In a couple of weeks I will be preaching on the story of Deborah in the book of Judges. This story is course well known for situating a woman in such a powerful position set within a context that has so often been condemned as the bane of women. There is also of course the murdering of King Sisera by the woman Jael who asks him to enter her tent to be refreshed. She offers him milk and then drives a tent peg through his head. Following this account is the Song of Deborah. The song is introduced as a duet (including Barak who leads, somewhat reluctantly) the army of Israel. But Barak is really more of a figure or symbol. The song is definitely offered as a solo.
There are some beautiful images here of how leadership flows into the mobilization of a group. The song begins,
That the leaders led in Israel,
That the people volunteered,
Bless the Lord!
As anyone in leadership knows this is no small accomplishment. This is a song. And so Deborah sings and what happens? God moves.
To the LORD I will sing
From there God marched out and the earth shook and the heavens were wrung of their moisture. Before this song community life was at a stand still but Deborah arose as
a mother of Israel
She saw that war was at the gates but even among 40 thousand not a shield could be found. Deborah's heart goes out to the people as they approach the gates. And what happens?
Awake! Awake! Deborah!
But to what end? She must take responsibility as their leader. She must be laying plans for war. No!
Awake! Awake! Sing a song!
And what comes? Here the translation could be challenged but perhaps,
Then survivors came down as nobles;
The people of the Lord came down to me as warriors.
The people are transformed and mobilized. And there was,
great resolve of heart
And for those who were not mobilized there was,
great searching of heart
For many people were not mobilized with God. But war went on as the kings fought and so did the stars in heaven. The stars fought from their own paths. There ordering is also mobilized for God's battle. The river torrent in its own path also sweeps along and carries away the enemy of God. And Deborah pauses,
Oh my soul, march on in strength
But those still searching and watching are now cursed they have not joined the fray.
But Jael did join. From her humble tent and her humble position she is now most blessed. To took what was at hand.
She offered milk.
She reached for the hammer.
She drove the peg.
She smashed his head.
And there between her feet Sisera,
bowed
fell
and lay.
And far off in a luxurious palace the mother of Sisera looks out and wonders,
Why does his chariot delay in coming?
Why do the hoofbeats of his chariots tarry?
Her plump princesses assure her. Oh don't worry. They are taken their time dividing spoils. They are trying to figure who can have one and who can have two women as their prize. No don't worry mother. He will return draped in fine cloth.
They lay in luxury but they are already decimated.
Thus let all Your enemies perish, O Lord;
But let those who love Him be like the rising of the sun in its might.
The battle belonged to the Lord. May we sing that God (and his people) would move.
This is the work of song. This is liturgy. Thanks be to God.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
This is the Work of Song; This is Liturgy
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Good Will Hunting on Relationships
Good Will Hunting was recently on TV and as I watched Will's childhood gang go bar-hopping and street-fighting I was reminded of the masculine ability to form intimate tribes between the ages of 17 and 25. Towards the end of the movie Chuckie (Ben Affleck) confesses to Will (Matt Damon) that he hopes one day Will won't answer the door when he comes to pick him up because he has used his knowledge to get out of south Boston. Through most of the movie Will rejects opportunities at love and work guarding himself and staying safe with his gang. At the end of the movie Will finally leaves his tribe for both love and career. I can in many ways relate to leaving my tribe at around this age. My hunch is that men become increasingly lonely after the age of 25. There may be a period from 25 to 30 where we are absorbed enough in pursuits not to notice it too much but it eventually surfaces. Are the sorts of relationships portrayed in this movie only applicable to a certain stage of life? Does our culture of romantic love and powerful career sever these relationships unnecessarily? Anyway, I miss my old tribe. And in case you forgot, here is a great scene.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Pastoral Care to Men
Previously in this series; There are of course numerous issues that are currently typical of men’s experience. In The Care of Men issues revolving around employment are among the most pressing for men.[1] What I want to focus on is that when ministry is geared specifically to men then I would argue that the issue is primarily and most often what it is to be a man. This may appear tautological or assumed within the fabric men’s ministry but given the framework of contemporary men’s ministry I would maintain that it is of primary concern. There is near consensus among the various men’s ministry websites that something has been lost. What has of course been lost is that time when masculinity simply was when there existed a male ontology as Ward put it. Men have not done the work that women have in terms of gender reflection. In the development of women’s self-understanding there appeared to be an integration of masculinity. I am thinking particularly of the iconic image of Rosie the Riveter that pointed both to physical and economic strength for many women.[2] This has not been mirrored in men’s ministry. The Seven Promises of the Promise Keepers include nurturing a close relationship with a few men and developing a strong marriage but nowhere include the need for greater internal or external relationship with femininity.[3] Recent GodMen events do not allow women to attend and state clearly that only men can understand the specific needs of men. There are scores of men’s ministry websites popping up all the time and I have yet to see prominent feminine images. The converse rather is true with hypermasculine images of warriors, muscles and athletics are dominant. The primary message is to fight and win back what was lost. As I think of my own church context it is true that less men are actively involved in the life of the church. Many of the popular expressions for public discussion include sports. Part of the argument coming from men writing on this issue is that the church is not challenging enough for their ‘warrior’ or competitive nature. I would argue that retreating into nature (or sports) to be among men is just that, a retreat. Not that it is wrong but that if it is not equipping to encounter the sexual difference within themselves, among themselves and in relationship to women then the time spent there will likely be reduced to playing ‘cops and robbers’ or King of the Castle where dominant masculine expressions repress the holy tension of sexual difference. I suspect that if adventure, risk and strength are sought they may be found in exploration of internal and external sexual difference. [1] Christie Cozad Neuger, “Men’s Issues in the [2] Wikipedia, Rosie the Riveter, retrieved [3] The Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, http://www.promisekeepers.org/about/7promises.
Preface to Theology and Gendered Ministry
Framing Gender Differences
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 1; Graham Ward's Cities of God
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 2; Graham Ward's Christ and Culture
Theology and Gendered Ministry: A Critique of (Some) Contemporary Men's Ministries
The conclusion to my work in this area was little thin but for anyone following this thread here it is.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Theology and Gendered Ministry: A Critique of (Some) Contemporary Men's Ministries
Previously in this series;
Preface to Theology and Gendered Ministry
Framing Gender Differences
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 1; Graham Ward's Cities of God
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 2; Graham Ward's Christ and Culture
Given the preceding discussion on gender (see above links) it is important to ask the question of what is implicitly involved in men’s ministry, particularly in
It is important to remember that the first statement on the domain of power and sex is its negative relationship. It is confusing that such extreme outcry has emerged from particular men and men’s group as to the apparent ‘feminization’ of the church. Though the vast majority of church leadership is male and church attendance is divided roughly 60 percent female and 40 percent male writers such as Leon Podles mourn the loss of the masculine church which he says men lost already in medieval period.[7] Were the ratio of leaders reversed feminists would be celebrating in the streets. I do not discount that as an institution the church is far more open to feminine expressions in comparison to other social institutions in the West. What I am interested in is the type of response this can engender in men. In family systems a well-differentiated individual is able to accept, even welcome growth and increased independence of an individual within the family. This is not the type of response typically encountered by men writing on this issue. Rather, what is being revealed is the power-relations that had been implicit in the church structure prior to these shifts. Podles assumes that the church and God were once explicitly masculine. Historically women in the church, as in biology, were relegated under the larger masculine hierarchy (Podles argues that masculinity itself, ‘that which separates,’ is analogous to holiness). This relationship follows the structure of power relations that Foucault describes. As women became ‘existent’ and emerged from outside the power structure the structure appeared to be destabilized but had no ‘positive’ response. On this subject Ward writes that “the reality of women calls into question the governing male ontology, the hierarchal ontology, which supports . . . exploitation.”[8] The only response was a renewed attempt to relegate women back into constraint and render them ‘annulled in reality.’ This type of response only seems to confirm that much of the church had functioned under an unequal power structure that did allow the creative tension of sexual difference as Ward outlined above. In Podles’ ecclesial construct feminization is a threat as opposed to a complementary or even necessary expression of the church. Podles writes that “Christianity is [now] a religion of and for women.”[9] And if this is wrong, as it is in his account, then the response is to restructure a church that is of and for men as opposed to a church that embraces male and female as divine expressions of being human. This is a negative power relationship. The only ‘positive’ content that tends to emerge from specific male ministries is the need for men to gather and express themselves in complete exclusion to women. What is ironic is that even this expression requires women otherwise there would be no framework for ‘separating,’ which is key in Podles understanding of masculinity (and even more ironically, key for Ward’s notion of sexual difference and ‘space’).
Understanding the contemporary context of men and the church aids pastoral care givers in their ability to discern the larger web of issues that may be implicitly or explicitly informing a particular situation. The questions that need to be asked include the following. To what extant should particular ‘male’ expressions be endorsed and what expressions need to be brought into greater relationship with feminine difference and space? What are issues for men as men and what are issues for men as humans in a particular social position? It is only after understanding the theology of gender relations that these can questions can be answered appropriately as a pastor.
[1] It should that other factors, such as economics, can also be attributed to the shift in masculinities in the West. See R. W. Connell, “The History of Masculinity,” in The Masculinity Studies Reader.
[2] With reference to family systems see Edwin H. Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (New York: The Guilford Press, 1985).
[3] Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), 82.
[4] Ibid., 83.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 84.
[7] Originally published Leon Podles, “Missing Fathers of the Church: The Feminization of the Church and the Need for Christian Fatherhood,” Touchstone 14.1 (Jan/Feb 2001). Retrieved
[8] Ward, Christ and Culture, 138.
[9] Podles, “Missing Fathers.”
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
In and Beyond Language
I recently commented on a post over at Mixophilosophicotheologia. He was exploring other modes in which language and Christology could be understood. I am making an article by Graham Ward available which I think substantially expands the discussion and looks beyond the traditional structure of the relationship between language and theology. My thoughts on his work are integrated in my posts below on gender, theology and ministry.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 2; Graham Ward's Christ and Culture
Preface to Theology and Gendered Ministry
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 1; Graham Ward's Cities of God
Having outlined the theological significance of Jesus’ body Ward, in his chapter “Divinity and Sexual Difference,” looks more specifically at the implications of his theological context of gender differences. Ward guides his discussion with the work of Luce Irigaray whose primary focus in the relationship between religion and gender is the existence of difference, space and desire. To maintain that Christ was humanly only as a man among other men forecloses difference, space and desire (which requires two) and demands that women must identify with the masculine gender for salvation. Difference must be maintained in gender because “sexual difference seems to me to assure the limits of being human which allows space for the divine.”[1] If Christ is the body of salvation then Jesus must somehow be more than just masculine. Some have argued that Irigaray’s position returns to a biological essentialism of heterosexual difference. Ward rejects this saying that her framing of sexual difference between the role of the phallus and two lips of the vagina is symbolic noting that they “do not necessarily map into bodies possessing male and female genitalia.”[2] Irigaray then looks to the body of Christ with the knowledge that it may contain more maleness. She finds that “there appears, in the form of a wound (his side), the place that, in women, is naturally open.”[3] It is within Christ himself that sexual difference may be maintained in particular contexts. And why is sexual difference important? In the Bible it is in the space of separation, difference and desire that creation and redemption occurs. “Desire is both the creator and the creation of space. Only where there is space, where there is distance, where there is difference, can there be love that desires, that draws, that seeks participation. . . . In the beginning God created by a process of separation.”[4]
This drawing into intimate relationship and the act of creation is not dissolution of the self. The space must be maintained and not foreclosed as the logic of patriarchy had it. In this space “we” emerge knowing more fully both “you” and “I.” There are two important post-resurrection stories that illustrate this. In John’s Gospel Mary encounters Jesus, but does not recognize him. Ward frames the encounter as heterosexual and one of desire. As Jesus calls her name she is drawn into desire and recognizes the partner in the space (Rabboni!). The recognition of this space prompts an immediate response and she draws into an intimate embrace with Jesus. Jesus tells her not to cling to him, the space must not be foreclosed, because he must return to God for this space to be inscribed in their faith. The other encounter is Thomas and Jesus. Thomas is the opposite of Mary. He is distant, isolating himself from the possibility of intimate space. Jesus must come to him and say reach out your hand and put it into my side. Place your hand in the place, that, in women, is naturally open. Here in this space there is also revelatory recognition, My Lord and my God! Here we have a ‘homosexual’ encounter in which the space of sexual difference is still able to be created. In both these examples sexual difference is created, regardless of biology. Wards states that “there is no theology of sexual difference, then, only the production of sexual difference in a theological relation. The encounter with Christ installs both the difference and its erotic form, its sexuate nature.”[5]
All relationships then produce sexual difference and carry an erotic nature (economy of desire). Theologically then we must think carefully through what it means to relate in Christ. “A body is, if you like, always in transit, always exceeding its significance or transgressing the limits of what appears. . . . The body exists fluidly in a number of operations between reception and response, between degrees of desire / repulsion, recognition / misrecognition, and passivity / activity.”[6] The body cannot be confined and reduced, it is in this continual negotiation that creation, love and salvation occurs. Gender is an expression of difference acting out within our various relationships in the body of Christ.
Ward offers a substantially different framework for understanding gender. Most scientific (and theological) approaches to the study of gender attempt to ultimately foreclose categories; to confine, dissect and analyze. This leaves individuals and groups working with prescriptive categories that do not apply to everyone and are often unjust in their relationship to other social groups. Ward does not discard biology as the body remains the primary site of meaning. It is, however, in the ongoing reality of relationships, of space, that allows people’s experience to be fully gendered, fully human.
[1] Christ and Culture, 139.
[2] Ibid., 139-40.
[3] Ibid., 140.
[4] Ibid., 145.
[5] Ibid., 154.
[6] Ibid., 157.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 1; Graham Ward's Cities of God
The theological paradigm of gender that I am adopting is taken directly from the work of Graham Ward in his books Cities of God and Christ and Culture.[1] Ward’s chapter “The Displaced Body of Jesus Christ” in Cities of God outlines his particular understanding of the gendered Jesus. In this chapter Ward finds in the Gospels the instability of Jesus’ gender. From birth Jesus appears to issue from promise and not from copulation. Jesus comes from virgin flesh and the line of Joseph. In medical terms the male Jesus who is circumcised (we assume his biology is confirmed here) issues from the XX chromosomal femaleness of his mother. Through his life the body of Jesus exhibits unusual expressions. “This man can walk on water. This man can sweat blood. This man can bring life. This man can multiply material so that five thousand are fed from a few loaves and fish. This man can heal by touch; and not just heal but create – wine from water, the eyes of the man born blind, the ear of the
At the crucifixion Jesus’ body is objectified, degendered, displaced as it is acted upon as meat and not human. But that is only in relation to the structural powers of law. Theologically the body is still displaced, distanced, but it is also gendered in the feminine as mother. The pierced side of Jesus issues blood and water birthing the church. In the eucharistic body we are joined through taking in Christ. In the crucified body we are dispelled from the side of Christ. Ward draws great significance for us as we are caught up in these movements. Ward is worth commenting in full here,
At the resurrection Christ’s body is raised corporeal but exhibits itself as even more unstable then in his prior life. He is now able to disappear, hide his identity and walk through walls. This increased instability reinforces to us that Christ’s identity and perhaps the identity of bodies in general cannot be finally determined, they keep their mystery and are able to offer revelation from that place.[6] Ward writes that,
With the ascension Jesus’ body receives its final displacement. Ward is quick to point out though “that displacement is not the erasure but the expansion of the body.”[8] In many ways it is Paul who is our interpreter of the ascended body of Christ when he writes in Colossians that the Church is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. “The final displacement of the gendered body of Jesus Christ, always aporetic and transgressing boundaries, is the multigendered body of the Church.”[9] As the crucifixion is turned onto its head as an event of birthing so to the ascending of Christ, Christ ‘leaving,’ is a creating of space for the divine-human relationship which Ward states clearing as re-establishing,
[1] Graham Ward, Cities of God (
[2] Cities of God, 100.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 103.
[5] Ibid., 106.
[6] Ibid., 109.
[7] Ibid., 111.
[8] Ibid., 112.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., 113.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Framing Gender Differences
The categories of male/female and masculine/feminine are neither fixed historically nor monolithic presently in global cultures. In the West speaking of the gender differences as ‘opposite’ has not always been relevant. Prior to the Enlightenment women remained largely a part of an overarching hierarchical male model in which women were on a lower point on the scale of being human (that is male). Female reproductive anatomy was understood to be the same but inverse as men. “Women were essentially men in whom a lack of vital heat – of perfection – had resulted in the retention, inside, of structures that in the male are visible without.”[1] These were the same organs, just at different stages of development. It took until the 1700s before specific vocabulary emerged to describe female anatomy. It is at this point that biology arose to both define and segregate genders in an unprecedented way in the West. Male and female became opposites as opposed to places on a hierarchal spectrum.[2] Biological differences led to all sorts of speculations and assertions as to the differences between genders. In the modern west biological sex came to define gender.
Though biology continues to play a significant role in our understanding of gender in the past generation developments in psychology, anthropology and sociology have also offered significant contributions. This has led to varied and conflicted claims about gender. In the field of biology, evolution, neuroscience, and hormone research have all made claims that gender is ultimately determined by our genetic makeup. This field is typically used to support the notion that gender is based in nature. Contemporary biological research is a battle wearied field as it has been plagued with easily becoming ir being framed in politic terms. Even apparently objective studies would use such politically charged language speaking of women’s inability to separate thought and feeling as opposed to their ability to synthesize the two.[3] The authority of nature was quickly picked up by both social conservatives or liberals to normalize either homosexuality or the nuclear family. Recent research seems to be much more self-aware of this tendency and is much more tentative in its claims. Simon Baron-Cohen acknowledges that generally men have a greater capacity to systematize while women carry a greater capacity to empathize.[4] The reader is quickly warned that this says nothing of the individual who may fall anywhere on the spectrum. Baron-Cohen looks to the particularities of Autism and Asperger Syndrome as a possible example of an ‘extreme male brain.’ Since these conditions are highly genetic and related to neurodevelopment the claim is offered that the chemistry of our brain tends to shape male and female brains along this spectrum.
The role of anthropology has tempered the extant to which biology is allowed to play a determinative or prescriptive role in gender distinctions. On a global scale very few, if any, claims regarding normative gender distinctions can be made. In his chapter on cultural constructs of gender Michael Kimmel notes the wide ranges of gender expressions around the world.[5] In some cultures gender appeared to play little role in organizing society. In some instances both genders share in a more ‘feminine’ expression of nurture while in other cultures both genders express a more aggressive ‘masculine’ nature. He surveys cultural expressions of extreme male dominance, of general equality and of female dominance. Also, some cultures have traditionally allowed for more than two absolute gender expressions. Certain Native American cultures have clearly prescribed roles for biological males who exhibit feminine traits or whose sex is ambiguous. In some of these cultures when a family has two many girls one might be chosen to live as a man and participate in the male division of labor. These women often grow to enter into lesbian relationships.[6] There is also extreme sexual diversity among global cultures with some south pacific cultures practicing ritual anal or oral sex among men. Here older men ‘inseminate’ younger boys so that they receive their ‘life force’ and can become productive warriors.[7] These men would not consider themselves homosexual or bisexual. Despite this diversity Kimmel acknowledges that nearly all cultures recognize divisions between genders and that the male gender generally has greater power within a given culture.
The primary contribution in the field of psychology (or of psychoanalysis in particular) appears to be the view that gender is understood to be an achievement in the development of individuals. In Freudian thinking this is related to the third stage of infant development. The first two are the oral and anal stage which both genders share equally. It is at the genital stage that the genders begin to diverge. In this stage individuals achieve masculinity or femininity. The masculine transition is considered more traumatic as the primary association of the feminine mother must be broken and the boy must associate with his father in order to have symbolic sexual access to the mother (the feminine). The transition for girls in this model is less traumatic. Here the girl must reject her sexual desire for her mother realizing her inability for sexual relations. She remains attached to the mother and develops a ‘passive’ sexuality in anticipation of male sexual relations. This model divorces gender identity with biology. It connects gender with sexual orientation (a gay person having failed to associate with his father). It reinforces traditional stereotypes of the sexually aggressive male and the sexually passive female. While much of Freud’s claims have been criticized or rejected many of the basic assumptions have been preserved. For instance, while many women reject the notion of ‘penis envy’ they may recognize the underlying power dynamics and speak of ‘privilege (or power) envy.’[8]
A sociological approach to gender also de-emphasizes the role that biology plays in gender differences. In drawing attention to the power that one’s environment plays on an individual Kimmel points to the unusual cases of children being brought up in near isolation.[11] In one particular instance a girl was nearly six before she began interacting with humans. Rather than being able to observe what sort of inherent gender or sexual dispositions the girl might exhibit he noted that her response was fear of people in general. Even after she got used to being around people she remained uninterested for a period of time “as if she did not see herself as one of them.”[12] Whatever our essential hardwiring might be environment plays a vital role in our formation.
Exploring gender as a social construction (though not ex nihilo) allows us to place less limits or arbitrary constraints on gender definitions then biology or psychology tend to offer (this will be important for the development of theological context for gender). Kimmel argues that a sociological perspective need not find differences within genders as aberrations but can rather speak of masculinities and femininities. Here gender itself is not an isolated expression but is a relational attribute within a larger social context. What is perhaps most important in the sociological or cultural approach to gender is its ability to link gender to power and politics. The question needs to be asked why gender differences are almost always linked to gender domination; that gender differences are embedded in a system that where men have power over women. Kimmel is quick to point out that this does not mean that each individual male feels or even experiences power.[13] The truth of male domination is that the social structures (economic, political, educational, scientific, religious) of our society have been formed and are still primarily inhabited by men. So even when women function in these structures they are still often functioning within a male structure. One example of this is in science, particularly the behaviour of molecules, where Barbara McClintock decided to reject the traditional models that assumed a hierarchically ordered relationship. “McClintock, using what she called ‘feminine methods’ and relying on her ‘feeling for the organism,’ discovered that instead of each cell being ruled by a ‘master molecule,’ cells were driven by a complex interaction among molecules.”[14] A woman could have continued to work in the traditional structure without finding these results so long as she did not change the ‘gender’ of the institution as McClintock had. In this way personal and social gender cannot be defined in a static way but continues to change as new relationships are created and old patterns are discarded.
None of these fields of study are neutral or objective as they all fall into larger political or social structures. It is important to have a sense of how each field of study approaches the issue of gender. This understanding should allow us greater discernment in clarifying the implicit motivations of those working on gender and gender ministry in the church. However, as Christians all of these approaches to gender must somehow be brought into relationship with a theological vision of what it is to live as a gendered person.
[1] Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1990), 4.
[2] Ibid., 6.
[3] Michael S. Kimmel, The Gendered Society, 3d ed. (
[4] Simon Baron-Cohen, “Does Biology Play any Role in Sex Differences in the Mind?” in The Future of Gender, ed. Jude Browne (
[5] The Gendered Society, 54-76.
[6] Ibid., 68-9.
[7] Ibid., 71.
[8] Ibid., 86.
[11] Ibid., 99.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., 105.
[14] Ibid., 112.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Preface to Theology and Gendered Ministry
“The first thing that strikes the careless observer is that women are unlike men. They are the “opposite sex” (though why opposite I do not know; what is the “neighbouring sex”?). But the fundamental thing is that women are more like men than anything else in the world.”
- Dorothy L. Sayers
“The number 1 issue that doesn’t seem to be addressed in the
- Brad Stine founder of GodMen
“What I see as a manifestation of sexual liberation is God made a couple: Man and woman and not simply God made man. Might Christ be the harbinger of this living reality? Why is his sexual incarnation denied or else treated on a human plane alone?”
- Luce Irigaray
Monday, March 31, 2008
Forthcoming . . .
In the Pastoral Care class that I am taking (recommended for me en route to ordination) I am writing a paper on ministry to men. This allowed me to finally spend some time reading and reflecting on the larger issue of gender. I will be posting on this topic briefly. For now sit back and enjoy a clip from Godmen the newest men's ministry in America. A recent article noted the lyrics to their 'cowboy up' style worship. The title of the song . . . Grow a Pair.
"We've been beaten down / Feminized by the culture crowd /
No more nice guy, timid and ashamed / We've had enough, cowboy up /
In the power of Jesus' name / Welcome to the battle /
A million men have got your back / Jump up in the saddle /
Grab a sword, don't be scared / Be a man, grow a pair!"
(Blade, you may want to steer Anthony in this direction)
Lord have mercy
Christ have mercy
Friday, September 14, 2007
Bearing Life
Having read the recent post at Rough Theory I am offering this for consideration. I tend not to work in the specific arena of gender but I was editing a earlier post and was reflecting on the usefulness or value of gender specific (though perhaps not biologically specific) language in the service of theory and reflection.
Please comment and criticize as needed. I understand that for some of you my initial "religious" context may already be an issue (though I would continue to contend for its conceptual significance).
-
-
Nathaniel Hawthorn’s The Scarlet Letter traces the movements of conception, gestation and birth. The setting of the story is the seventeenth century in a Puritan community in New England. A newcomer, Hester Prynne has an affair with the local minister Arthur Dimmesdale. Only Hester is charged with adultery because she becomes pregnant before her husband arrives from Europe (the townspeople put two and two together). The identity of her lover, however, remains unknown to the community. In judgment on Hester the community orders that she wear a scarlet letter “A” on her chest.
In Hester Prynne the physical body carries and births their act of passion. In Rev. Dimmesdale, however, their action finds no transformative womb as is found for Hester in the birth of Pearl. In the man all remains buried and cancerous in the heart. Hester continues to live with her act through her child and on her chest. And here too the judgment of the Scarlet Letter ultimately finds fertile soil. She is drawn inward judged by the world and by herself for seven years. In those seven years we read about a “new purity” that replaces what was lost. Hester emerges, made strong by the “stern and wild” teachers of shame, despair and solitude.
Arthur is only weakened. Though he finds greater communion with the sin of the world with no child and no letter Arthur remains the model of fierce righteous preservation. Arthur has no space for conception. Historically men have received or accepted few spaces for their “sin” to be transformed, to conceive new life. Men have worked externally entrenching laws and erecting towers. What women have not already naturally bore in their bodies men have imposed on their bodies. They have carried for many the long road of transformation and new birth. It is perhaps only the monks in their cells who have hoped to find a womb from which to heal their soul.
Is more attention needed towards the historically feminine aspect of bearing?
Mother Mary bore the Messiah within her womb and she also pondered within her heart. Hester and Mary are structurally made with cells that monks seek to reside. Intellectually this carried into a reflective nature which growth and substantive expression. We find the spiritual dimension of this perhaps most fully developed in Teresa of Avila’s exploration of her Interior Castle.
In her opening discourse she writes,
I thought of the soul as resembling a castle, formed of a single diamond or a very transparent crystal, and containing many rooms, just as in heaven there are many mansions. If we reflect, sisters, we shall see that the soul of the just man is but a paradise, in which, God tells us, He takes His delight.
Let us imagine, as I said, that there are many rooms in this castle, of which some are above, some below, others at the side; in the centre, in the very midst of them all, is the principal chamber in which God and the soul hold their most secret intercourse.
Listen then to how a man, St. John of the Cross in his Ascent of Mount Carmel, sets out on his path of communion with God.
Wherein the soul sings of the happy chance which it had in passing through the dark night of faith, in detachment and purgation of itself, to union with the Beloved.
On a dark night, Kindled in love with yearnings — oh, happy chance! —
I went forth without being observed, My house being now at rest.
In darkness and secure, By the secret ladder, disguised — oh, happy chance! —
In darkness and in concealment, My house being now at rest.
In the happy night, In secret, when none saw me,
Nor I beheld aught, Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart.
There is of course much that overlaps the two writers but the initial images are striking. Teresa understands implicitly that she carries a space to bear communion with God and life. John of the Cross must flee in the night to find his lover. The imagery is darkness, dislocation and passion. Though John experiences this as joy it is often not a well understood and potentially dangerous combination. There is a type of homelessness that many struggle with. This is perhaps a historically masculine experience (though of course unprejudiced in its specific expression). As I just alluded to there remains a volatile and often violent intersection of love and hate in the masculine desire for the feminine (or however one might characterize that communion). This is the rage against not having a home and not knowing how to be received as a guest (or lover). So there remains the siege of borders and staking claims though internally (and existentially) all remains in strife (I am thinking now of my recent viewing of Platoon and the internal vs. external strife explored there). There must first be a peace, and intimate communion apart from (and perhaps sometimes in response to) the judgment of the world. As Hester understood we cannot overcome the world in judgment. There must first be an acknowledgement of the home that is us and acceptance that we may be received as guests. And possibly the hope that new life is possible.
