. I remember one ski trip in college, when I decided to engage in small talk with someone I had known for years. I said something along the lines of, “So how is the skiing?” Her response? “Mike is on the prowl!” Her misunderstanding of my intentions, and her rejection, just shut me down. Needless to say I never talked with that person again.  

These hindrances introduce risk into our lives because in each situation where we may need help, we weigh the risks associated with asking. It takes a special strength, I think, to risk everything in the hopes for a great reward. 

All it apparently takes is 400 Hours

So, what made it work for me? What makes my response to the videos question different? According to my spiritual director it’s 400 hours. He says that if we spend 400 hours with people we develop relationships deep enough to matter. But it happens in stages from acquaintances (40-150 people we know on a surface level), to casual friends (after 80-110 hours), and finally close friends after 300-400 hours.

Apparently I have been able to invest at least 400 hours in my relationships. Now granted, I may have different exposure than some of you. My role as a church leader exposes me to people across Canada and throughout the Philippines. Part of that means I have spent significant time with people over coffee, during meals, in their homes overnight, and in meetings.

Not all of my relationships have turned out well. In fact, some of the people that I have engaged with over the last number of years have not turned out to be on my side, but rather stand in opposition. So it hasn’t been easy — and the pain from those experiences haunts me to this day.

Some of the people I know I’ve met through my ministry with the church. Some are people with whom I share my life. Others I met back in school. Others have become friends over many years of connection.

As I said above, I’ve considered myself shy for my entire life. I don’t often jump into situations with a willing vulnerability—or at least that has traditionally been the case. I tend to be the listener in most situations rather than the talker. But connecting through school, church, and work has been good for me. But in spite of all of my own limitations, I now realise that the process from moving from acquaintance to friend happens without realising it.

400 Hours is Risk, & Risk is risky!

But apart from that, it all changed for me when I took the risk of trusting someone else.

The problem is that introducing my authentic self to others is scary. What if I open up and people laugh at me? What if people take my vulnerability and use it against me? We see these types of answers in the video above.

Risk is risky. But it’s what we like to do, isn’t it? Whether it’s driving fast, shooting whitewater, solo camping, bungee jumping, riding roller coasters, asking a girl on a date for the first time — risk describes what men do.

What makes risk worth it? The reward! We win the race, we get wet but don’t dump in the middle, we learn to rely on ourselves, we face our fears, we realise life is sometimes scary but that’s okay, we meet the love of our lives. We find someone we can call when we are at our lowest.

And it’s a risk the Bible discusses when it mentions asks us to “help carry each other’s burdens,” or reminds us that “Two people are better than one… If one falls, the other can help his friend get up.” It even lays out the benefit of vulnerability in asking that we confess our sins to one another so that we can be healed (James 5:16)

Finding that person for yourself

So, what do I do? I don’t feel like I have 400 hours! I also don’t have a huge pile of people to choose from. I don’t feel connected with the guys at work. I have problems with some family. I even have my doubts about church. What can I do?

Start a conversation. Have coffee with an acquaintance. Take the risk. Turn an acquaintance into a friend. Be vulnerable.

Becoming That Person for Others

When I listened to the video, I was sad for all of these men who don’t have what I have.

But I was also encouraged in realizing that I do have people that I can talk to — people who come alongside me and encourage me.

And it also encourages me to be that way for other people as well.

I do have a group of young men in my church whom I am mentoring. They’ve all expressed a desire to be involved in some kind of pastoral ministry, whether that’s on a full-time basis or not.

I also spend time regularly talking with a young pastor in Canada about life and ministry and doing some spiritual direction.

As I sit here writing this I find myself just as surprised as I was at seeing the video that started all this introspection! My surprise centres on the fact that I do have a support system, I do have an answer to the question posed in the video: “Be honest. Who do you call when you are at your lowest? Who is that one person?” I am glad that I don’t have to do this alone. 

A Question for You

So my question for you today is this:

Who do you go to when you need to talk to somebody?

Who do you go to when you need advice?

Who helps you become a better man — or a better woman?

Who will you invest your 400 hours in today?

Photo by Papaioannou Kostas on Unsplash

Hindi dapat ganito: Mga bagay na maaaring sabihin sa atin ng bibliya tungkol sa labanan ng mga kasarian upang matulungan tayong wakasan ang digmaan.

Posted on by

Read this in English. 

Sa unang yugto sa aking bagong serye ng mga pagkalalake at maka-Diyos, tinutugunan natin ang isyu ng labanan ng mga kasarian. Ang sinumang gumugol ng anumang oras sa mundo ay alam ang pakikibaka na umiiral, sa maraming pagkakataon, sa pagitan ng mga lalaki at babae at sa pagitan ng mga mag-asawa. Napakakaraniwan na maaari nating itanong ang tanong na, “Normal ba ito? Wala bang mas magandang paraan?” Mayroon akong magandang balita para sa atin — hindi ito dapat maging ganito. Sa post na ito ay titingnan natin kung paano sinasabi sa atin ng Bibliya kung saan nagsimula ang lahat ng problema at kung ano ang magagawa natin tungkol dito.

Saan ba tayo nag simula?

May ilang bahagi lamang ng Bibliya na naglalarawan ng panahong walang kasamaan sa mundo. Isa sa mga ito ay ang mga huling kabanata ng Pahayag kapag ang lahat ng kasamaan ay inalis na. Ang isa pa ay ang pinakasimula ng Bibliya sa Genesis 1-2, kaya naman mahalagang magsimula doon. Ang pangunahing kaganapan sa dalawang kabanata na ito ay ang paglikha, kung saan nilikha ng Diyos ang lahat ng umiiral. Ang isang mahalagang bahagi ng paglikha na iyon ay ang paglikha ng sangkatauhan, na inilalarawan ng Diyos sa ganitong paraan: “Kaya nilikha ng Dios ang tao, lalaki at babae ayon sa wangis niya” (Genesis 1:27).

Tandaan na walang gaanong paglalarawan na ibinigay kung ano ang hitsura ng relasyong ito ng lalaki at babae. Sa susunod na kabanata, inilarawan si Eva gamit ang isang salita na kadalasang nauugnay sa Diyos: Ezer, na kung minsan ay isinasalin bilang “kasama na tutulong sa kanya.” Bagama’t maaari tayong matukso na bigyang-kahulugan ito bilang katulong ni Adan, sa katotohanan ito ay isang salita na kadalasang ginagamit upang ilarawan ang Diyos (Ex 18:4; De 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9-11; 121:1-2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos. 13:9). Sa katunayan, sa dalawampu’t isang beses na ginamit ang salitang ito sa Lumang Tipan, apat na beses lamang itong hindi tumutukoy sa Diyos.

Ang isang tanyag na ilustrasyon ay binibigyang-pansin ang katotohanan na si Eba ay nagmula sa tadyang ni Adan, na nagpapahiwatig ng magkatabi na pagkakapantay-pantay, sa halip na mula sa paa, na nagpapahiwatig ng pagsunod, o mula sa ulo, na nagpapahiwatig ng pangingibabaw.

Bukod doon, maaari nating ipagpalagay na ang mga pangunahing biyolohikal na tungkulin na ginagampanan ng mga lalaki at babae sa paglilihi at panganganak ay umiral, ngunit higit pa doon ay wala tayong ideya. Walang sinasabi tungkol sa domestic arrangement, tungkol sa work-life balance, tungkol sa leadership o authority o submission o hierarchy. Ang alam lang natin ay magkasama sina Adan at Eva sa hardin at araw-araw silang nakikipag-usap at nakikisama sa Diyos tuwing gabi.

Maraming haka-haka ang umiiral, gayunpaman, na nakasentro sa pagkakaiba sa pagbigkas ng utos na ibinigay ng Diyos kay Adan at ang pag-alaala kay Eba — ang ilan ay lubos na naniniwala na idinagdag ni Eva ang pariralang “o humipo man lang” (Ge 3:3). Gayunpaman, hindi malinaw kung ito ay nagsasalita sa mga isyu ng awtoridad o sa mga isyu ng madalas na hindi tumpak na mga katangian ng sinasalitang wika? Sino ang nakakaalam?

Saan ba tayo ngayon? 

Sa kasamaang palad, ang mga bagay ay hindi nanatiling ganoon magpakailanman. Ang unang pagkakakilanlan bilang tao lamang ay maputik sa susunod na kabanata kapag nakita natin ang pagpasok ng kasamaan sa mundo. Maraming epekto ang kasamaang iyon sa paglikha, ngunit para sa ating mga layunin ngayon ay tututukan natin ang bagong relasyon na nagsimula sa pagitan ng mga lalaki at babae. Kapag tinatalakay ng Diyos ang epekto ng kasamaan kay Eva, idinagdag niya ang isang kawili-wiling pahayag sa Genesis 3:16 — “Pero sa kabila niyan, hahangarin mo pa rin ang iyong asawa at maghahari siya sa iyo.” Dito ipinakilala sa atin ang ubod ng labanan ng mga kasarian, katulad ng hahangarin ng babae para sa kanyang asawa at ang maghahari ng asawa sa kanyang asawa. Bagama’t ito ay madalas na binabanggit bilang biblikal na katwiran para sa patriarchy, ang katotohanan na ang pahayag na ito ay nangyayari pagkatapos ng Pagkahulog sa Kasalanan ay nangangahulugan na hindi ito ang orihinal na plano kung paano gagana ang mga relasyon. Sa halip, ito ay isang sistemang batay sa kasamaan.

Ano ang ibig sabihin nito? Ang “pagnanais” ng asawa ay higit na mauunawaan sa pamamagitan ng pagtingin sa isa pang gamit ng parehong salita. Nang harapin ng Diyos si Cain tungkol sa pagpatay niya kay Abel, sinabi niya ito sa Genesis 4:7, “Dahil kung hindi mabuti ang ginagawa mo, ang kasalanan ay maghahari sa iyo. Sapagkat ang kasalanan ay katulad ng mabagsik na hayop na nagbabantay sa iyo para tuklawin ka. Kaya kailangang talunin mo ito.” Pansinin ang pariralang iyon nagbabantay sa iyo para tuklawin ka? Sinasalin nito ang parehong salita. Sinasabi nito na ang relasyon ng mag-asawa ay mailalarawan sa pagnanais ng babae — ang uri ng pagnanais ng kasalanan para sa atin. Ang salitang ginagamit para sa mga lalaki, sa kabilang banda, ay paghahari. Hulaan kung saan lilitaw muli ang salitang ito? Oo, sa talakayan ng Diyos kay Cain tungkol sa kasalanan. Kung gusto ni Cain na salungatin ang pagnanais ng kasalanan para sa kanya, dapat niyang pagharian ito. Kawili-wili hindi ba? Kaya pagkatapos, ang parehong mga salita ay naglalarawan ng relasyon pagkatapos pumasok ang kasamaan sa mundo. Dahil dito, hindi natin maaaring gawin itong indikasyon ng esensyal na sangkatauhan kundi ng makasalanang sangkatauhan lamang. 

May pag-asa ba?

Ngunit mayroong pag-asa. Hindi kailangang mangibabaw ang kasamaan sa mundo. Isang kislap ng pag-asa ang ipinakita sa atin sa Kawikaan 31, na kadalasang ginagamit upang ilarawan ang babaeng may tapang. Gayunpaman, ang ilang mga talata ay nakatuon sa relasyon ng pag-aasawa na mayroon ang babaeng ito. Sinabi sa 31:11-12, “Lubos ang tiwala sa kanya ng kanyang asawa, at wala na itong mahihiling pa sa kanya. Kabutihan at hindi kasamaan ang ginagawa niya sa kanyang asawa habang siya ay nabubuhay.” Hindi ba ito ay isang mahusay na paglalarawan ng relasyon nina Adan at Eva bago pumasok ang kasamaan sa mundo? At hindi ba ito isang magandang pangitain kung ano ang maaaring mangyari dito sa lupa?

Ang mga huling kabanata ng bibliya ay bumabalot ng lahat ng mabuti. Muli nating nabasa ang tungkol sa isang relasyon sa pag-aasawa — ito sa pagitan ng mundo at ng Diyos. Ang relasyong ito ay inilarawan bilang perpekto, ang nobya ay ang pinakamahalagang bahagi ng paglikha at ang lalaking ikakasal at nobya ay magkakasamang umiiral. Isipin ang larawang ito mula sa Pahayag 21:22-27:

“Wala akong nakitang templo sa lungsod na iyon, dahil ang pinaka-templo ay walang iba kundi ang Panginoong Dios na makapangyarihan sa lahat at ang Tupa. Hindi na kailangan ang araw o ang buwan sa lungsod dahil ang kapangyarihan ng Dios ang nagbibigay ng liwanag, at ang Tupa ang ilaw doon. Ang ilaw ng lungsod na iyon ay magbibigay-liwanag sa mga bansa. At dadalhin doon ng mga hari sa mundo ang mga kayamanan nila. Palaging bukas ang mga pinto ng lungsod dahil wala nang gabi roon. Ang magaganda at mamahaling bagay ng mga bansa ay dadalhin din sa lungsod na iyon. Pero hindi makakapasok doon ang anumang bagay na marumi sa paningin ng Dios, ang mga gumagawa ng mga bagay na nakakahiya, at ang mga sinungaling. Ang mga makakapasok lang doon ay ang mga taong nakasulat ang pangalan sa aklat ng Tupa, na listahan ng mga taong binigyanng buhay na walang hanggan.”

Hindi ba’t isang magandang larawan iyon? Hindi ba nito tinatapos ang isyu nang napakaganda?

Paano tayo ngayon?

Kung totoo nga na ang mga lalaki at babae ay nagsimula bilang magkatabi, magkapantay, parehong huwarang tao, kung totoo rin na ang orihinal na sitwasyon ay napalitan ng labanan, kung totoo rin na ang epekto ng kasamaan sa relasyon ng mag-asawa ay malalampasan, paano natin ito magagawa? Ano ang kailangan nating gawin? Hindi mo ba malalaman pero nagbigay din ng sagot ang Diyos para diyan.Sa Efeso 5:21, binabasa natin, “Magpasakop kayo sa isaʼt isa bilang paggalang kay Cristo.” Kaya ayun. Kailangan nating mamuhay ngayon na parang hindi kailanman naapektuhan ng kasamaan ang mundo. Kailangan nating isipin ang ating sarili bilang pantay. Kailangan nating kilalanin na ang pagsusumite ay mutual. Na kapwa babae at lalaki ay maaaring kumilos nang may awtoridad sa bawat sitwasyon. Bakit natin ito gagawin? Dahil sa paggawa nito ay ipinapakita natin ang ating paggalang kay Kristo. At siyempre hindi tayo hinihiling ni Jesus na gawin ang anumang bagay na hindi pa niya nagawa. Siya ang pinakahuling halimbawa ng pagsuko ng lahat upang mangyari ang plano ng Diyos na pagalingin ang mundo ng kasamaan. Sa halip na maupo lang sa langit bilang kapantay ng Diyos umaasa lang na magiging maayos ang lahat, na “kahit na nasa kanya ang katangian ng Dios, hindi niya itinuring ang pagiging kapantay ng Dios bilang isang bagay na dapat panghawakan. Sa halip, ibinaba niya nang lubusan ang sarili niya sa pamamagitan ng pag-aanyong alipin. Naging tao siyang tulad natin. At sa pagiging tao niya, nagpakumbaba siya at naging masunurin sa Dios hanggang sa kamatayan, maging sa kamatayan sa krus” (Filipos 2:6-8). 

Tularan natin si Kristo at sikaping alisin ang impluwensya ng kasamaan sa mundo.

Ngayon napagtanto ko na ang lahat ng ito ay tila malinaw sa akin ngunit maaaring iniisip mo na may malalaking butas sa sinabi ko. Kung gayon, pakisabi sa akin sa mga komento sa ibaba!

Paki-click din ang Follow link sa ibaba para makuha ang mga susunod na installment ng seryeng ito sa napapanahong paraan.

Tandaan na ang pagbabahagi ay ginagawa ng mga kaibigan.

Larawan ni Artem Podrez sa Pexels.

It’s not supposed to be this way: Things the bible can tell us about the battle of the sexes to help us end the war. 

Posted on by

Basahin mo ito sa wikang Tagalog.

In this first installment in my new series on masculinities and religiosities, we address the issue of the battle of the sexes. Anyone who has spent any time in the world is aware of the struggle that exists, in many cases, between men and women and between husbands and wives. It’s so common that we may ask the question, “Is this normal? Isn’t there a better way?” I have good news for us — it isn’t supposed to be this way. In this post we will look at how the Bible tells us where the problem all began and what we can do about it.

Where did it all begin?

There are only a few parts of the Bible that describe a time without evil in the world. One of them is the final chapters of Revelation when all evil has been removed. Another is the very beginning of the Bible in Genesis 1-2, that’s why it’s important to start there. The key event of these two chapters is creation, where God created all that exists. One key part of that creation is the creation of humanity, that God describes in this way: “So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female” (Genesis 1:27). 

Note that there isn’t a lot of description given as to what this male & female human relationship looked like. In the next chapter Eve is described using a word that is often connected with God: Ezer, which is sometimes translated as “helpmeet” or “helper.” While we might be tempted to interpret this as meaning Adam’s servant, in reality it’s a word that is most often used to describe God (Ex 18:4; De 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9-11; 121:1-2; 124:8; 146:5; Hos. 13:9). In fact, of the twenty-one times this word is used in the Old Testament, only four times it doesn’t refer to God.

A popular illustration pays attention to the fact that Eve came from Adam’s rib, implying a side-by-side equality, rather than from the foot, which would imply subservience, nor from the head, which would imply dominance. 

Apart from that, we can suppose that basic biological roles that men and women play in conception and childbirth existed, but beyond that we have absolutely no idea. Nothing is said about domestic arrangements, about work-life balance, about leadership or authority or submission or hierarchy. All we really know is that Adam and Eve were together in the garden and that they had daily conversation and communion with God every evening. 

Lots of speculation exists, however, largely centred around the different wording of the command God gave Adam and Eve’s recollection of that command — some make much of the fact that Eve adds the phrase “and you must not touch it” (Ge 3:3). However, it’s not clear if that speaks to issues of authority or to issues of the often non-precise nature of spoken language? Who knows? 

Where are we today? 

Unfortunately, things didn’t stay that way for ever. The initial identification as merely human gets muddied in the very next chapter when we see the entry of evil into the world. There are lots of effects of that evil on creation, but for our purposes today we will focus on the new relationship that began between men and women. When God is discussing evil’s effect on Eve, he adds an interesting statement in Genesis 3:16 — “… Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Here we are introduced to the core of the battle of the sexes, namely the “desire” of the woman for her husband and the “rule” of the husband over his wife. While this is often cited as being the biblical rationale for patriarchy, the fact that this statement happens after the fall means that it is not the original plan for how relationships would work. Rather it’s a system grounded in evil.

What does it mean? The wife’s “desire” can best be understood by looking at another use of the same term just a chapter later. When God confronts Cain about his killing of Abel, he makes this statement in Genesis 4:7, “if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” Notice that word desire? It’s the same word. That tells us that husband-wife relationships with be characterised by desire on the part of the wife — the kind of desire that sin has over us. The word used for men, on the other hand, is rule. Guess where this word appears again? Yup, in God’s discussion of sin with Cain. If Cain wants to counteract the desire that sin has for him, he must in turn rule over it. Interesting isn’t it. So then, both terms describe relationship once evil has entered the world. As such, we can not make them indicative of essential humanity but merely of sinful humanity.

Is there hope?

But there is hope. Evil doesn’t have to dominate in the world. One glimmer of hope is presented to us in Proverbs 31, that is often used to describe the woman of valour. A couple of verses, however, focus on the marriage relationship that this woman has. It says in 31:11-12, “Her husband trusts her with ⌞all⌟ his heart, and he does not lack anything good. She helps him and never harms him all the days of her life.” Isn’t this a great illustration of what Adam and Eve’s relationship may have been like before evil entered the world? And isn’t it a great vision of what things can be like here on earth?

The final chapters of the bible wrap everything up nicely. Here we read once again of a marriage relationship — this one between the world and God. This relationship is described as perfect, the bride is the most valuable part of creation and the groom and bride co-exist. Image this picture from Revelation 21:22-27:

“I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendour into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honour of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

Isn’t that a great picture? Doesn’t it wrap up the issue very nicely?

So, what should we do now?

If it is indeed true that men and women began as side-by-side partners, equals, both exemplary human beings, if it is also true that that original situation was replaced with a battle, if it is also true that evil’s effect on the husband-wife relationship can be overcome, how can we make that happen? What do we need to do? wouldn’t you know it but God also provided an answer for that. In Ephesians 5:21, we read, “Place yourselves under each other’s authority out of respect for Christ.” So that’s it. We need to live life today as if the evil had never impacted the world. We need to think of ourselves as being equal. We need to recognise that submission is mutual. That both women and men can act with authority in every situation. Why should we do this? Because in doing so we show our respect for Christ. And of course Jesus doesn’t ask us to do anything that he hasn’t already done. He is the ultimate example of giving up everything so that God’s plan to heal the world of evil would happen. Rather than just sitting up in heaven as God’s equal hoping things would work out alright, he “he did not take advantage of this equality. Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance. He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6-8). 

Let’s imitate Christ by working at removing evil’s influence in the world.

Now I realise that all of this seems pretty clear to me but you may be reading thinking that there are huge holes in what I have just said. If so, please let me know in the comments below!

Please also click the Follow link below to get the next instalments of this series in a timely manner.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Artem Podrez on Pexels.

Top 10 English Posts of 2022 on michaeljfast.com

Posted on by

It’s always interesting to look back on the past year and see how writing went. In 2022, I had a chance to write 44,200 words that 3881 people thought worthwhile to read. I have enjoyed interacting with many of you on here in this past year and look forward to seeing where 2023 takes us. Here is a countdown of the Top 10 posts that I wrote in English. As you may have noticed I also write in Tagalog. To see the Top 10 Tagalog posts of 2022, please click here.

10. How I learned that paying attention to social justice is discovering how to listen with God’s ears. Something puzzling has been popping up in my social media feeds in the past little while. There have been debates about the role that justice, or more particularly social justice plays in the lift of the church. It’s puzzling to me because for the past number of years social justice and related issues have been central to my life and ministry.  But I guess it hasn’t always been that way for me. I remember many years ago when I first heard the phrase social gospel wondering what it meant and why it was considered important to some and unimportant to others. This initial curiosity led me down a path towards developing practical theologies that help the church engage society. 

9. What does it mean to be a man, part 2? Masculinities in the Philippines. In a previous post, I introduced the idea of masculinities. In it I mentioned that masculinity should really be masculinities because there is not one standardized way to be a man. In this post I will expand on that in talking about how crossing cultures also increases the complexities surrounding the subject. Our specific focus will be on masculinities in the Philippines. 

8. My thoughts on Kristin Du Mez’ “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.” Kristin Du Mez’ Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation is a New York Times bestseller and has been the center of an online debate from the moment it first came out. Du Mez is a professor of History and Gender Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. I had a chance to read it a couple of weeks ago after borrowing the ebook version from the Saskatoon Public Library. Here are some of my thoughts about it.

7. Lucy Peppiatt’s Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. If you are like me certain things are important when making decisions. I like new ideas, especially new theological ideas. But one deal breaker for me is when new theological ideas have no basis in the bible. I want to see how the new idea interacts with the text before making my final decision on it. Here is a little about my journey through the thorny issue of men & women & the church. 

6. Is it ok to call my Pastor “Pas”? Pastor is a socially and culturally constructed word that means something different today than it did in the Bible times. In no place in the Bible are we commanded to call someone a “pastor.” In no place in the Bible in the role of pastor a professional role. (And while we’re at it let’s get rid of the notion that “the pastor is the highest calling.”)

5. My wife, Eva, is now blogging. I am pretty excited today because my wife’s new blog, Beneath My Shell, went live just a few moments ago. Eva blogs her thoughts about her life as a missionary midwife living in the Philippines. Please head on over a take a look at what Eva has to say. You will love her first story!

4. Did you know that Matthew 18’s instruction to “go, confront him when you are alone” isn’t the only Christian way to deal with conflict? Ask any Christian how to deal with conflict and they will pull out Matthew 18 because it lays out what many see as THE way for Christians to deal with interpersonal sin. For years the church has laid out the process of talk to the person individually, then if things don’t work out bring someone as a witness. Then, if things still don’t work out, bring the matter before the church and if that doesn’t work out then expel the person from the church. It’s pretty standard but what if I told you that this wasn’t the only biblical way that God’s people deal with sin? There are actually countless examples of other ways of doing the same thing that may be more relevant in other cultural contexts. 

3. What does it take to be a man? An introduction to masculinity studies. For the past year I have been promising some posts on masculinity. Masculinity is in its most basic sense the “possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men” or “the approved way of being an adult male in any given society.” While these definitions may seem simple at first, there is a lot to unpack. Here is an introduction to the topic.

2. 3 Types of Evil. Evil is much more complex than simply being personal. In fact there are three types of evil, or sin, that are discussed in the Bible: Personal evil, natural evil, and structural evil.

1. Emic vs Etic: Understanding how insider & outsider perspectives interact when doing theology. An example from the Philippines. There is a debate about the validity of using an emic approach in seeking to understand a culture on its own terms. In fact, this debate is behind the development of ethnoscience worldwide.  What is often missed in the debate is the reality that all forms of science are emic in that whatever frameworks or structures are developed are developed from the emic perspectives of a specific culture. They merely become etic once applied to another culture.  

Do you have a favourite post from 2022? Why not comment below and tell us why?

If you haven’t taken the chance to subscribe please do so using the links provided.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Ella Christenson on Unsplash.

Why the term “Toxic masculinity” is less an indictment against you as an individual, and is more a wakeup call to society as a whole. 

Posted on by

I responded to a question the other day on Twitter. I am trying to focus my engagement there to not be a knee-jerk response to everything that I disagree with because that tends to lead to me being quite negative in the rest of my life. So, I thought that since studying and discussing masculinities is my thing, that I would respond to this.

The interlocutor was asking questions about “toxic masculinity,” as follows: “Ok, so the text-book definition of “toxic masculinity” is actually just bad behavior whether you are a man or a woman. Correct?” The question came with a Poll that one could fill in as a way of answering the question.

“Yes, it is. Period.
No, you toxic … man!!!
Intern camp is awaiting
What is it? Food?”

The problem was, I didn’t see an answer that seemed to fit with how I understand the term. In fact, I am not sure I understood what some of them were referring to. Don’t worry, I find that I have a hard time understanding lots of polls and questionnaires. I also have to admit, reading the question and seeing the poll, I wondered if the questioner was trying to get rid of the idea of toxic masculinity by saying something along the lines of, “Oh. You know women are also toxic so why not just call people toxic. Why single out men?”

Rather than selecting of the questions in the poll, I replied, “Isn’t ‘toxic masculinity’ a type of masculinity that’s toxic? It’s just one of the variety of masculinities that exist in the world.” It was more of a feeler to see if we could get onto the same page.

The response was, “Correct, but the question was whether how we define toxic masculinity is just simply a bad behaving human regardless of gender? Therefore no need to have that term at all, right? Or are we going to have toxic femineity (sic) to go with it with the exact same definition otherwise?”

It seems that my first impressions were correct and that this was an attempt to paint all people with the same brush. It also indicated a concept of masculinity that is based on individual actions rather than societal norms.

Certainly, all people can be toxic and so on one level one could merely use that term to describe people’s actions. However, once we start talking gender, we move into a different realm because while individuals may believe and act in certain ways based on their own individual ideas, in reality gender is something that is societally defined. As I have said elsewhere, masculinity is “possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men” (OED) or “the approved way of being an adult male in any given society” (Gilmore, 1990). It is a norm that is accepted at face value. Of course we know that there is more than one acceptable way of expressing gender but each of these ways is also determined by a society and not by individuals. The use of “masculinity” implies a societal norm that is modified by the word “toxic.” Thus, it’s the masculinity that’s toxic and not men per se. What it means when we tie it all together is that “toxic masculinity” is a way men can express their masculinity in toxic ways that are acceptable to society.

Toxic masculinity is therefore not merely men being toxic. Rather it’s men and women reflecting a way of being a man that is toxic. But it’s more than that — it’s expressing a harmful way of being a man that has become a norm in society. It includes such things as violence against women, boys will be boys, and patriarchy. So, on that level it’s not appropriate to simply remove the “masculinity” from the term and include both men and women, unless of course women also express their femininity in toxic ways. Which is itself and interesting question that I honestly don’t have an answer to. What would be an example of toxic femininity I wonder?

The term “toxic masculinity” is really a wakeup call for society to reconsider what we feel is normal. Toxic masculinity cannot be eliminated by merely removing the word from the phrase. The only way to eliminate it is to change what we as a society think is acceptable.

So, are you upset with the term “toxic masculinity” because it doesn’t reflect who you are as an individual? Great! It should make us upset. Want to make things better? Call out things like the normalisation of violence against women, boys will be boys, and patriarchy so that the toxicity can be made safe.

As always, I would like to hear your voice on this important topic. Does what I am saying make sense or have I missed the mark in some way. Please let me know in the comments below.

Like what you just read? Please click Like or Subscribe to make sure you don’t miss the next instalment.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by danilo.alvesd on Unsplash.

Pagkalalake at Maka-Diyos: I am creating a new series on Masculinities that will help us explore what it means to be men & how we can become better shapers of masculine cultures.

Posted on by

Basahin sa wikang Tagalog.

Are you as confused by the idea of masculinity as I am sometimes? It seems that every day I read something that either says men must be like this, men shouldn’t be like this, or men are toxic, men are too feminine, men aren’t allowed to be men anymore, and so on. And it’s a confusing issue. I tend to write from the perspective of the church and theology so that’s where I normally look first for solutions. I am also trained as a social scientist so I see the value of empirical research as well in seeking solutions.

This topic is important to me but I am at a loss at times to think about good answers to these questions. That’s why I am creating a multilingual and multiplatform series on masculinities that will help us all navigate this complex issue. This series will be called Pagkalalake at Maka-Diyos, a Tagalog phrase that can be translated as Masculinity and Religiosity. I have written about masculinities in a short series here and I am hoping the new series that will follow this post will add on that foundation. I write from the context of culture and mission in the context of the Philippines and Canada.

I have a couple of thoughts. Humans are made male and female. I realise that this is a disputed claim of late but please know that I am aware of the complexities of the topics of sex and gender, maleness and femaleness, masculinities and femininities, man and woman-ness, and so on. I need to go with how the creation of humanity is described in Genesis 1 and 2 as being male and female in the likeness and image of God.

What I want to know is what is unique about men as men? I mean, why did God make humans this way? Certainly there are areas of humanity that are common to all — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control — but for some reason God created humans as male and female. There is a level of plurality to humanity. What does that plurality look like? What is the significance of that plurality? What do men bring to the table that women don’t and vice versa?

It’s a harder question to answer than we might first think. On the simplest level, men and women work together to reproduce. The man provides the sperm and the woman provides the egg. When the two combine they form a child who grows in the womb of the woman and eventually is born into the larger world. But the fact that asexual reproduction occurs in other life forms on earth means that sexual reproduction isn’t a necessary part of reproduction. So God wasn’t forced into making humans male and female because it was an unavoidable law. So why then? What other reasons might exist?

The purpose of this series.

That is the purpose of this series. Part of it will look at various examples of masculinities in the Bible, to see if that book can provide us with some guidance. (I have already started this here.) I will also examine several topics that emerged from a brief question on my Facebook page. People suggested the following topics:

A lot of Filipinos work in jobs outside of the Philippines. They are called Overseas Filipino Workers and they provide a large economic boost to both their families and the national economy. One aspect of this type of work, however, is the fact that families are often separated, meaning that oftentimes both men and women must function as their counterparts. Several suggested that I explore these topics, including whether or not men become less masculine when they are forced to function as mother or when they work in stereotypically feminine jobs abroad?

Others were also interested in this gendered division of labour but among non-OFW families still in the Philippines and how this affects masculinity. How does performing domestic chores relate to popular knowledge encapsulated in expressions like “under the saya”? Or what if the wife is the chief breadwinner while the husband performs the majority of the domestic chores?

Others are interested in affairs of the heart, such as the pros and cons of being single are celibate or even the proper ways of courtship and dealing with a broken heart. On a similar note, what happens when the two lovebirds take the important step of marriage? How does masculinity play a role? What about mutual submission between husband and wife? What about in cases of abuse — does that nullify the need for submission?

Parenthood and the various roles in that process is also of interest to some. How about raising sons? What kinds of influences do the mother and the father need to have on their sons so that they can be prepared for adulthood?

Other want answers about men’s mental health. That includes exploring “the sensitivities of moving away from ‘you’re okay!’ and ‘I’m okay!’ and getting closer to ‘are you okay?’ and ‘am I really okay?'” as well as discussing issues such as emotions and picking our battles. Connected to mental health is physical health as well.

Others are interested in how masculinities relate to men and society as a whole including masculinity and the church, career, and past times such as video games.

Perhaps you can think of some more suitable topics for this series. If so, I would love it if you would leave a comment below.

You may be interesting in following this series. If so, please subscribe to this blog either via email or via the link below. I would love to have you as a part of this community.

Remember, sharing is what friends do.

Image by Papaioannou Kostas on Unsplash.

I went looking for masculinity in the Bible & this is what I found.

Posted on by

There has been a lot of discussion of late among the circles that I am involved in about what “Biblical Masculinity” is. We like things to be clearly defined, particularly areas that define how we are supposed to live. The assumption is often along the lines of “God has a plan for the way we are to live so if we can just figure out that plan then it will be easy for us to live it.” To that end, I went to the Bible to try and find out what it means to live as a man. Note that in this case I am not using the universal “man” to denote all humans but rather males specifically. Remember also that Masculinity is in its most basic sense the “possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men” (OED) or “the approved way of being an adult male in any given society” (Gilmore, 1990).

In my search, I found myself in 2 Samuel 3, which is chock full of masculinity. Let’s see if we can extract a masculinity for us to emulate as faithful men of God. We also need to be reminded that the bible sometimes prescribes actions (stuff we are required to do) but more often describes actions (stuff other people did).

The man who fathers six children with six different women. Wait. What? Not the first example of biblical masculinity that I thought I would encounter. It actually flies in the face of contemporary Christian masculinity that champions fatherhood in the context of the nuclear family. What is interesting is that Absalom and Amnon have issues, that David is unwilling to work on, and as a result Absalom will eventually seek David’s throne and his life. Even though he fathered many children (and there are more besides these ones here), he clearly wasn’t always a very good father. Is a biblical man one who imitates David in this way?

The “Godless Fool“ who was so self-centred that his disrespect for others led to his own death (and whose wife was more honourable than he). We read about Nabal, whose name means Godless Fool, in 1 Samuel 25, where he is described as “harsh and mean,” and such “a worthless man that it’s useless to talk to him.” The reason he appears here is because David eventually married Nabal’s wife, Abigail, and it’s her son, Chileab, who is one of the six kids mentioned above. Is a biblical man a godless fool?

The man who faithfully serves his master’s family even in the face of open warfare. Abner was a good guy. Even though he appears on the wrong side of history, given that he supported Saul over David for the kingship, the Bible is very clear that he is honourable. And this honour was in the face of hand to hand combat. It’s quite the thing to face your enemy, grab him by the head, and stick your sword into his side — all while he is doing the same thing to you. If it was me I would probably run. What’s also interesting is that Abner remains loyal to Saul’s family even though he knows God has replaced him with David! That’s pretty strong resolve, isn’t it? Is a biblical man one who is a faithful servant?

The man who acts to defend his honour. Abner’s loyalty and faithfulness is then besmirched by Ishbosheth who falsely accuses him of raping one of Saul’s wives. We really have no context for this claim, other than what we read in this text, but Abner’s response is not unsurprising in someone falsely accused in this way. Is a biblical man one who defends his honour?

The man who wins his wife with 100 Philistine foreskins. If you are interested in this story, take a quick look at 1 Samuel 18, where we read that David doubled the required amount to 200, but that he also had help. What is involved in taking 200 Philistine foreskins? Killing 200 Philistines first because I can’t conceive of a situation where these would be willing turned over. Would you agree to those terms? How would that conversation go?

David: “Hey, bro, can you do me a solid and give me your foreskin so I can use it to get a wife?”

Random Philistine: “Over my dead body.”

David: “Okidoki.”

So, 100 Philistine foreskins = 100 dead Philistines. Obviously, winning a wife in this way requires a man capable to acquiring 100 foreskins. Is a biblical man someone capable of taking 100 foreskins? Is a biblical man someone who demands his wife back after she is already married to another?

The man who follows his wife down the road weeping because she is being taken back to her first husband. Paltiel, son of Laish wasn’t having a good day. He was squeezed between to fighting families and lost out in the end because he had to give up his wife. Michal, his wife, had originally been David’s wife — the one he paid 100 Philistine foreskins for. In 1 Samuel 25:44 we read that Saul had given Michal to Paltiel. He obviously loved her a lot to become so vulnerable in this way. Is a biblical man one who cries when his wife is taken from him?

The man who kills an honourable man as revenge for his slain brother. Joab and Abner were enemies from the day that Abner killed Joel’s brother Asahel. He had been awaiting this moment for quite some time. During those years in Israel, families were allowed to avenge deaths. If you accidentally killed someone you could flee to a city of refuge, where you would be safe until the death of the high priest. That ended anyone’s claim over your life. What is odd is that in this case, Joab killed Abner in Hebron, which was a city of refuge. Is a biblical man one who takes revenge on his enemies?

The man cursed to only be able to operate a spindle or to fall by the sword. David was upset over Joab’s revenge killing of Abner so he curses Joab’s family in an interesting way. Joab’s family would always have a man who would operate a spindle. A spindle was used for spinning and wasn’t apparently something commonly used by men in that in the only other usage in the Old Testament it is used by a woman. Death on the battlefield is a necessary part of warfare, but people’s preference is to live on the battlefield because that means that you have won. If your families always die, then they aren’t very successful. Is a biblical man one cursed like Joab’s?

The man who shows, through ritualistic mourning that he is innocent of another man’s blood. David expressed a lot of emotion during the funeral for Abner, including loud crying, singing, and not eating. He did not protect himself from shame or appearing weak, but rather put honouring Abner above his own interests. It was this vulnerability that caused the people to believe his innocence. Is a biblical man one who shows this kind of vulnerability?

Even though we can technically answer “Yes” to the question “Is a biblical man one who ______?” it is also obvious that not all of these men are to be emulated. It is also obvious that It seems as if there is not one universal masculinity expressed in this chapter. Men can also, apparently, express different masculinities in different situations. It leads us to ask, “Why are there so many examples of men in this chapter?” The answer is because rather than just one, universal masculinity, the world actually has a variety of masculinities. I have written about that here, here, and here.

What does this mean for Christian men today? There isn’t one, single, biblically defined version of manhood for us to emulate. We can express our manhood in a variety of ways, none of which are biblically prescribed. It also means that things aren’t as clear as some are saying about what it means to be a Christian man. It takes the ability to interpret and understand the text of the Bible it a way that acknowledges its complexities.

What are your thought on masculinity? Why not leave a comment below?

If you liked what you read, please consider liking and following this blog.

Remember, sharing is what friends do.

Image by Alexander Nikitenko on Unsplash.

My thoughts on Kristin Du Mez’ “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.”

Posted on by

Kristin Du Mez’ Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation is a New York Times bestseller and has been the centre of an online debate from the moment it first came out. Du Mez is a professor of History and Gender Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. I had a chance to read it a couple of weeks ago after borrowing the ebook version from the Saskatoon Public Library.

The publisher’s product description says, “Jesus and John Wayne is a sweeping, revisionist history of the last seventy-five years of white evangelicalism, revealing how evangelicals have worked to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism―or in the words of one modern chaplain, with ‘a spiritual badass.’”

I like reading books because of where they take me and how they get my mind to go down trails that may or may not have been the intent of the author. This book is no different. What follows is not so much a critique as it is a train of thought brought about by the book.

I enjoyed this book immensely and highly recommend it. As is obvious from some of my previous posts, masculinities are an important part of my life and ministry. Du Mez presents a view of evangelical masculinity that is frankly disturbing. Rather than evangelicals having a carefully thought out theological argument for being men, what we discover is a political argument for being men that is then adopted by the evangelical church. Each paragraph is footnoted with sources so readers can double check what is said.

At this point I need to point out that while I was reading I did find it a bit like watching the neighbours through their living room window. I was born and raised in Canada and have spent almost half my life in Southeast Asia so the American context is largely someone else’s context. Any understanding of a necessary close connection between evangelical masculinity and politics escapes me. I really can’t for the life of me understand why my evangelical masculinity needs to be so closely connected with politics and political systems.

I will say this with regards to politics: I do believe that all people need to be involved in nationbuilding, Christians in particular. We need to tell people that Jesus is the best possible leader. We need to tell people that Jesus’ Kingdom has an unparalleled set of values. We also need to work at serving them. Finally we need to spend time together discovering the truth.

But beyond that, it is not a part of my framework to connect that with some kind of political system (which I think the Bible refers to as a wild animal rather than a lamb who was slain). So that’s the part that I don’t get. I guess it makes it even harder for me to believe it when I find out that some of the American presidential candidates most hated by evangelicals were in fact evangelicals themselves (and their most loved rivals were anything but). I just don’t get it but that may be because I am not from there.

I do know the names of the key players in the story because they are also of influence in the parts of the world with which I am more familiar. I have attended Promise Keeper’s rallies and seminars. I have been encouraged by Eldredge’s books. I have shown Dobson videos to my youth group. My best friend’s father was heavily into Gothard when I was a kid. So these are familiar names. I must say that it was disturbing to me to see how carefully the crafted a version of masculinity that was so politically motivated. It made be question the things that I had learned from them and wonder what shortcomings my own perspectives have.

I will tell you one thing: As I have written elsewhere (here, here, & here), I don’t hold to universal gender roles, much less God-appointed gender roles. Rarely do we find someone who lives out their theoretical framework (read “theology” in this context) perfectly in life. And rarely do we find a framework that exactly explains everything in the world. As Rorty says, “A + B = C, unless it doesn’t.” The same applies to gender roles. My wife handles our finances because she is better gifted at it — we would be quickly bankrupt if I were to take the reins. My wife is a better missionary than be because she seems to have the abilities to make connections and carry out plans while I struggle along. Both of us are involved in public ministry as our callings and giftings determine. We both cook at home because we both enjoy it. I suspect it’s the same with you.

My wife and I enjoy watching cooking shows — particularly contest shows. What surprises me is the predominance of men in professional cooking and the fact that the women who participate say that it’s a hard industry for them to enter. Wait a minute. I thought that cooking was supposed to be the realm of women? (I see a lot of references to sandwiches on Twitter). What happened? What happened was that the framework that we have been presented with is flawed. Patriarchy still rears its ugly head even in realms where we think that it doesn’t.

Du Mez emphasises one strain of masculinity in her book. At first I saw that as a limitation but then realised that Du Mez does periodically refer to other sides to the story but these are only in passing and in the context of having been rejected by the subjects of her book. She is in fact tracing a hegemonic form of masculinity through the evangelical church. If you don’t remember, hegemonic masculinity is a term developed by Connell to identify the form of masculinity that is the norm in the cultural psyche, even if this norm is not actually the normal masculinity when it comes to practice (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). It does leave me with the question of whether there is there a range of masculinities among American evangelical men? Du Mez may have highlighted the hegemonic form but what about the other, perhaps more practiced, forms that exist? How can we champion those? Is it possible to affect change in the cultural psyche so that more harmful forms of masculinity become marginalised?

I also was surprised to see the inclusion of fundamentalists in the realm of evangelicals, since the fundamentalists that I know try to distinguish themselves from evangelicals. But that is really neither here nor there since the underlying theme tracing is hegemonic masculinity.

The book caused me to reflect on what I truly believe masculinities to be. It got me to examine my assumptions on a deeper level. What is masculinity for me? How does it differ from femininity? Is it even important to make a distinction? Am I, as a man, somehow specially prepared/gifted/enabled/called to something that perhaps a women isn’t? Or are those things determined by personality? How can I best use my manhood (if that’s even possible) for the furtherance of God’s kingdom here on earth?

My own masculinity research, where I talked with men in my community, tells me that some men see themselves sometimes as humans, with the same problems that all humans share. “Tao lang ako” [“I’m only human”] is a phrase often on the lips of the men when they describe their ability to be obedient to God. It encapsulates both their desire to do what is right but also gives them some leeway in their performance since “tao lang ako.” It reiterates their weakness and sets themselves apart from God, who wouldn’t have any problem being obedient.

But men are also men and as such need to become better people. They want to redefine themselves from the traditional ideas that men are violent or womanizers into something better. Knowing Christ has helped one of my friends overcome his hot headedness. He also said that in his opinion womanizers aren’t really true men because all that results is that their families are destroyed.

I don’t have many answers yet but Du Mez’ book has helped me deepen the process of discovery. It may help you as well. Why not pick it up and read it? It may cause you to reflect on your own situation as well.

Then again, maybe God has given you insight into these things. Please feel free to share in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please consider subscribing either via email or WordPress itself.

Image is a screen shot from the cover of the ebook I read and is copyright Liveright Publishing.

Imagining what the world is like: The usefulness of windows & doors in our worldviews

Posted on by

Imagine living in a room with no windows or doors. You are not alone. After a while you would develop a worldview limited by those four walls. Anything else would be speculation. Of course your other senses would work fine. You may hear things outside your room. You may smell things. You may feel vibrations. You may speculate as to what your senses were telling you but you wouldn’t be certain. The group would come up with an idea of reality. 

Then imagine that all of a sudden someone else appeared and installed a window. All of a sudden your world view would expand. Not only because the window expanded your view but because you also realised that other people existed outside of your room. 

We can then imagine the changes that would happen as windows were installed in each wall and as more and more of the world became visible. 

Now imagine that a door was installed and the installer invited you outside. What would change? Then imagine what would happen if you actually went outside. How would the group decide who would go? Would everyone go? What factors would contribute to whether people went or not?

What would happen when those who went out returned? Would their stories be clearly told? Would those who stayed behind believe them or not? Would more be convinced to leave or would decisions be made to close the doors & windows? 

Some more questions arise. What if you didn’t enjoy the view? What if what you saw was unbelievable? What if you didn’t want to go out the door? What if you didn’t trust your senses or trust the one inviting you outside? 

The examples could continue on into absurdity. What if the view out the windows wasn’t in fact direct but was an elaborate system of mirrors bringing you reflections of the world outside. What if (ala Plato’s allegory of the cave) all you could see was shadows of activities outside? What if the decision of the group was to tear the walls down and live together with those other people in the world?

How would the worldview change process work? What senses would you prioritise? What senses would you distrust more than others? 

A lesson from Men in Black.

In the classic 1997 movie Men in Black, James Darrell Edwards III is taken into a room with “the best of the best of the best.” As part of their testing before becoming one of the Men in Black, they are all taken into a shooting room full of graphical alien potential targets. They are supposed to shoot the dangerous targets and save the innocent ones. All the candidates go in guns blazing except for James, who carefully looks at each scary monster before calmly shooting the “little Tiffany” in the head. Let’s take a look at the script:

ZED: “May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?”

JAMES: “She was the only one who actually seemed dangerous. At the time.”

ZED: “And how did you come to that conclusion?”

JAMES: “Hook-head guy. You explain to me how he can think with a hook for a head. Answer; it’s not his head. His head is that butt-ugly bean-bag thing over there. ‘Cause if you look at the snarling beast-guy, he’s not snarling, he’s sneezing — he’s got tissues in his hand. No threat there, and anyhow, the girl’s books were way too advanced for an eight-year-old’s. And besides, from where I’m looking, she was the only one who appeared to have a motive. And I don’t appreciate your jumping down my throat about it. Or, uh — do I owe her an apology?”

James spent time carefully studying before going off guns blazing. He looked at the world around him to understand it so that understanding could better inform his actions.

The Windowless Room and Theologising.

It got me thinking about how much theology is done from the theologian’s office and how much from wandering about and observing? Which ends up being better? How important is listening to others’ analysis and evaluation as opposed to making your own? 

I love to read books. I particularly love escapist fiction because it draws me into a world that I can live in. I can dream while reading. I can imagine what life would be like if I were a character in the book. I enjoy people watching and trying to image their motivations for doing what they do. I also have a tendency to be shy. I prepare my sermons and lessons in isolation and them present them to people with real connections in the real world. But I realised after a while that my well was running dry. I had no more information to present and no way of finding a way forward into something new.

So I decided to study ways to better understand the world. That meant I had to study things like anthropology. I had to study about culture and society. Each of these fields has its own perspectives and theories that are useful in gaining understanding. Sometimes these theories offer criticisms of the current world. Sometimes they offer ways to better understand it. Sometimes they offer insights into how various and sundry parts of the world relate to each other. Sometimes they offer insights into how to interpret the world. It was great. It was like windows were being opened up for me to see out.

But more so than that, studying forced me to go out into the world and engage with it. I learned to observe people in the everyday environments and wonder why they did the things they did. I walked around my community trying to notice the things that I normally passed by. I learned to ask questions and listen for the answers. I talked to men on the street about their understandings of masculinity and religiosity. We talked about families. We talked about how to know the truth. We talked about their own ideas and perspectives. We developed deeper relationships with each other.

I certainly know that I gained more perspective once I got out into the real world. How do you maintain connections with the real world? How does that help develop your own perspectives and ideas? Please let me know in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please also consider subscribing to this blog either via email or WordPress itself.

Image by Arm Sarv on Unsplash.

What does it take to be a man, Part 3: How many masculinities is too many?

Posted on by

In a previous post, I discussed the idea of masculinities. In it I mentioned that masculinity should really be masculinities because there is not one standardized way to be a man. A followup post focussed on masculinities in the Philippines, an area of significance in my own life. In the comments, Mike Swalm and I chatted about the extent of these masculinities looking at the question of how many masculinities is too many? Mike pointed out a key issue with an infinite amount of masculinities and wisely says, “we move toward negation of corporate meaning. Why even talk about masculinity if it has such malleable and infinite meaning? Doesn’t that remove the very nature of the concept as something that is definable as a category, giving us no real ability to say it is “this” and not “that”?”

I thought I would take the opportunity of Mike’s question to discuss where masculinity studies is in this seemingly infinite continuum. As usual I will take a Bakhtinian approach.

Monologue. Revisiting Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity, we realise that even though there may be any number of variations on the masculinity theme within a given context, there is one that predominates the discussion so much that it drowns out the others. Interestingly enough the predominant theme doesn’t necessarily have the most supporters — it just predominates. Bakhtin called this “monologue.” Even though Connell’s insights have opened the door to other masculinities as being acceptable, masculinities more closely associated with patriarchy continue to predominate.

Dialogue. Obviously dialogue is better than monologue because it allows another voice to provide balance. We actually prefer a dialogic point of view because we enjoy dividing things up into to opposing parties. It is this recognition that leads from singular masculinity to plural mascuinities. In reality, however, things are rarely as black and white as we might like. In fact, they are often greyscale.

Heteroglossia. But there aren’t just two voices in dialogue — there are a multitude of voices, each seemingly clamouring for attention, each contributing to what it means to be a man. This moves us beyond greyscale into millions of colours. It’s actually this final idea that creates the question Mike asks because it seems to leave open the possibility of an infinite number of potential masculinities.

At the risk of oversimplification, on a practical level, there aren’t an infinite number of men in the world; the world is at least divided into males and females. That means that give or take 50% of the worlds population isn’t male. That means that the first line of demarcation is the male-female.[1]

A second line of demarcation is society itself. Society creates a framework for the conversations surrounding masculinity. Sometimes these societies are monologic in nature but quite often they provide limitations on the range of acceptable meanings within that society. For example, in a study I did in my community, where men had a variety of religious experiences and influences, I was surprised to discover that the conversation centred around only a couple of common themes. There is no limit to the horizons of epistemology in Bakhtin but the conversations still revolved around a few key clusters, including the importance of the wants, needs, and input of wives and families and seeing Christianity as central to their faith. Perhaps this means that cultures as a whole exert influence on the boundaries of dialogue that make it difficult for conversation to move beyond those points.

A final aspect of Bakhtin’s idea provides another level of demarcation. Bakhtin wasn’t really looking for that one unifying, universal answer to life. His purposes in developing his framework were not so that we could necessarily make sense of this crazy world we live in. Rather he seems to be giving us a way to recognise and embrace the messiness of this world we live in.

How does all of this work? Let me try an illustration from sports. For me, there is only one hockey team. When I refer to this team I will use the word “dynasty.” I will refer to their preponderance of Stanley Cup wins. I will refer to their aggressive style of play. Yup, you guessed it. My team is the Montreal Canadiens (How ’bout them Habs?). In many ways my allegiance to the Montreal Canadians is monologic. When we were kids we would argue about who we liked best. But through thick and thin it was Montreal for me. I know that other teams exist but what’s interesting is that I am not sure what you could do to convince me to cheer for another team.

But I do have to admit that Montreal is not the only team that exists. After all, they do need teams to beat 😉 The National Hockey League provides the fodder for the Montreal machine. It started with the Original Six (who some believe are the only real teams), then expanded to twelve in 1968, then to eighteen in 1974, twenty-two in 1992, and finally to the current thirty-two teams that take to the ice each week.

What also happened during these years is that hockey expanded internationally. What begun as an almost exclusively Canadian sport now has teams and players from all around the world. I remember watching a recreational team playing in the Philippines’ only ice rink a number of years ago. A friend was a part of a team in the United Arab Emirates around that time as well. Hockey has indeed become a heteroglossia.

What is interesting is that regardless of the level of the sport — from the NHL all the way down to shinny on the street in front of your house — the sport is still hockey. The nuance hasn’t changed that. What this has done for the sport is to make hockey better. I recall as a child reading about how Team Canada defeated some hapless international opponent 50-0. That wouldn’t happen today. In fact, international hockey is incredibly competitive, at both professional and amateur levels. The result is the reality that a team like the Montreal Canadiens cannot dominate the sport any more because other teams are able to join the conversation. Rather than a single dominant team, what we see is an entire sport that is played on an almost infinite number of levels. And the sport is better for it.

In a similar way, a deeper understanding of masculinities can only make those masculinities better. We need to move beyond the idea of a singular approved masculinity into a better set of masculinities.

What contribution are you making to the masculinity conversation? How are you making your voice heard? Please feel free to leave a note in the comments below to let us know.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Missed the previous posts on this subject? You can read them here: Part 1 and Part 2.

Notes:

[1] The 2SLGBTQ+ conversation is still going strong, and is still undergoing development. What started out as simply “straight” or “gay” has exploded into a seemingly infinite number of options as heteroglossia in that area develops. The male-female demarcation that I use here is not intended as a rejection of those voices but merely a recognition of the fact that, one, the voices are still sorting themselves out and, two, that I don’t understand them enough to place them into an easily-explained framework.

Image by Andrew Wulf on Unsplash.