"Cowboy up for Christ": the Godmen, muscular Christianity, porn, and saddle imagery

A long Reformation Day post.

Kristie, who also comments on this same topic, sends me a link to this Newsweek story: Godmen: Promisekeepers with an Edge. 

Godmen is, according to the organizers,  a series of testosterone-fueled Christian men’s gatherings across the country. Their purpose: to reassert masculinity within a church structure that they (the organizers) say has been weakened by feminization.

Uh huh.  Or, in other words, Godmen is about giving men who feel overwhelmed and challenged by a Gospel message of egalitarian justice a chance to worship God without having to let go of the very things that Jesus asks them to surrender.

According to the article, a "Godmen band" sings a song called "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!”

I consider myself a charitable fellow, but it's impossible for me as a man, as a feminist, and as a Christian to read that without a very loud derisive snort. How do you reconcile "No more nice guy, timid and ashamed" with Matthew 5?  It is the fallen culture that celebrates aggression; it is Jesus who celebrates meekness.  The Godmen have managed to get it all exactly backwards.  Simply invoking the "power of Jesus' name" doesn't magically transform an essentially secular message into a Christian one.

The Godmen have much in common with at least some of the secular Men's Rights Advocates I encounter in the blogosphere.   For one thing, both Godmen and MRAs engage in the nifty trick of framing themselves as "oppressed victims".  Since at least the 1970s, both MRAs and white conservative Christians -- traditionally the greatest agents of injustice -- have tried to steal the mantle of "victimhood" from the genuinely oppressed.  In this perverse reframing, gays and lesbians who want marriage equality become the powerful forces of evil, imposing their will on a simple, God-fearing, and ultimately powerless majority. 

If there's one thing I loathe above all else it's the appropriation of the language of the oppressed by the oppressors themselves; all the Godmen are adding to this tired mix is the apparent imprimatur of our Savior Himself.   According to the Godmen, Jesus didn't come to build a "peaceable Kingdom".  He came, it seems, to restore traditional gender roles and act as a Savior to that most noxious of cultural archetypes, the "hen-pecked husband" in danger of drowning in feminist rhetoric.

Scripture calls us to war.  But it is not a war to be fought by men only, and it is a war to be fought with prayers, not swords.  And war is, in the end, only a metaphor for the intense struggle we all fight on behalf of peace.  Paul, in Ephesians 6:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.  Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Paul's audience would have known better than any modern one what a shield and a helmet looked and felt like.  And the shields and helmets and swords Paul speaks of are entirely spiritual, to be used in congruence with a gospel of peace.   Paul and Jesus take classic symbols of masculine aggression and artfully turn them into tools for building a peaceful, just world.    For Paul and Christ, means and ends are radically, divinely congruent: peace is built peacefully with the shield of faith and a sword of the Spirit.  To mistake the physical sword for the spiritual one is an old and tragic mistake, one that Christians have been making since, oh, the early fourth century.

For the Godmen, pornography and masturbation are apparently the "worst" sins in which a man can engage.  (In the Newsweek article, they are mentioned several times as a particular focus.)  This is in keeping with much right-wing Christian rhetoric about the necessity of "purity."  At first glance, but only at first, the Godmen's hostility to porn seems to match that of certain wings of the feminist movement.  But the similarity is, I have come to realize, only superficial.

I've never been to a "Godmen" service.  But I've been to a few Promisekeepers events, and I've also got a strong grounding in secular feminism.  Frankly, I don't know many other men who have spent a considerable amount of time in both evangelical and feminist circles, and who feel genuinely at home in both.  (What was it old Walt Whitman said about contradictions?)  I've heard lots of talk about pornography in both camps.  And while the hostility to porn is often nearly identical in intensity, what undergirds that dislike of commercial sex is fundamentally different.

While the feminist anti-porn movement is concerned with the impact porn has on both women and men, groups like the Godmen only pay lip service to concepts like "exploitation" and "dehumanization."  What conservative Christian men's groups find so troubling is that an addiction to porn and masturbation leaves men feeling weak, powerless, and vulnerable.  In particular, for the vast majority who are heterosexual, it is the intensity of desire for women that leaves many men feeling dependent upon their girlfriends and wives (as well as the images on their screen.)  Thus a man who can resist pornography and sexual "sin" is a man who can stand up to women and resist their challenge to transform himself.  Feminists don't like porn because porn sends a fundamentally destructive message about who women are.  Godmen don't like porn because it is a visceral, shameful reminder of male weakness, one that stands at odds with their self-flattering vision of strong, bold, Christian warriors.  One group's opposition to porn is grounded in justice and a desire to see our common humanity acknowledged; the other's in the rhetoric of masculine autonomy and independence.

I am a Christian, washed clean in Christ.  I believe myself to be a new creation, one who still struggles mightily to follow my Master.  I am a feminist, committed to the notion that we are called to see men and women as radical equals.  I am a man who understands that his strength comes not from his testicles or his Y chromosome or his bravado, but from the Spirit that is given equally to all of us, male and female. 

The Godmen band use the image of the saddle and "cowboying up."  But the New Testament image of the saddle is of Saul of Tarsus, proud and cruel, thrown from his saddle and left sprawling in the dust of the Damascus road.   Saul became Paul -- and became a true Christian -- not when he climbed on his horse but when he fell from it. And men become followers of the Savior when they too are willing to be left sprawling in the dust, blinded and overwhelmed, surrendering all they have to Him.

Comments

[The Chief]

Umm...you know, I am neither a feminist (at least not once you get past first wave feminism) nor a Christian (though I was for years and still have some affection for my old school) and I enjoy pornography quite a bit (no apologies, I'm a firm believer in taking my pleasures where I can as long as I'm not directly hurting anyone else), so I have absolutely no dog in this fight. With that said, don't you think you're in danger of violating the old idea that "a person who agrees with you 75% of the time is 75% your ally, not 25% your enemy?"

[SamChevre]

I don't know.

I'm not directly familiar with the Godmen, so maybe they are different, but I can say what the objections to porn seem to be in my corner of conservative, strongly-gender-roled Christianity. (And I think that it's impossible to take the Apostle Paul seriously and not end up with distinct gender roles; I disagree with you, Hugo, on this question.)

First, there's the objection shared with anti-porn feminists; "porn sends a fundamentally destructive message about who women are." But second, there's a corollary that is fairly close to Hugo's statement about the Godmen: porn sends an inaccurate and destructive message about women, and as men adapt themselves to that message, they harm themselves, women, and ultimately their whole society; the damage from wrong models of male-female relationships isn't only to women. I don't see what is either anti-feminist OR anti-Christian about that second message. I don't see any antagonism between "porn degrades women" and "using porn weakens men/demonstrates and feeds male weakness (which works out in life as mistreating women)".

[Hugo]

Sam, my concern is that I think that the real underpinning of the religious right anti-porn message is not a warning about mistreating women, but about becoming dependent upon them. And when I read Ephesians 5:21 (which controls all that follows), 1 Corinthians 7:4, and Galatians 3:28, I get a fairly strong egalitarian message. YMMV.

[glendenb]

“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!”

Snorting derisively is the only imaginable response to lyrics this embarrassingly bad! My God, these men must have no self respect at all - can you imagine actually singing that song? In public? Where people can hear you? I'm all for tolerance, but this isn't even Christian theology - this is just the same tired old gender stereotypes wrapped in swaddling clothes.

These are absurdly bad lyrics. Maybe that's it - they're actually a brilliantly, absurdist parody of Promise Keepers! We can only hope.

[Hugo]

Glen, I'm going to open a thread tomorrow, inviting folks to compose their own "Godmen lyrics". Winner gets, oh, to tell me what to blog about.

[mythago]

What I don't understand is why people who so strongly disagree with the tenets of a religion go on to embrace that religion. Wouldn't a real manly man reject Christianity entirely?

[Jeremy Henty]

I came here to kick ass and redeem fallen humanity ... and I'm all out of redemption.

[glendenb]

Hugo - I'm not sure anything ironic or satirical can actually be funnier than the real thing but I'm going to start thinking!

[Ann]

Hugo,
First, let me say I love your site and you are the only man I've read who is a christian and a feminist. I'm a christian and a feminist and agree with you one hundred percent. I wish to take issue however with the notion some have that pornography is necessarily degrading to women because it's porn. Bad argument by association. I've seen women-produced porn (producer Candide Royale, etc.)and can tell you that this genre is a whole other ball game (pun intended). No women are exploited and none are under the consensual age of 18. I used to be a fundamentalist christian and know that fundamentalist men are so fearful of anything female or feminine that they overdo the purity issue, as you state. This also produces brutal homophobia as well. The "feminization" they all fear is precisely what the church needs to launch into the third millenium. Fear of change will be the church's downfall and will make room for the next Reformation, led by feminists of course. :-)

[SamChevre]

Hugo,

You may be right (the real underpinning of the religious right anti-porn message is about becoming dependent upon women), but I'm not convinced that that is a bad message. There are good ways of being dependent on women, and bad ways. (I think we'd agree this far; we might even agree that a healthy marriage includes a good way of depending on a woman, and obsessive pursuit of "hook-ups" is a bad way of depending on women.) The message I get is "porn leads to being dependent on women IN BAD WAYS"--ways that are destructive to men, to women, and to the ability of men and women to depend on one another in healthy ways.

I partly agree with you on equality; the passages you quote are powerfullly clear that men and women are equal in some ways (most notably, in their value to God). To me, though, I Cor 11 and Titus 2 make it clear that they are also different in some ways (most notably, in roles in the family and the church).

[John]

And "bang" goes the "there are many voices in the Christian men's movement" line, and also the "Where Christians and Feminists agree is in calling for the transformation of men" line. Gosh, we are getting un-nuancedly liberal in our old age :-)

The "Godmen" might not be your cup of tea. But as an unregenerate partisan of muscular Christianity (as much as a cripple can be), I certainly understand where they are coming from. Evangelical culture is feminised. Sorry, but it is. All those "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs, for a start. All that caring and sharing and compassion too, which aren't bad things, but absent challenge, grit, courage and justice, they drive ordinary blue-collar men mad, especially when women are the majority in the church. My experience has been that boys (and men) don't want to sit in the healing circle singing "They'll know we're Christians by our love". If there are multiplicities of gifts (and St. Paul is clear that is the case) why can't we have room for Rugby and kapa haka as well? If we have to sing cringe-making songs like "Jesus I'm a willing wife" (Believe me, I am not kidding), why can't we have "Cowboy for Jesus"? Equally cringe-making, but with an equally honourable history; "He who would valiant be" for a start, I mean the original, non-Victorian version. Jesus is the lamb AND the lion. Why can't we have both?

Further, on the porn issue, they're so concerned about it because its such a huge issue in the church. And they're bothered about it with respect to their own lives, because they feel degraded and filthy. That's what sin does. And they feel guilty for degrading others. That's what sin does. And they (and I) think it's a sin. And Christians are called to repentance and amendment of life for sin-come on, Hugo, you know that.

[Annamal]

"why can't we have room for Rugby and kapa haka as well? "

Ummmm John the NZ women's rugby team has been world champions for the last 8 years (which is more than the allblacks can manage) and kapa haka spans most Maori performances including poi and waiata, I think you might have meant just the haka which is certainly part of kapa haka but not the only part.

Neither of the things you mention are only "manly" activities

[Antigone]

And what, pray tell, is wrong with "feminized" culture? Holy hell, I'm sitting here having to "masculinize" myself to fit into my cultural, what's wrong with a little give and take?

This is really silly, anyways, because I don't particularily see what compassion has to do with a XX chromosome any more than I see what courage has to an XY.

[John]

Neither of the things you mention are only "manly" activities

Surely, you're right; but my church has programmes for both that attract mainly (but not exclusively) men.

[John]

what's wrong with a little give and take?

Nothing, if it's give and take. Everything, if 50% of the population don't feel welcome and that there is a place for them. (That cuts both ways).

[Hugo]

John, you do realize the Webb Ellis Cup is staying in London, right? ;-)

[Veronica]

This is just too funny. Wonder what GodMen would have thought of the early ascetics. No barbeque dinners for those guys.

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo said: "Since at least the 1970s, both MRAs and white conservative Christians -- traditionally the greatest agents of injustice -- have tried to steal the mantle of "victimhood" from the genuinely oppressed."

MRAs since the 1970s have been "traditionally the greatest agents of injustice"? Are you high? You mean, moreso than, e.g., the Khmer Rouge? Pol Pot? Or Idi Amin? Or the North Korean government? Or the Taliban? Hezbollah? Saddam Hussein?

Really Hugo, you get flakier all the time.

[Hugo]

Sorry, Hugo, 4 million Kiwis and the 15 that count say otherwise. Home crowd next time, and the cup is coming home.

And while I wouldn't call Hugo flaky Mr. Bad, (yet), he's definitely fraying around the edges lately.

[John]

Sorry, that was me again. Damn this auto-correct cut-and-paste thing, I'm getting rid of it.

And I meant to add "I blame All Saints". It's all that inclusion by osmosis-you were much more solid when you were a Mennonite, Hugo.

[Christy]

First, this cracked me up. I'm all for truth in advertising, and if this is where these men are at, I'd much rather that they say it straight out then try to spin it.

John,
I agree with you that most contemporary worship music is very very very bad. However, the issue in evangelical culture, especially white evangelical culture, is not "feminization", unless you equate "feminine" with "docile, unthinking, and sentimental." You seem to be implying that courage, grit and a concern for justice are solely "masculine" traits. I agree that the evangelical church suffers from a lack of those qualities, but I don't think that the problem is that there are too many chicks around.

The problem is that the evangelical powers-that-be built a house no one can live in. The rigid focus on rules and correct behavior, a particular brand of theological correctness, who's in and who's out, and fear means that there isn't room in the pews for strong men OR strong women. (or GLBT people or anyone who deviates from the party line.) Except for the few at the top, EVERYONE gets neutered, not just the men. As far as I'm concerned, you can play all the rugby you like - just don't ask me to do nothing more than sit quietly on the sidelines, waiting with a plate of sandwiches while you do.

Hugo, I won't argue theology here, but much as I love the Sermon on the Mount, I also love the temple in the moneychangers scene and I have practically memorized Matthew 23. I think there is room for compassion, anger, love, and a little ass-kicking in Christianity. The beatitudes, taken out of context, can be a tool of oppression in the hands of religious leaders who want to keep their flock from getting too uppity.

[mythago]

But as an unregenerate partisan of muscular Christianity

I am still wondering where all this macho stuff comes from in the Scriptures. Jesus' lessons on forgiveness and turning the other cheek and all that don't strike me as anything you'd find in the Manly Man Handbook.

If we have to sing cringe-making songs like "Jesus I'm a willing wife"

You think women never cringe at this kind of song?

[John]

That's a very good point, Christy. The reason I opposed the six characteristics is not because some are feminine and some masculine (although I see how that came across, mea culpa), it's because the idea of "being nice" is so rigidly applied that particularly blue-collar men get frustrated as hell. (See the book "Why men hate going to Church") This is true of strong women too, (you should have seen the reaction when we started having women preach every week, instead of once in a blue moon), but in general, my experience has been that women (and certain types of men, to be fair) are more comfortable with that sort of sloppy sentimentality, relationship and compassion focus which is not confined to Evangelical circles. The language of challenge and warfare and all that speaks to some people the other stuff doesn't, and those people are (again in my experience) the kind of people who resent being told to be "nice". "Meekness" is not automatically identical with "passivity" or being a doormat, and "dying to self" doesn't mean you can't say "Hell no".

I don't expect anyone to make me sandwiches (in fact, the last batch we had at something or rather I made), and I only watch rugby, I don't (and can't) play, but the point I am making is that what used to be called "muscular Christianity" is not a fringe tradition; it's a constituency we've lost, and we need to get back to balance out all the Kum-bay-Yah and soft guitar music. Lots of people (and yes, the majority of them are men) don't like that kind of thing. They count. And the Godmen (That title is, I admit, cheesy beyond belief, and so are the lyrics) are addressing a neglected (not necessarily an oppressed, but a neglected) constituency.

[mythago]

it's because the idea of "being nice" is so rigidly applied that particularly blue-collar men get frustrated as hell

Good grief. Who ever said that following in Jesus' path was supposed to be easy? I'm also pretty sure Jesus didn't despise women--and loathing 'feminization' and exhorting men to 'grow a pair' is the Godmen version of criticizing men who are all soft and wimpy like, ew, girls.

[John]

That assumes that the contemporary idea of "being nice" is what it means to follow in Jesus' path. There are some money changers who might challenge that assertion.