Sunday, May 11, 2008

Jesus, Violence, and Masculinity

When thinking about violence this past week, and wondering how Americans get so socialized to violence both in our homes and in our international affairs, I came across this blog posting in my research files. It was written by pastor Mark Driscoll last fall, and it narrates his experience watching prize fighters in Las Vegas. You can read the full post for greater context, but I have excerpted a few paragraphs below. It begins:

"I am writing this blog while sitting in the Vegas airport . . . waiting for a delayed flight. This trip was on Southwest Airlines and this is the first and likely last time I fly it, for the same reasons I do not ride the public bus. It's always late, there is no assigned seating, and it smells like a Honey Bucket at a county fair.

The trip started with a cancelled flight due to what the pilot called "excessive leakage," which I assumed was from the plane and not the pilot. As we got off the aircraft we had just got on, I overheard the pilots talking about how it was leaking fuel from the same place as the plane that recently exploded.

Upon arriving in Vegas, my buddy, Mars Hill Worship Pastor Tim Smith, and I were picked up by Scott Knight. He is an elder at a church in the Portland area who was kind enough to get us tickets for the UFC heavyweight bout at the Mandalay Bay Events Center. He is a good guy who knows a ton of the fighters in what is the fastest-growing and most exciting sport in the world today--mixed martial arts, which also goes by other names such as cage fighting and ultimate fighting....
Scott then took us to pick up our tickets for UFC 74 Respect.

While waiting for our tickets, a few Mars Hill Church guys in attendance said hello. The fights were sold out and all fifteen thousand seats were filled. The sport has exploded and is selling out arenas all around the country. With the UFC also recently buying out the Pride Fighting Championships league, the sport is certain to only skyrocket. Curiously, it is most popular with men ages eighteen to thirty-four--the exact group that most churches are abysmal at reaching and retaining, in part because most churches and pastors have no idea what to do with men who are not motivated by a weepy worship dude(ish) singing prom songs to a Jesus who is presented as a wuss who took a beating and spent a lot of time putting product in his long hair.

The fights were amazing. The bloodiest fight was Renato Sobral's dismantling of David Heath. Apparently Heath talked too much trash in the pre-fight weigh-ins and the seasoned veteran Sobral took it personally and proceeded to open up some major head wounds, which turned Heath's head into a bloody mess. Despite the fact that Heath tapped out due to a choke hold, Sobral refused to release Heath until he forced him to pass out unconscious to teach him a lesson in respect. In short, Sobral does not seem like the kid who ever got his lunch money taken. There were a number of good fights on the card, including a few good fights that did not make the pay-per-view event.

The headliner was Randy "The Natural" Couture's dominating victory over Gabriel Gonzaga, who earned his shot at the heavyweight title after a surprising knockout via leg kick to the cranium of former Pride fighter and K-1 striker Mirko "Cro Cop." Despite Couture being much older and lighter, he absolutely dominated Gonzaga, breaking both his nose and will in overwhelming fashion from dirty boxing in the clinch....

Overall it was a good trip. I would strongly encourage all pastors and Christian leaders to spend some time familiarizing themselves with the fast-growing sport that is capturing millions of young men and ask yourself why. Lastly, if you get an opportunity to see a fight live, have fun….”

Now, before I explain what offends me in the above writing, I think it is fair to give some background on where this guy is coming from. One of Mark’s main points is that the church does not do a good job being relevant to men. Perhaps he is insightful here; I can appreciate this perspective. He also has often asserted that there is a crisis in masculine identity in the aftermath of the feminist movements of the 60s and 70s. I would agree with him on this point, too. Gender roles are not nearly as clear anymore and things have certainly been disrupted (though somethings needed to be disrupted, I would add.) In a sense I think there is something Mark is doing that is needed: he is identifying that some men are feeling at a loss to step into a sense of their own masculinity.

But in perceiving this crisis of men, it would be one thing for Driscoll to say, “We have a crisis of masculine identity happening today. Boys are growing up without dads and role models. They are being given confusing and often unhelpful messages from the media about being men, and we need to help them be responsible adults and be actively engaged in society and their families.” However, it is quite another thing for Mark to publish posts like prize fighting in Las Vegas as some kind of model of mature, even Christ-like masculinity.

An interesting blog posting that my friend Eric sent me (you can click here to read it), offers some more thoughts on why this kind of masculinity is theologically dangerous. This post is at times heavy in rhetoric. The sarcasm of Halden (its author) can even emulate the communication style of Driscoll that so often concerns me. So, I am not saying I agree with every sentence of this post, but I do think parts of it are brilliant.

Halden's blog begins by critiquing the following excerpt from an article in Relevant magazine, a publication which asked Mark the question, “What do you see as the greatest challenge for young Christians in the next 10 years?” Mark responded:

"There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity." [Italics added]

Here, I will echo some of Halden’s thoughts but put them in my own words. Mark states clearly that he cannot worship a Jesus he could beat up. I have to break it to you Mark, your street-fighting Jesus is not actually in the Gospels. The Jesus of the Gospels came in vulnerability and he came to lay down arms; he came to call us to a kingdom quite different than we could perceive in human power. He did not overthrow Rome. He did not engage in prize fighting. He did not summon legions of angels while he hung on the cross. And while Jesus may come with a sword in Revelation, he has not asked you to come with a sword (and I have a hunch that the book of Revelation, since it is in the prophetic genre of literature, is not just to be read at face value. Either way, you don’t get to come with a sword. That is not your job.) The New Testament clearly portrays a battle for Christians to fight that is not of flesh and blood. Christians are called to fight, but our weapons are prayer and love and truth and hope, not bloody hands or violent words or Bible verses we have made into ammunition to shoot people with from our cozy moral highgrounds.

The Gospel critiques the violence of men and women. And people of Christian faith need to begin to critique the violence in their own culture and ask why it is so endemic. And Mark Driscoll– who is hugely popular in evangelicalism– needs to be critiqued. He is a man with many gifts and talents, but he needs to be held accountable for the harmful messages he dispenses.

After spending weeks writing and thinking on the reasons behind why some men are socialized to be violent (see my article on TheOoze.com), I cannot read Mark’s words and not see connections. It is not OK to dress up our private need to be a playground bully–or a prize fighter in Vegas–with our religious language. It is not OK to package Jesus with our own violence, and somehow preach this as the Gospel.

(For further thoughts on violence, my friend Cabe is blogging on it these days. He has been an important conversation partner for me. You can read his thoughts here.)

13 comments:

Cabe said...

You're right, Kim. The street-fighting Jesus is not in the Gospels. But I have to break something to Mark: he isn't in Revelation either.

In Revelation it turns out that the victorious lion is a slain lamb, and when Jesus rides in to battle he has a sword, as Kim rightly pointed out, only it's a sword that is coming out of his mouth. His sword is the word of God.

There is war imagery in Revelation to be sure; many first century Christian communities felt besieged and attacked and so this imagery makes sense here. But it's always twisted a little, showing that this war is very much not conventional. For instance, it doesn't make sense for a victorious general's robe to be soaked in blood - to be soaked in blood like that is an image of defeat, because whose blood is it going to be but yours? And yet the victorious general riding into battle is wearing such a blood-soaked robe. This is not conventional warfare imagery, but subverted warfare imagery - imagery to transform and supersede conventional warfare.

The victorious lion is the lamb that was slain. That's the scandal of the New Testament, and perhaps of all human history. The lion defeats his foes by the way of the cross, not by the way of the sword.

I think Mark is right: Jesus could beat him up. The gospel (expressed perhaps too simply) is that he absolutely won't.

Also, it should perhaps be pointed out that pornography, something I believe Mark takes a strong stance against, is also very good at reaching men from 18 to 34. I think in that case also it's important to wonder with Mark why this demographic is drawn to such things. But to then colonize your doctrine of God with such things is problematic at best. Why are we to reject pornography but embrace the UFC? Why is sex bad in pornography but violence is great when it comes to the Octagon? Who gets to decide what's good and where?

If the answer to that last question is "Jesus" then I think there is a much better case for Christians to be skeptical of violence in all forms than there is for us to be skeptical of things like pornography.

Kimberly said...

Cabe! I love your thoughts here. I am grateful for your insight, the time you spend studying Scripture and reading good theologians, and all the good conversations we get to have. And I can't wait for you to write your book :)

Thanks for your comment here...I will be checking in with your blog.

Tasha said...

Perhaps instead of only judging the sins of pornography and violence, the church should attempt to understand the motives that drive people to them, as well. Violence and pornography are successful because people desire them, but why? The very group the church tries to reach is fascinated by these things but to quickly judges them, without trying to go to the root of the problem.
In a previous post on this blog, it was mentioned that sexual addictions are usually a result of a desire for intimacy, a deep sense of shame, and feelings of isolation. So, are these young men simply yearning for deep relationships?
Even secular society recognizes that people desire sex, Christians realize we desire it because it is a beautiful God-given thing; the total transparence between two people.
So, to turn to pornography, these young men must crave relationships and intimacy (even if they don't acknowledge it). Why then turn to violence?
In America, everything is nice. Even the poorest in our nation are among the richer portion of the world. There is no struggle, we go camping to pretend to be poor.
John Piper had an excellent view on sex that can that can be related to violence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG41ZVCcswY
Perhaps we are not seeing or showing the huge spiritual warfare, that things like The Exorcism of Emily Rose really do happen. That the battle we are in cannot be captured by Hollywood, it is to scary, too violent, and instead of our lifestyles at risk, it is our immortal souls. Are our young people aware of this grand picture? Are they shocked and stunned by the sheer power of God? I suppose not, since pornography is turned to for cheap thrills and violence for the testing of skills.
Here is another John Piper video on war and the Christian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_zpokAFfos
I once heard it said that those religions that require the most of there adherents gain the most followers. Maybe that is why Christianity is strongest in the countries where they are most oppressed. In our efforts to reach the next generation, could the gospel have been watered down?
Please, correct me if I am wrong, I am only 17 and still growing.

Kimberly said...

Hi Tasha,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts here. I look forward to listening to those Piper talks, too. I remember reading Desiring God when I was younger and loving it; that book of Piper's opened up so much for me in terms of enjoying God.

And I think what you have to say about sex and violence is so right on. I totally believe that sex needs to be redeemed and held up as a beautiful thing; I think I just struggle to know how to redeem violence. I think there is something very good about fighting passionately for justice, but I really believe the way of Christ is so different than the kind of violence Driscoll is glorifying.

I like your thoughts on considering the motivation behind violence. I have always seen violence as a way to exercise power over another, and I have also come to believe it is learned (so when we feel powerless at points in our lives, there can be a tendency to then turn around and use our power wrongly on others when we have the opportunity.) Those are just some thoughts, but I would love to hear more about what you think the root cause is of violence in our hearts, and how we can redeem this part of us.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your ideas.

Marilyn said...

Total confusion around strength and violence: check. Brazen attempt to shove a machine gun into Jesus’ hands: check. Obnoxious male bravado: check.

And yet, there is always something of worth in how we—Mark Driscoll included-- frame our "God." It speaks volumes about not only our demands and expectations of a higher power but also about the enormity of His actual dimensions- the God-shaped void thing; our longings betray who we were made for. In this case, Mark’s article highlights the size of the void AND THE FURY OF IT: Under his blistering enjoyment of (and hunger for) violence, is a furious, vacuous desperation for a God who will be enough, who will not go away, who will not fail him. A SACREDLY SOLID GOD. And sadly, he cannot imagine such a God, such as Savior, without tattoos and a bad-ass machine gun.

This is not meant to excuse or rose-ify Mark’s troubling words. His confusion of violence with true strength is worth lots of indignation and sadness. I just want to come back to the fact that his stance on violence is rooted much more deeply in what he perceives he needs his God to be. Our needs (as we perceive them) are not that different; we just live them in a different key.

So, how can we subvert the violence that rises up in us at times toward people like Mark D. or Pat Robertson or George W and thus be different than the very violence we are critiquing? Thoughts?

Dale Fincher said...

Thanks for the post, Kimberly. Jonalyn referred me to your blog on this.

I remember hearing J.P. Moreland talk about how many in our churches have hearts redeemed but their minds remain unconverted. I think this applies very much to Driscoll's view of masculinity. He isn't converted in this area. He hasn't got the point yet. He imitates the host culture.

But he's not alone. In the many, particularly evangelical, books on masculinity today, many say masculinity is in crisis and thus give the antidote that will save us. And that is usually tied to a tough-guy, violent hero who has a disdain for women (using feminine concepts to insult men, controlling women, "spiritual leader over women" talk, etc.). They've confused justice with violence. I'm a guy who likes to hunt, fish, and Jeep, but also enjoys wine, poetry, conversations and long walks in silence. And I don't feel any more 'manly' when doing one or the other. The Bible never makes those distinctions about manliness either.

I personally don't find masculinity in crisis because of 1970s feminism as much as I think feminism revealed the crisis of masculinity that has possibly been around for centuries. It was easy to hide when men were in charge, had power, could silence women. One way Jesus dealt with it was by modeling how women are to be viewed and treated.

Think of "Wild at Heart" for example. The first thing men need to remember is that our essence is to fight battles... and this is tied to our image-bearing of God. How sad for men everywhere who pray for peace on earth. Apparently the consummation of God righting the world is bad news indeed! They will be antsy and unfilled for battles. And, sadly, on this view, our God will also feel antsy, wishing for another world to overcome with his flexing muscles.

This is a sad tale. And it shows that whatever crisis masculinity has, even those decrying it loudest haven't offered the alternative--which means they haven't understood the so-called "crisis" (and what's more, this movement often deconstructs scripture, equivocating and stretching out of context).

My own view is that many outspoken masculinites are pandering to pagan views of men in order to revitalize a stale church. Historically, this was also done 100 years ago and it hurt women then as well. Or they are using false ideas about men in order for men to feel safe enough to confess their sins. I'm all for safe places for men to come clean with their issues and seek health. But these weird notions of manhood are not necessary for that.

I would like to see more men of courage stand up against the ideas of Driscolls, Elderidges, etc. of the church and say we will not celebrate these kinds of views here. (Sadly, many women voices will not be considered relevant on this issue because of the disdain for women and the rhetorical insults of calling them 'feminists.') This is a sad state of the church today... many of our leaders are mimickers, working at being relevant, and wooed into confusion.

I recently discussed the "new masculinity" on my blog and some good comments followed. The comment I liked best was from a man whom I know would find welcome in the "new masculinity," with his broad shoulders and vivacious spirit... yet he wants to get a latte, drive a cabriolet to Seattle, and punch Driscoll in the nose. Irony indeed.

http://dalefincher.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-masculinity-in-church.html

Anonymous said...

Hey Kimberly, I found you through Jonalyn's blog. I LOVE what you are writing about here (I've been pouring over your old posts over the last couple days). Just wanted you to know you've been added to my Favorites, and I'll be returning often :)

-Katie

Kimberly said...

Katie: Welcome! So good to hear from you! It really made me so happy to read your enthusiastic comment :)

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, insights, and experiences about these topics. Also, I am always curious about how people come to be passionate about this subject, so I would love to hear more about you! Thanks so much for being in touch.

Kimberly said...

Dale,
Thanks for stopping in here! I got a chance to check out the post on your blog, as well. Wow, quite a comment strand there. People definitely seem to want to talk about these issues! I am grateful. And I am have been so encouraged to find out about the writing and speaking you and Jonalyn are doing.

I so appreciated your insights here. It is good to hear it said that the crisis of masculinity was happening long before the feminists movements; really, the removal of men holding all the power just exposed that all was not well. Thanks for saying that, because I realize how little that gets said. I very much believe that within myself, but I shy away from naming it sometimes. It can be hard to speak on these things as a woman in the church. There is always the tendency to edit myself, so as to not get written off when I use words like "patriarchy" or suggest that the church really has failed for a long time to live into how Jesus modeled the equality of the sexes. I agree with you that in many ways courageous men need to start challenging the system, because women's voices (at least within evangelicalism) are still looked at suspiciously if they are questioning the status quo or being "disruptive." (Of course Jesus was rather disruptive, too....)

I was also struck by your comment that the crisis is not being understood if a true alternative is not being offered. I think you are right that the church is trying to revitalize itself by appealing to a certain notion of masculinity, which I think is based much more on what the media dispenses than what Jesus really offers.

I think you and Jonalyn will be up my way (Seattle) this fall? I am eager to meet you both.

Kimberly said...

Marilyn:

You said,

"I just want to come back to the fact that his stance on violence is rooted much more deeply in what he perceives he needs his God to be. Our needs (as we perceive them) are not that different; we just live them in a different key. "

Oh my gosh...I love your insight here. This is so disturbing to me, but in a good way. I am so struck by how we all, in our own ways, make God who we need God to be, to fit our fears and wounds and hopes. Thank you for helping me see this; I would love to dialogue more about it because I feel like it is a pretty big topic.

Your idea sort of reminds me of when O'Donnel Day says that we need to be careful not to make our theology a projection of our own pathology. But, what I love so much about what you offered in your comment is that you don't minimize the harm of Mark's violence, but you do help us see we are all in this together. We all, in our human-ness, are desperate for God to be what we think we need God to be. And so, we make God in our image (didn't Pascal say that?)

marilyn said...

Beautifully said, Kim. Thank you so much.

Steven Kippel said...

This truly is a concerning topic. I recently wrote about how violence is accepted in evangelical circles while at the same time we're so busy condemning provocative magazine covers, cuss words on TV.

There is a pervasive mentality in North America towards an acquiescence to violence. I believe this is conditioned by the military-industrial-congressional complex and especially the resurgence of militaristic nationalism. As our leaders do, so our people follow.

And somehow not only is Mark Driscoll OK with violence, he is projecting violence onto Jesus Christ who taught against violence and gave us an example of non-violence (1 Peter 2:21-24). In the very least he's creating his own image of Jesus that does not have any reflection in Scripture.

Driscoll is also essentially saying that true masculinity is only found in white, middle-class America. His image of man is violent, caustic and destructive. He also pictures man as industrious, strong and nonspiritual. Somehow this is the ideal man we should example, not Christ - oh yeah, he says Christ is this.

However, what’s most insulting to me is I’m a man and I don’t appreciate sports, I’m not a violent guy, I don’t smoke cigars. What Mark Driscoll and others like him have been saying is that I’m wrong for being who God created me to be. He’s saying I’m a wuss. He’s saying men like me are ruining the church.

He’s also implying women are weak and women are unfit for leadership. He’s also saying it’s a bad thing that so many women are in church.

On top of all this, it’s ridiculous to say that our human nature is what should lead our theology. He’s saying that men should indulge in their human natures and the Church should not give a better way of life in the form of Christ’s example. Just because men have a natural desire to kill things doesn’t mean they should be this way. Just because men are not by nature monogamous doesn’t mean they should be this way. In fact all of the Gospel calls men to be different, and the whole Church to be set apart from the ways and patterns of this world.

What Mark Driscoll and his ilk are saying is we need to be attractive to the world on their basis, at their level, not because we have a better way.

Kimberly said...

Steven! I have been meaning to write and say thank you for sharing your thoughts; I appreciated what you had to say.

I think you are right that we have "a pervasive acquiescence towards violence." And we should have such a better way!