Watch this video about feminism as a men's issue.

A powerful delusion - a.k.a. FANTASY

Many of my fellow human trafficking activists like to talk about how the sex industry peddles illicit fantasy and imparts sex addiction.  It's taken as fact by social conservatives and many in "the movement" that sex vendors, by producing porn, have created a need.  It is seen as a need which, by its nature, intensifies in the same way as the chemical addictions process.  Due to this intensification, it is argued that sex peddlers are able to stay in a lucrative business.  The idea that consumers have no ability to control  their use is inadvertently advanced.  Sex addictionologists have been the most invested and active in leading the conversation about helping users overcome their compulsions to use porn. Such professionals have much to say that is useful, valuable and thoughtful. Nonetheless, I find the addictions framework with respect to sex to be too reductionistic and unfairly pathologizing of men, in  general as base, appetite-driven biological phenomena.  I am invested in a more honoring, heroic if you will, paradigm that acknowledges the creative capacity imparted to men as carriers of the Divine image. Maybe we have been wasting our energy over-analyzing "unhealthy" or "sinful" behaviors when we could have been advancing a more balanced and God-affirming, life-giving way to conceptualize our sexuality and eroticism.  Let's not loose sight of the fact that sex brings life, and not just with respect to propagation of children.  It validates connection, life, intimacy and playfulness to the couple. 

Aside from an addiction framework, consider what is the devastating impetus to damaging sexual fantasies. (*Noteworthy is that not all fantasy is unhealthy or sinful - a point which I may someday discuss further.   Fantasy can be the impetus for creative endeavors.  For a clinical discussion about the potential of erotic fantasy to heal check out this article by Esther Perel.  Still, here I am talking about common illicit fantasies.)  It is sometimes argued that men use power to get sex and that they disempower women through sex. But sex IS itself powerful. It's not even evil that's inherent in our sexuality but its power that causes us trepidation.  Some have argued that porn kills. Yes, that’s true to some extent. But porn use can feel so exhilarating. It doesn’t feel like it’s killing. It feels like it’s invigorating and giving power. Is the driving factor in indulgence of fantasy that users are somehow already dead or emotionally dismembered? I believe fantasy is a sometimes a desperate encompassing attempt to enliven, reconnect and feel powerful when men aren’t supported, persuaded or socialized to other truly viable options. To such guys sex is a socially acceptable vehicle for transmuting their deepest longings for significance. When they don't know significance otherwise - due to castrating experiences - the fantasy yields immense power even if it is ultimately and knowingly a counterfeit power.

Psychologist Dr. Ley wrote the following article at the request of the guy who runs the website quitporngetgirls: Article here!

Oh wow! Discernment. This has a lot of truth mixed in with some sadly misinformed and familiar-sounding information. The porn industry has oft said that society benefits from porn through decreased sex crimes as availability of erotica goes up. Well that doesn't exactly take into account the staggering statistics regarding sex trafficking and illegal materials that are produced sort of in conjunction with the legal stuff. At present some 300,000 children in America alone are at risk for commercial sexual exploitation. I have met a number of women who've been involved in making this stuff, and believe me, it's not a "victimless crime." If it looks like it would be painful - guess what!   That's not Hollywood special effects. It DOES hurt.  To claim that as access to porn goes up violence against women and children goes down is absolute damnable BS!

However, I agree with Dr. Ley's assertion that sex addiction is a made-up paradigm. While engaging a twelve-step approach has helped countless individuals take responsibility for their compulsions, absent a more comprehensive framework, it is limited in its   broad applicability. I absolutely concur with the author that it's not pathological to like sex, like frequent sex or high intensity sex. What porn offers many is permission to plumb the depths of their own sense of meaning and purpose present in their own (again not pathological) fantasies mostly free from judgement and shame. Until a more satisfying and life- affirming, Godly alternative is convincingly advanced, I believe we will continue to see individuals engaging in problematic and ego-dystonic use of porn. Porn is the "brave new world" where people can normalize/legitimize their deepest yearnings and struggles. Christians offer hope by actually listening to these struggles and lifting burdens, being transparent and real that life includes suffering but also freedom and redemption. Our task is not to prematurely shut down the explicit fantasy but to as quickly as possible help our brothers and sisters move away from engaging /entertaining thoughts about the compulsive (external flesh and blood) act and move toward searching out the underlying obsession (rulers/authorities/powers of this dark world/ spritiual forces in the heavenly realm). Clearly, staring down the face of evil by wrestling with the darkness that holds people captive is much more frightening than just shutting down the external problem moralistically. But we have a sinless high priest who empathizes with our struggles who permits us to approach the throne of grace confidently that we can find mercy and grace in our time of need.

The issue of porn is debated from polarization and the usual tendency to want to legislate freedom and morality absent the ability to instigate genuine transformation. I'm hoping for discourse among my concerned and God-fearing friends and colleagues but at present, I feel like a voice in the dark. Sex addiction is a misnomer that doesn't get to the heart of the issue. In all too many cases, it is an excuse or distraction from dealing with the core issues.  Many evangelicals will recall that James Dobson met with serial rapist and murderer Ted Bundy on death row in order to highlight the dangers of porn.  As though porn, rather than sociopathy - or Ted Bundy himself, was the reason those women were killed!  Now the Cleveland kidnapper is trying to pull the same deceptive wool over our eyes.  The evangelical position of the last 40 years has defaulted to legislating morality, and has therefore played a role in overplaying an inadequate reference point.    It is curious to me that EVERY well-known activist on the issue of sex trafficking, those that are changing policy and effectively transforming lives out of sex slavery are women who profess redemption and faith in Jesus. Furthermore, they don't always look and sound like the church ladies we have been accustomed to.   They are all survivors of the sex trade in some form themselves and as such reject the silliness of modesty/purity/virginity cults and rather seek radical sexual transformation and (dare I say?) liberation!   Women don't bear sole responsibility for evoking lust from men.  And their worth as women isn't centered in their  virginal qualities anymore than it is in their sexual attributes.  Telling women how to dress is as unproductive as telling men not to look at dirty pictures.  It just doesn't get to the underlying person in either case.

This is a men’s issue as well as a women’s issue. So I'd really like to know what the guys have to say.  Chime in by clicking the words "Comments so far" below.

Not Today?

 Ok - so there's another Christian film in recent release.  Not Today  I am simply mentioning it because I was intrigued that a Quaker church - Yorba Linda Friends produced it.  Not having seen it, I'd guess it's an important film just because it deals in some compassionate manner with Sex Trafficking.  It exposes the sex trade in India.  Video responses to it were that many attendees were unaware that this goes on. So  now they are aware that it goes on - in India.  I got the sense that the movie didn't quite effectively raise anyone's awareness that it is a global and local issue.

My friends at Cherished and I are very keen to help those in the DOMESTIC sex trade.  The issue of human trafficking is one for every locale, including yours.  It is not isolated only to foreign girls and women who are sold by family members due to dire, crushing poverty.  To be clear, the global issue of human trafficking is near to my heart.  I believe it is time we considered how our daily decisions impact persons half a world away.  The same day the garment factory in Bangladesh collapsed and killed 622 of the world's poorest people inside, I had just purchased underwear that bore "made in Bangladesh" tags.  How can I know?   I read the news after my purchase.  Sobering. It's not a consideration I wish to easily dismiss. 

Yet, I am rather more interested in dually serving local women in any area of the sex trade and in raising awareness about our own attitudes towards "throwaway" people - those not seen and therefore dismissed in their own communities than I am about jumping into a movement because its getting some media buzz.  Remember?   I didn't see a movie or hear a speech about the current issue of human trafficking. God laid it on my heart to do a web search: "How to reach a stripper for Jesus".  From there I've been schooled about sex trafficking.  Awareness is important, but exceedingly difficult to raise the closer one gets to home.   The idea of little girls in literal chains pulls at our heartstrings. Chains around the mind are just as real. A girl-child on the street is no more free than a girl in a brothel.  Stockholm Syndrome is real.

I've learned  that I've been doing this work since I started in the field of psychology but now it's with a new awareness. I was blind to the issue of human trafficking as it occurs here because I've been socialized, as an American, that girls who are prostitutes here choose it, that they are bad promiscuous girls who like sex and who prey on ordinary joes or johns. I've bought into the nonsense that they are "rebellious teens" who need to be arrested and held responsible for their crime.  While I recognized that many in the sex trade have attachment disorders, what I missed was that being sold/pimped is not part of a psychiatric constellation of "conduct disorder."  It isn't, as I assumed, an issue of agency.  It is an issue of slavery.  The issues of poverty and women's rights (yes, I AM using feminist buzz words - more on that one later) are very much at the root of sexual exploitation.

Parenthetically: If you admonish me that sin is, I will have to ultimately agree with you. But then I challenge you with "stewardship."  I'm not talking about an Al-Gore-ian ideology of stewardship but a biblical prompting about what you are doing with the talents/gifts God has blessed you with.  I'd hope you would be moved with compassion to look beneath the surface where blaming and shaming resides, and begin critically to delve into the ravishes of a world system that aims to rob us all of innocence by employing the enemy's tools of judgement, blindness, hunger, pain, loneliness, trauma, nakedness, homelessness, etc.  The gifts and blessings I enjoy are (Thank Jesus!) financial security, community, education, health, security/protection.  It is much I have received.  Therefore much is to be expected.  My role is MUCH less to point out sin in an exploited woman's life and MORE to respond to God's call to welcome the least of these.

Back to my main point: Wherever you find prostitution, when you look deeper, you find lack of real opportunity for girls.  So much focus is given to trafficking as a foreign issue that we become blind to what it looks like in our own neighborhoods.  It is too "exciting" and "sexy" to think about rescuing little girls from Asian brothels so that the issue of our own foster kids (and such) get pimped and sold.  And that while having the double insult of bearing the shunning and rejection for being prostitutes. Does anyone know a little girl who looks forward to growing up and being raped and used by men multiple  times a day?  It is no more a "choice" for the girls on Sierra Highway or any town's prostitution "track"  than it is for a Cambodian girl.  Our girls are enslaved in a system that punishes her for prostitution - average age of entry here is 12- when she's not even a legal age to consent to sex.  The arbitrary distinction between an underage girl being arrested for prostitution and a man being arrested for statutory rape is whether or not money is exchanged.  Injustice.  She gets punished for being complicit in her own rape/exploitation.  Pimps and johns literally and figuratively "get off."

This HAS to change.  But maybe it doesn't necessarily change in the big dramatic manor depicted by brothel raids or even prostitution sweeps.  Maybe it changes when we make the choice to notice - to see - someone.  Maybe it changes when we refuse to dismiss someone or presume to know what their "choice" is.  Maybe it changes when rather than going along with the world's system, we submit to Jesus and do the thing that alarms the Pharisees.  Just maybe?

Let

Ok this thought hit me as I am listening to Frank Viola today.  (Besides my local pastor,  my favorites include Allistair Begg  and Frank Viola, among others!)

In the creation accounts in Genesis, God repeatedly says "Let. . ."   He creates - lets-
and then He rests.  It isn't until the Gospels that He says, "It is FINISHED!" 

Creation is not complete, that is, finished until it is consummated in Jesus.

God saw all that he had made. It was good. But it was not good for man to be alone. And creation isn't finished until Jesus and the church become one, "that they may be one as I and the Father are one."

Click "comments" to respond.

I call em "gurlz," but whatever.

I'm reblogging, because  I have found this one to be an important discussion.  At least it seems to be a continuation of the discussion found here at tenthstreetradicals.

Check out the links embedded below and mull it over.  For those who would criticise that I spend too much time in popular philosophy and not enough in the word, that's probably true to a large degree of all of us.  However, let me challenge: When we read the Bible, do we notice the role of women or rather, God's appointment and direction of women ?  Counter-cultural women? Women who defy man's laws in order to honor God? Women who are courageously first and tenaciously last on the scene?  Women who are used by God to change the course of history?  Women with whom Jesus speaks, to whom he brings liberation, whom He commissions, restores, promises, meets up?  Seems to me Jesus is egalitarian.  Jesus is the philosophy I embrace.

Biblical feminism and third wave feminism
"(W)e are in a special position to add egalitarian Christianity. We can invite another generation to realize that loving God and advancing feminism are not mutually exclusive goals. For this generation, however, textual arguments about the ancient Greek connotations of headship and the convert behavior at Ephesus are less important than our personal stories of all the different ways God has influenced our identities as feminists, and how we have struggled toward our feminist commitment to equality among God’s people."

The theological positions underlying the "Christian" side of this debate are colored by whether one is complementarian vs egalitarian.  Each finds support and justification in the Word.  The way you lean probably is less determined by your commitment to Jesus, but more by your particular faith community and culture as illustrated by Jenny Rae Armstrong's blog. 

What I do in private hurts nobody (shrug)

 Last week I had the opportunity to attend a training by Rachel LLoyd of GEMS in NYC.  GEMS is a program that rescues and restores girls who have been trafficked in the domestic sex trade here in the US.  Social Workers have come up with an acronym for these minors.  They are called CSEC which stands for Commercially Sexually Exploited Children.  The term CSEC is new on me, but it turns out that my work with this population is nothing new.  I worked with them off and on throughout my career but most intensively from 1995-1999 at the Florence Crittenton Center in Los Angeles.  Crittenton was a locked treatment facility for girls in the system who for all intents  and purposes had nowhere else to go.  I was the vocational counselor and Independent Living Coordinator whose job it was to help the girls prepare for their eventual independence.  I was charged with pre-vocational job readiness and some life skills development.  Anyway, Rachel Lloyd's training really took me back to a few years.  

Below is an excerpt of my response to developments I see taking place in the anti human-trafficking movement.  One common excuse consumers of commercial sex use to justify their behavior is "I'm not hurting anyone."  That, sadly, is an excuse most of us use in some form or another through denial:

"Disclaimer:  The following pertain to my personal and professional philosophy about sexuality and in no way ought to be taken as reflective of our ministy's mission in treating women and girls who have been victimized.  Presently, many programs in existence, including the one in development at our ministry, focus on crucial/essential case management and life skill development, employment, community, support, accountability, relapse prevention, housing, etc.  Such programs tend to be informed - rightly so - by feminist ideologies in empowerment of young women by creating opportunity, by addressing self-esteem and trauma. Their essential focus is on rescue and treatment of victims/survivors ie the "supply" side of what we recognize as a commercial endeavor. 

As an outpatient provider presently, my objective within  "the movement" is treatment of so-called "adult entertainers" of all ages.  My understanding of the problem of sexual exploitation is holistic. I specialize in helping folks resolve bad/horrifying  memories, including those that involve sexuality.  Most of the time these memories impact their ability to trust and form enduring bonds with others.  That is primarily my focus/area of expertise/specialization though it applies generally to a wide range of symptoms and lifestyles.  Being a sole proprietor in private practice affords me the opportunity to  keep a broad focus on intervention, treatment and prevention/awareness/education.  I am able to treat CSEC via VOC funding. I also have access to other avenues of funding so that I may treat those who've aged out of the system or who've never been tracked within the system.    My work is always very trauma and attachment informed as well as strengths-based.

Trauma is my area of specialization.  My marketing materials were written to a hypothetical traumatized woman in her late twenties/early thirties suffering from depression and unstable relationships including rape and domestic violence.  That was my target audience.  Those who responded to that marketing and have subsequently come through my door were individuals - men and women-  trying to make relationships work particularly after some form of betrayal.  Working with CSEC (though they've only recently come to be identified as such) early on has lain an unmistakable foundation for the individual/couples work I now do.  High emotional reactivity and hostile engagement are often what - like CSEC - characterize these people's relational constellations.  My self-directed training program (Continuing education credits) has consisted of honing up on Couples therapy - specifically with a focus on helping clients overcome infidelity and sex addiction.  I follow professionally those who are involved in sex therapy, couples' therapy and treatment of compulsive disorders.

One thing Rachel Lloyd cautioned about was the "movement's" emphasis on rescuing "little girls" and locking up "bad men." My thoughts below are in process.  Yet, I think they might introduce some things that would be of vital consideration for the task force and others in the movement. 

While I am invested in providing practical support to victims as mentioned above, I hope I can begin to illuminate just how far-reaching into our collective psyche the issue of exploitation is. Below my intent is to expand the question from specific to more general in hopes of sparking more thought and dialogue about how to identify and address interconnected/inter-systemic specifics.  Service providers need to address specific needs of particular populations, but the interconnectedness of these populations prompts the necessity of dialogue between systems. I hope to ask questions, raise considerations towards the objective of shifting some of the collective values we hold.  Such is very arduous work, I know, but nonetheless urgently to be considered. 

What I perceive lacking in the confrontation of sexual exploitation as a problem in our country is an equally holistic answer to the issue of "demand,"  that is to say users/consumers/johns.  When something is bought and sold - commodified - what we are talking about is supply and demand.  If  values/consciences tells us that certain things, particularly "things" like people, girls, innocence, freedom, sexuality,  ought never to be commodified then our task becomes one about undoing a whole lot of messaging that turns  some people into products and other people into consumers.  My awareness/philosophy has been evolving lately to weigh out the messages of not only feminism  but also masculism, consumerism and a few other "isms".  In my opinion the tendency to over-criticize patriarchy for bearing the responsibility for injustice leads to having a blind spot in trying to undo injustice.  Consider, in a truly patriarchal society, aren't men as responsible for promoting freedom and justice as they  would be for enslaving?  Perhaps narcissism - and messages in the broader culture which disconnect individuals from responsibility for self and to others -  is as much to blame.    Injustice - to men as well as to women occurs due to plethora "archys" and "isms." Absolutely - 100% in agreement that the consequences of both supplying and demanding (as in the case of pimps and johns) need to be tough.  Once you've decided to abuse/rape a child - whether you think you're entitled because you've paid for it, even if she's sending you strong messages of being willing or not - once you crossed that line, of course the consequences should chill you to the bone.  Nonetheless, we live in an increasingly marketed to and sexualized world where, as the feminists are so apt to point out, sex sells.  It is hardly a leap to imagine that if sex sells, then sex itself ought to become commodified and available for purchase (or download) when I need it or want it.  We live in a world also where marketing has itself turned us, people who would otherwise be content with having enough, into dissatisfied hungry impulsive aquirers, consumers.  As such we are mostly disconnected from the roots of the products we use in general.  In the US in particular, our existences have become defined by convenience, comfort, avoidance of pain and indulgence.  As a whole, we no longer consider the raw materials, the labor, the process of production, the miles over which good must travel, the networks or conditions of people who contribute in the production of goods we consume.  The reality of sweat shops and fatal factory fires is nothing but a conceptual distant reality.  We are concerned only with it being low priced, well-made and looking good on us, or what have you.  The disconnect from the humanity of the producers and service providers we use is not unique to the johns/other consumers of sexual exploitations.  It is a societal ill we all are more or less infected with.    Hedonism is a value encouraged in our world, particularly as it is framed as essential to our commercial well-being even in contributing to a healthy economy.  The powers that be stand to benefit from our dissatisfaction and would thus not encourage us to learn to "make do."  Taking such a radical message back to the board of supervisors would have broad adverse implications in our political and social environment.  That is because it presents not only a challenge to the choices of a "handful" of sexually perverse or criminalized individuals and to those who deal with them, such as law enforcement and social service providers.  This message presents a core challenge to the American way of life that we have grown accustomed to.  Not to say more people should go without, but it might be beneficial to begin to help us all examine whether acquisition of more and more truly leads to greater life satisfaction.  Upon closer examination, it leads to increasing abuses.

While social service agencies and law enforcement have typically been the ones charged with rectifying social problems, it occurs to me that some of the ones best poised currently to address the demand side of the commercial sex trade are addictionologists, faith based communities and possibly sex/couples' therapists (so long as the aforementioned can appreciate exploitation as such.)   Spiritual leaders, in particular, have a charge with challenging the status quo.  They also tend to have a large listening audience.  However - for reasons I wont get into here - spiritual leaders have their own challenges in overcoming a culture of consumption/consumerism.  Nonetheless, I believe well-informed church leaders stand to have significant impact on persuading and challenging masses of people to become aware of human exploitation and its direct relation to consumption.  Also, within faith based community, there is often opportunity for community, housing, employment and other practical needs.  These things are, due to the nature of faith-based organizations, often provided to victims at significantly lower cost to the public as well.  Hopefully, there are some spirititual leaders in participation with the task force.  I will be staying in close communication with my pastoral staff as I participate in this endeavor becuase there is true interest among my friends in faith to help the poor,  to free slaves, and to generally open people's eyes to destructive blind spots."

More than skin deep

Spurred on by Chapter 8 of Shaunti's book, For Women Only, my girlfriends and I  have had some fairly lively  (and not always so friendly) debates about fashion and modesty.

How to dress is an issue I am never fully settled with.  As a Quaker at heart, I am very familiar with the concept and intent of "plainness" and "simplicity"  in clothing.  I am passively bothered by the idea that most of what we wear in current society is manufactured in inhumane conditions, ie that other people frequently literally suffer so I can "look the part."  I wonder how much intentionality toward justice motivates me and my daily decisions, including about what I wear.

Still,  I want to look good.  I am aware that my appearance and attractiveness influence people in ways that go beyond my lack or abundance of sex appeal.  Things like credibility, professionalism, hobbies and approachability are also conveyed in my fashion choices.

 I subscribe to Q - Ideas for the Common Good and today this video appeared in my inbox.  I hope you find it to be of interest.

How alive is your sex life?

 I have touted Esther Perel here before.  (<< Click words for link to TED video.)

There are several points of departure I take with her, but her model of intimacy and desire, discussed here,  is the best I have encountered in modern psychology.

Odd intersections

It's been several months, so I guess an update is in order.  The latest in this endeavor to uphold masculinity has taken an interesting turn in that I am now involved in outreach and ongoing counseling to girls who are in or coming out of the Sex Industry.  An email I composed to my network of close friends says it best:

"My friends, I know I said I would update you as things develop.  But they are actually developing quite rapidly so I haven't been able to really get the word to you unless I've seen you.  M and S  have seen my excitement a little bit. 

You know how I (privately) sent a link about Christians ministering by going into the sex industry  areas where people are trafficked?  Well, be aware that one international activist, Danielle Strickland, who does just that will be our weekend speaker at the Vineyard on November 17 and 18. 

Don't miss her! http://desertvineyard.org/special-guest-speaker-week-7-danielle-strickland/

I was able to get in touch with the local outreach to sex workers ministry here.  I was able to attend their training - as were others from the Vineyard, because God enabled me to get the word out.  Bless him for his faithfulness that he HAS begun to send workers into the harvest.  There are others who wanted to attend the training but were not able, so we will see what we can do about publicizing the next one to be held in the spring.  I have had a meeting and loads of encouragement from one of our staff pastors.  The local outreach is called Cherished and is modeled after Treasures.  http://iamatreasure.com/

They have an amazingly gracious and restorative approach to women in the sex "industry."    The local ministry has been looking for a therapist to co-facilitate their support groups, so I'd appreciate your prayer about that. 

I have been able to connect with a local man  who is spearheading the prevention/awareness/education aspect of anti-human trafficking here.  He has just arrived from Thailand with this being an area of heartfelt concern.  He has the statistics that some 300 girls in Palmdale are being trafficked - so this is a big deal here in our community.  He is starting from the ground but seems to be very good at networking. 

I am excited and energized about very obvious moves of God that I am seeing. 

Nobody was able to show up that one Monday to close out "For Women Only"  - the main reason we haven't finished the book together.  After summer, it just was impossible to coordinate our schedules. 

My expectation has been that the group would start off with you, women I feel safe with and accountable to.  However, I have only seen that as a starting point to validate men.  I didn't set out to make it a marriage group or focus exclusively on sex.  Oddly - I can't get away from the intersection of spirituality and sex, but that is not the point.  I have a sensitivity to cultural influences of "castration" ie having a form of godliness but denying its power. I believe men (surprise!) do too.  (smile)  If I as a woman don't like to feel emasculated, I can't imagine what it's like for the guys.  That has been my frame of reference since starting the group.  It has been the basis for my sometimes overbearing insistence that forms of worship are not as important as making bridges that draw people into the heart of worship.  Sometimes, that means going back to the drawing board of how we conceptualize what church is, or who it is.  I've been thinking that becoming a home a haven where you guys can bring your husbands and just hang out over a drink (whatever your choice and faith allows) to discuss ideas of culture and faith would be a great adjunct to participation in the larger organization.  We exist as the church at different levels of organization.  Both more and less organized, I mean.  God is challenging me to learn hospitality to a greater extent.  With the holidays fast approaching, Roger and I have been talking about doing Crazy Love (Francis Chan) after the new year, like on Mondays, but we can look at Thursdays, too as time gets closer.  We'll let you know when we set a date.

Love and miss you all!!!"

At this point, I believe we will aim to  reconvene group, hospitality, fellowship in the month of March.  Stay tuned. . .

A FUNDAMENTALIST DETOUR

PART ONE

Churchianity
 It was the early 90's.  We belonged to and were active in a lovely little fellowship.  Potlucks, ice cream socials, Vacation bible School and quaint women's singing clubs were the order of the day.  We camped together, celebrated Holidays together, played softball in the park on lazy Sunday afternoons. Our children put on charming Christmas pageants. We had a safe little niche. Being a part of this group made it anesthetically easy to forget that we lived in a world that desperately needed grace. Without a doubt, we certainly had an affinity for one another. When someone inside the fellowship had a need, the members rallied around and did what they could to meet that need, whether it was, doing handy jobs or providing groceries.  As insiders, we were well taken care of.  We loved each other, as the Bible said we should.

The Religiously "Right"
 But our perspective on strangers, people different from us, was not quite as hospitable.  Judgment and American Nationalism were forces which flavored our mission.  One fellow member said that the church was run by "rabid Republicans".  Seemingly, social justice, if done at all, was done for the reward of self-satisfaction or recognition, rather than truly being motivated by grace and mercy.  Our church had a fortress mindset.  "We", (very much including "I,") tried earnestly to fight immorality by judging it and "contending for the faith" against it. Those of us who led adult studies, vigorously and obsessively studied apologetics and how to answer the cults.  We wanted to defend the truth against all forms of relativism and heresy.  We had to be prepared for the attacks of secular humanism and psychology as well as the false doctrines of the Latter Day Saints and JWs.  We led crusades of morality to prevent questionable movies from being attended at our theaters or to prevent worldly, fleshly businesses (bars, strip clubs, etc) from becoming established in our town.  No one ever suggested that we consider moving out, into our community to actually engage people relationally in dialogue about the ideas and services they were consuming. Our social lives existed in the church and we were too busy with those functions to be able to cultivate friendships with neighbors or co-workers or classmates, let alone strangers. We were busy defending our bubble from intrusion by the world.  These conditions created the perfect storm for people within to begin to experience a sense of being constricted, judged and inferior.   What we were projecting outwardly was taking its toll inwardly.  Despite all of our opportunities to "fellowship," isolation rather than community seemingly was becoming the prevailing experience.

Familiarity
 I began to feel perplexed by our church's lack of reach and influence or real care for the broken. Things didn't match what I had come to believe church should be.  However, my staunch devotion to denomination, in this case Quakers, didn't afford me enough perspective to adequately sort out my misgivings.  My husband and I were both raised within Quaker circles, I in the Midwest and he in the Pacific Northwest. Quakers, though they exhibit dissimilarities with one another according to region, are a small and tight enough bunch that the networks therein don't really have too many degrees of separation. Upon our transplantation to Southern California, it was easy enough to settle into a semi-familiar community of faith.  As the case may be, the pastor had been acquainted at different points in time with each of our families. Given both their proximity to our residence and their designation as a Friends, AKA Quaker meeting, we took it as "given" that it was the "church home" for us.

Jesus Freaks
 To some degree, I literally grew up in the Jesus movement of the 70s. When I was a little kid, I witnessed my parents' ministries as Friends pastors doing genuine outreach and hospitality to all kinds of people, but mostly to the marginalized.  Their home, my earliest childhood home, was a frequent haven and stopping place for tentative young hippies leaving behind their drug culture but searching out their place within the faith in Jesus they were arriving at.  They, the hippies, came to our house for Dr Pepper, Doritos and Jesus Rock, as well as counsel and Bible Study.  Bearded young men and women in wooden  butterfly chignon holders, embroidered blue jeans, fringed leather jackets, and bare feet  converged on our house to read the Bible, talk about Jesus and sing their style of music.  Occasionally, we'd go "on the road" with some of the musicians, as my dad perfomed concerts and introduced people to the Jesus they sang about.  In those days I witnessed a lot of conversions.  That was my earliest culture of faith. I have only come to learn in my mid-life that those people, who so represented people of faith to me when I was a child, had had a difficult time with assimilation into predominant church culture. I had always assumed that their sold-out ways were the ways of Jesus' people universally. They were outsiders to traditional church, but I grew up on the inside of their culture as a child sitting around campfires, listening to testimonies of teens and young adults, watching my dad and other young men reach "kids" with Jesus-Haleluia-Praise music.

Is "emergent" a bad word?
As I emerged into my teen years my summer camp experiences in the 80's were not only influenced but directed personally by the likes of Rich Mullins and Tony Campolo.  Rich was a singer songwriter who's compositions have been made famous by Michael W. Smith - "Awesome God" and Amy Grant - "Doubly Good".  As I read through much of the emerging literature on Christian Spirituality, I am frequently tickled to find mention of Rich and his compassionate/passionate devotion to Jesus.  He is recognized as a great and humble man of faith, with passionate devotion to Christian social justice.  Frankly, as a teen under his leadership, I found him to be blunt and condescending at times.  During a talk he gave at one of our camps a friend and I were exchanging words, and he called us out, "Hey you, in the pink shirt and matching lipstick!"  He wanted us to pay attention, and he wasn't nice about it.  I must have simultaneously resented that and paid closer attention to what he said because on at least one other occasion I can remember publicly debating his ideas about self-image and worth.  He was anti-consumerist when consumerism was a hallmark of virtue.   Again this was the eighties.  During a period of "me-ism" in our culture, he suggested that youth should be humble. That we should promote the worth of people otherwise deemed worthless and therefore disposable by the world.  I didn't get it at the time.  He wasn't saying we were worthless but rather that our worth was infinitely deeper than how well we conformed to commodification.  He wanted us to be concerned with deeper meaning than whether our lipstick matched our shirts.  He wanted us to question the nonsense L'oreal was trying to sell us about "I'm worth it."  Rich purposefully lived a life of voluntary poverty in our faces to cause us to reflect on the poor and broken who weren't volunteering to be so.

Profanity - more than words
Likewise, Tony Campolo addressed my Friends peers and I in a conference in Oaxtepec Mexico in 1986 about things like poverty, slavery, human rights violations that break the heart of God.  He challenged us about petty churchianity, being too vigilant about carnal things like the use of profane words while our behavior and attitudes profaned and blasphemed God in a deeper way. He's famous for saying the following, and I will verify the persuasive impact it had on me , "I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night." Such in your face challenges were what I appreciated and came to expect of the faith community as I grew into young adulthood.

A Mighty Fortress is our way of life
By comparison, our present fellowship in the 90s seemed self-absorbed and paranoid.  It was like we thought our way of life was both precious and endangered.  We had a brand of faith, which rather than being multiplied, required a staunch preservationist dedication.  There was some of the typical emphasis on outward appearances and quite a bit less on having our hearts broken by the things that break the heart of God.

Girls club
Though we were newlyweds  Roger's and my relationship was in trouble.  Part of me just knew that it was out of place that I, rather than my husband, was the one serving on the board of elders.  It wasn't that I believed women ought not to serve.  I had always been a proponent of women's rights and place of leadership. Rather, his opinion was seemingly less sought by the fellowship as well as by me. His voice was unheard.  I was trying to "run the show" both publicly and at home.  Nonetheless, we belonged to a body where this type of arrangement was pretty normal.  That is women, due to being outspoken or more conforming to church standards, sat in leadership while the men were in many regards ignored, dismissed unsought.

Peace at any cost
During this same period of  time I was earning my Master's degree in clinical psychology.  (It's important to note that within Christian fundamentalism psychology is a discipline not to be trusted.) I received an assignment in an interdisciplinary theology course entitled "Integrative therapy, clinical process and moral maturity."  The assignment was to write a research paper on the moral virtue of an emotion.  I chose to write about righteous anger.  In that paper  I challenged the pervasive attitude-turned-mandate that anger must always be avoided at all costs and that we must always be "nice".  It was a lengthy discourse that explored anger, wrath, vindication, righteousness and forgiveness. Quakers, as a peace church, have in some cases forgotten precisely how to engage in spiritual warfare.  As pacifists, they just don't cultivate a language of militarism.  It is to their detriment that they don't have a reference point for rules of engagement.   From what I could see some Quaker leaders began to abandon justice when to stand for it would not appear to be "nice".  Of course, they still verbally and intellectually affirmed justice but in practice, - at least amongst our group – there was little outward lifestyle support of it. Our efforts in that fellowship at transforming the world in Jesus' name were about what we opposed, aka retributive justice.  They should have been about who Jesus loved, restorative justice.

"Sweetie, in Jesus name, you need to shut the hell up!!!"
During my period of growing dissatisfaction and disturbance with things about this little church, we had a little women's retreat at a nearby mountain town (April 1999).  I was the only member of Ministry and Counsel in attendance.  Just prior to the event, I had provided a copy of my treatise to the pastor's wife who had arranged the weekend.  Other than acknowledging receipt of it, she never commented about it to me.
I don't remember the official theme of the weekend. In some manner, the attendees were encouraged to share with the group what their experience within our church was. Ostensibly, this exercise  could have been intended to open up avenues for reconciliation.  I doubt that such had been given any real mindfulness. The pastor's wife shared with the gathered group that she and her husband had identified a spirit of constraint in our congregation.  Perhaps the need to overcome our collective spirit of constraint was the basis for the women's sharing?  I really don't recall exactly how this was supposed to happen or what the stated intent of the leader was.  The universal theme, revealed by all attendees who spoke up that weekend, was that each one believed she was inferior to or unacceptable to all the others.

There was an air of psuedo-intimacy in that the women were sharing this gut wrenching stuff and managing a lot of sentimentality i.e. crying and hugging and apparently looking for intimacy or consolation. Yet at the same time they were fearing rejection or being shamed by the group.  The meeting stalled.  So the women were sent to the 4 quarters of the lodge  so that we could journal and pray (?!).
One of our leader's distinguishing habits was praying in tongues very loudly and angrily, particularly at these retreats.  There was never an interpretation.  Ever.  As we were attending to our assignments to journal and pray, the pastor's wife went to her room and was making loud birthing like sounds and praying loudly angrily - in an unfamiliar language- and generally making a show for all to hear.  Her antics were very intrusive and it was next to impossible to pray or hear the still small voice.  In the moment, I vainly imagined I had a connection to her and that as I prayed she was being mystically responsive to what I was praying about.  I was very impressed upon that something, I don't know what, needed to be released or perhaps unleashed. As I prayed, I assumed that she was travailing hard to release whatever this thing was.
Consequently, what began to rise in me was an urgent sense that I needed to throw off all constraint and run out of that place.  It was nearly overwhelming.  Rather than doing so,  I restrained the urge and submitted that it must've been something that needed to be confessed or deliberated.  So I found, of all people, the pastors' young adult daughter to confide in.  When I shared with the daughter my sensation/pressing urge to run from that place, her first response was to elicit my trust, “Do you trust me?”.  Pursuant to that, she proceeded to announce to the the group that I had a spirit of anger that needed “to come out right now!” (What?!)  I screamed  "Noooooo!" and collapsed in despair to the floor while I felt hands closing in from all over the room to touch me.  My vocalization was not due to demonic possession but due to a deep sense of betrayal.  I felt an immediate and acute violation which wasn't about to come to an appropriate closure.  What happened next served to compound the aforementioned confusion and sense of intrusive judgment. The pastor's wife bounded up the stairs from her room, shooed all the women who were "laying hands" on me and walked me into an adjoining room.  All the while she was asking me if I needed to burp or vomit and other questions which clearly indicated her assumption that my reaction was demonic rather than holy.  I felt trapped.  To actually say something angry would "confirm" that I had a demonic spirit of anger. I just stared at her fearing that she was in that moment desiring to perform a deliverance ministry on me with no regard for my role in  Ministry and Counsel and to do so without any other core leadership present.  Were I or anyone to righteously confront the situation at hand would not have been "nice."

 As I've previously described, the ladies in attendance were sufficiently isolated and constrained within their own shame which dis-empowered them to discern or even suggest a holy pause.   That weekend was very distressing for me and for at least one other woman who also told me that she had wanted to leave that night. Subsequent  to the retreat out of respect for the pastor, I arranged a meeting with just him, his wife, Roger and I.  My concerns about the pastor's wife's misuse of her authority and unbiblical show of the "gift of tongues" was curtly dismissed and attacked by her and her husband.  They were staunchly defensive of their position.  I was effectively prevented from taking it to the board due to the pastor adeptly "politicking" and doing "damage control" through back channels.  I was devastated and nearly paralyzed to begin to unwind the mess that was done to myself or others at that event.  I had enjoyed significant status within the fellowship as a teacher and as an elder up to this time.    I had been on the Christian Education committee, taught adult classes, and been appointed to the board.  However all of that was perfunctorily yanked out from under me as a consequence of the aforementioned events.   I lost my voice, my status, my passion and confidence to lead all in one fell swoop.  It would have been pointless to remain and try to function within the capacity of elder, or teacher or even catalyst via my writing.  I was as swiftly discredited as I had been credited.  People within the church began to treat me with suspicion and even avoidance (Shunning?).  I later learned that they were advised not to speak with me.  Possibly, this is what happens when women are unaccountable and when men are disempowered within a body/organization. Maybe it has something to do with extremes of feminism.  I'm not really sure. 
(Coinciding with all the above, the pastor's wife was going through a period of preparation and evaluation.  She had been nominated to be "recorded."  That is how Quakers recognize God's ordination of pastors or persons who have a gift of spoken ministry.  The pair was fairly well liked by the Yearly meeting Superintendent who dismissed the concerns of the pastor's wife's mentor.  The mentor had also been at the retreat and reported to the Yearly Meeting superintendent that her observation that there was a great deal of spiritual confusion amongst the women under the pastors wife's leadership.)

Over a decade of silence
Roger and I both felt like we had lost our voice. We didn't feel “worthy” to pursue leadership roles in any church for a long time.  I ceased writing, though up to that point I was a prolific writer and consistently received positive feedback on my writing. Documents I had written up to that point, despite raising some controversy,  had been well received.   It is not all bad that I became convicted to stop writing.  Sometimes, it is too easy to be anonymous and say things thuggishly or forcefully without having to face the recipient of one's words.  I believe not writing criticisms - or at least taking greater pains to be considerate of and compassionate toward my audience's humanity is one positive outcome of my not writing for a time.  What I lost in my dozen or so years of quietism though, was the ability to articulate a thought well or to instruct others.  I have missed countless opportunities for discourse with others in leadership due to my strict reservations.  Truth be told, I took a decade long detour into Christian fundamentalism that had the appearance of Godliness  but denied the power thereof.  Until stepping out to lead/facilitate discussion in women's bible studies around 2010, I didn't teach or consistently challenge anyone in their spiritual growth.  Praise God!  I have been able to lead a couple training sessions to equip lay counselors for missional and incarnational work in recent years.  Roger has been able to bless our fellowships with his gifts of music and film production.

I wanted someone to see what was in me, but I have been fearful to  step out and articulate it or ask for it.  I hoped that God would cause someone to notice me and encourage me out of my broken place of former ministry and to restore me. I had sort of hoped that members of the organization (whatever organization) would recognize my gifts, ask about why I wasn't using them, and help me find my place of leadership within the organization.  But I hoped that while continuing to distrust the organization.  I hoped that while not writing and while not speaking publicly.
God seems to be inspiring me to write again and develop thoughts, but to consider doing it somewhat independently.  I now want to lead but increasingly relationally.  I still want to compose challenging thoughts and to have people wrestle with ideas.  I have finally begun to really grapple with my role as a leader again.    


PART TWO
(The blog and small accountability group of women represent my intentionality in following God's call back to activism.  Part two is actually a revamped version of my first several posts - since deleted, consolidated, and re-posted here.)

None of us are meant to walk this alone

Isolation is a sickness in our culture. We all suffer from it, don't we? Let's endeavor to find community here, in our group. Truly it is God who is putting together this group. He has laid a few specific women on my heart with whom to begin and has provided confirmation of his direction in a multitude of ways.

We are a discussion group

Please don't ever call this a "women's group." It would be contrary to the vision God has given me if this venture were to become subsumed under "women's ministries" of any institution. Although I can only glimpse an obscured peek at the work he is doing God has given me a growing burden to encourage men and to do so in partnership and mutual accountability with their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers.  

To that end I believe that a resurgence in masculine faith in Jesus may involve a new paradigm other than institutional/organizational religion. The new paradigm is  organic, decentralized, holistic in its approach to masculine/feminine expressions of faith and derived from naturally-occurring communities and relational networks.

While there is a legitimate place for exclusive ministries to  gender and other subgroups, typical church-institutional emphasis on "women's ministry,"  "men's ministry" and "couples' ministry" strikes me as too compartmentalized or niche-focused to adequately meet plethora needs of either men or women.  Holistic ministry to women accounts for and accommodates multiple roles women fulfill.   A ministry that focuses on a single role, for example "motherhood" while eschewing the masculine relationship that literally helped inseminate that role may very well help and encourage moms in certain pragmatic areas of child-rearing. However, in its inadvertent dismissal of the masculine, such a ministry may leave that mom challenged to affirm the complementarity of the masculine role which was intended for her and for her children's enrichment.  Holistic ministry necessarily equips women to have healthy Christ-centered relationships with men and boys as well as with other women and girls in their life.  Effective ministry to men champions their God-honoring involvement  with the women and girls as well as males in their sphere.

Why now?

Over the last year I have read Francis Chan's "Crazy Love", David Platt's "Radical Together", David Murrow's "Why Men Hate Going to Church" and a few Christian classics. God has used those, along with a sometimes contentious debate with a couple of brothers to till the soil in my heart. Lately, my counseling practice has been populated with men for various reasons. Surely, that's no coincidence. My husband, Roger has told me, "You have a way with men." I'm not sure exactly what he means but Roger is a man of few words. I take it that was his affirmation/confirmation of God's purpose assignment for this time.  While doing this type of work, I am challenged to remain highly accountable both to my Christ-following girlfriends as well as to Roger.  Actually, I see plenty of women and lots of couples in my practice too.  Every one of them is looking to revive something that has become deadened.  Frequently, the very thing they need is to re-prioritize "good" and "just" over "safe" and "nice."

Why not just form an approved home group?

I am finding myself increasingly  questioning  the philosophy and dependence on organizational structure and sensing God calling me to a different way of being the church. Consider whether we "go to church", "do church",  "play church" or "are the church."  I mentally resist a lot of the implied hierarchical authority in institutional church. I still actively promote programs outwardly, inviting others to join, while internally wrestling with the thought that there might be a better way.  I surmise there is something larger to be grasped. Scriptural authority is recognized by the mature and discerning disciple as wisdom to be obeyed.  False authority is derived from notions of status within human constructs such as corporations, organizations or human programming. It is not always safe to assume that status within the organization automatically equates with having scriptural authority, though ideally that is the case.

Church-as-usual doesn't  "do it" for  scads of families/marriages that otherwise have a true desire to be Christ-centered. One doesn't have to look far to see articles about record numbers of people leaving the institutional church - for good.  Lest you see that as problematic, let me remind you that church is not coming to an end.  Matthew 16:18 offers assurance of that. Rather, the form of church is undergoing a change.
Traditional church organization is about programming and safe predictability. Based on church-business model ideology of the last several decades, some "visionary" church leaders have measured success in numbers. But does large attendance necessarily translate into large impact, transformation? What about the assumption that a big turnout indicates success? That emphasis on numbers might be the god of the age and not the Holy Spirit. Such a possibility disturbs me.

Deep theology
Consider the Once-ler character in Dr Suess's book "The Lorax." The Once-ler is so narrowly focused on the success of his programs, his product the thneed, his mass appeal that he can't see, let alone respond appropriately to the suffering, starving, crippled creatures around him nor the encroaching darkness within his environment.  Furthermore, he justifies his own polluting actions by rationalizing that he's creating the one thing that everyone, everyone, EVERYONE needs.  Therefore, he goes on, as he says, biggering and biggering and biggering and biggering.  Given that marketing is what makes our world go round, we  may be so inured by our culture that we don't even stop to wonder if marketing ought or ought-not be a part of what we do in the name of Jesus.  We go on biggering programs because we believe it's what everyone needs.  In actuality, evidence suggests that people jaded by institutionalism and tired of religio-judgmental attitudes don't seem any longer to be attracted to our buildings or programs. Maybe for far too long they've breathed in a cultural smog - one that we had part in creating.  Nevetheless, and this is good, nevertheless, there is a growing openness within our culture to spirituality.  Christians concerned about personally responding to the great commission may want to consider how to be salt and light for people long since jaded by the org.  Maybe we could re-think our perspectives on what everyone needs, focus less on biggering and concentrate more on deepening.

Incarnation

Churchgoing people don't really always "get" what  I do as a professional counselor.  If people knew what I hear and often how I handle it, many would question my faith or at least my witness.  I use curse words. I was chided recently that to do so is "unChristian" and very possibly a stumbling block to weak believers or non believers.  (I like to think of them as pre-believers.)  The scolding was a valid reminder to be sensitive to what may beckon people to Jesus; that the life I lead and choices I make must as much as possible be an open invitation into a friendship with God. My behavior had better serve His purposes. Nonetheless, the blanket proscription against profanity and the accompanying contextual prohibition against drinking of alcohol left me feeling  not convicted, but judged as inferior.

Like those who seek faith, those who seek counseling are looking for freedom.  Or healing. Or hope.  More often than not their stories are rife with  stomach-turning atrocities most aptly labeled "damned."  What speaks to Jesus' leading in my practice  is my willingness to descend with them into the narrative as one who will face the horrors alongside them. What is healing to most is that I  mirror their emotions and language rather than judge them for being in the pit.  They realize that they can ascend out of the pit for having an ally to share at least  part of the burden.  They appreciate my ability to "get into it" with them rather than merely advising on moralistic codes of behavior.  Healing and transformation come about because of the incarnational nature of counseling.  It is the same way with Christian fellowship.  People are not drawn to Jesus through our prohibitions but rather through our vulnerabilities.

Peacemaking?

I have been called an agitator.  As such, I'm not much of a stand-out candidate for positions in typical women's ministries.  I understand that when my name has been  mentioned,  in a handful of circles, that there has been some adverse reaction.  I don't know.  Maybe Jesus' design is for my rejection so that he can put me in those  situations more well-matched to his purpose for me.  I have done my best with God's help to resolve feelings of rejection and loneliness that come with being me.  Still, I grieve the missed opportunity of relationship and intimacy that both I and the others could have experienced had we all been courageous enough to confront the discomfort and disagreement between us. Could God have used even debate to bring transformation and freedom?  It is especially sad that the tendency to avoid what is slightly uncomfortable is the same  that leads to the total dissolution of many marriages.

Regarding intimacy, Ladies pay attention: If you really want to experience closeness, don't expect your relationship to be kept tidy and manageable. Seeking safety/comfort/warmth over really knowing and "getting into the dirt" with your man will  stand in the way of real intimacy. The last thing your marriage needs for its health is for you to domesticate/tame your husband.  He might be looking for you to 'have his back' and get into the fight alongside him as his ally, not his critic.

Romans 12:18 demands that Jesus' followers will live at peace with one another.  But real peace and pretense of peace are derived by very different means.  Pretense of peace is always only a pretense.  It confronts nothing.  It avoids wrestling. It dismisses a challenge.   Real peace involves fighting the forces and powers of evil. It confronts injustice, wrestles with difficult questions and takes on a challenge with spiritual armor and authority.

Confronting culture and other norms - the invitation

Obviously, I'm not in all ways a "girlie-girl." It's not that I go around looking for trouble, but I don't necessarily mind a good fight.  That's part of my masculine side that a number of other "strong women" can identify with.  But it is something that is  too outside the norms of typical women's (or even men's?) ministry to be assimilated with any amount of ease.  What I have experienced in varying degrees as a participant in more than one women's ministry can be likened in a metaphorical sense, to castration. Too often, participation within the organizational structure requires dedication to the virtue of "nice"  as evidenced by complete truncation of  anything that could make the ladies uncomfortable.

No challenges.

No wrestling.

No confrontation or other such "masculine" behavior.

Actually, the cult of nice is not restricted to the church.  Part of what I'm trying to draw awareness to is that, to a great extent, 1.)American organizational church structure and  2.) expressions of culture within church are a mirror of the dominant culture, which also tends to be dismissive of uncomfortable "not nice".

Recently, in a year-end gathering of MOPs I heard several women, a number of whom are in leadership, publicly say: "I really don't like women. . ." "Women's groups always scared me . ." "The first time I attended this group, I tried to leave, because I'm more of a tomboy . .."
Ironically, that same group of women has jointly shared  members' dismay that some of their husbands won't try coming to church with them.  Perhaps we are missing the point: that some men have an aversion to church that in various respects reflects some women's reticence to join an all girls' club.  Just a thought.

Within this blog and accountability group, I'd like to examine cultural forces, including consumerism and secular feminism (as opposed to Biblical feminism), that are effectively castrating within society generally and within the church specifically.  I find it intriguing that there is a correlation with decline in masculine church involvement and growing feminine leadership in the church.  As feminism has gained ground in our culture it has established itself as a shaping force in church culture, frequently in toxic and non-biblical ways. 40 years ago or so, it was counter cultural to be a feminist, but today, it appears more revolutionary to affirm the masculine.
Actually, we need to affirm expression of both genders. We need to cease attempts, including inadvertent, of annihilation or domination of one gender by the other.  We, the church, need to be about upholding the value of masculine and feminine in ways that are not contrived organizational constructs.  Maybe we should  reconsider ways to encourage positive faith expressions of both genders without institutional proscriptions?

Consider this an invitation to the discussion - and maybe to the debate, if you dare.

Narcissism

Somebody asked me to define "narcissism" the other day.  This was my explanation:

"...But basically that word refers to the core conviction/demand/expectation that one's own thoughts, feelings, experiences ought to be understood and anticipated and adhered to by all in that person's environment.  It is egocentrism - self at the center.  It doesn't make room for "otherness" or separateness.  Differences in understanding, ideas, emotional response, etc are treated as a threat and therefore punished or annihilated.   It's the sense that  'There is only one correct way to think, feel or act and mine is it!'

If you missed Disney's portrayal of Rapunzel in Tangled, I recommend you watch it if only because they nailed the persona of the narcissistic parent.  The witch who represents herself as Rapunzel's mother keeps her locked away in a tower isolating her from world to 'protect her' from the evils of the world.  Actually, her intent is to serve her own need for power, beauty, adoration and control.  For a time she is successful in maintaining the child's collusion in her fantasy of herself as the hero.  When Rapunzel begins to develop a separate self, the witch punishes her with the confusing message and plaintiff martyrs cry, 'Now I'm the bad guy?'" I chuckle at that every time I see it.

Manliness?

I don't know if any of my friends who live at a distance have been checking here to see how the discussion is going since our first meeting.  I anticipate there are at least a couple who were  intending on participating by proxy here.  I haven't forgotten about you and want to acknowledge your desire to take part in this journey.  May God bless and reward you in seeking to be an encouragement to the men in your life as an affirmer of masculinity!

A small contingent of women did indeed gather for food, accountability and encouragement.  And God made himself known!  The time of sharing was sweet, and transparent and every woman's dignity as well as that of her husband's was honored. Such was our intent and covenant.  Pursuant to that endeavor - we are maintaining confidentiality of group members.  There is ongoing private discussion.

The intent of the blog will heretofore be to examine cultural and philosophical forces, ideologies, attitudes or biases that pervade our relationships with men.  It will serve as adjunctive material for those who wish to take it deeper or broader.   I've had these links saved in my blog "drafts" for some time thinking I would eventually find or make the time to comment at length, but that just hasn't come to fruition.  I don't necessarily have clear opinions of either of these links.  I'm curious about GodMen, ie how is it helping men reconnect to faith? Video here

I consistently find myself intrigued by this website with its seemingly fresh perspectives on manhood.  It is very informative and entertaining, IMO.
The Art of Manliness

Have fun perusing!

Child centric homes

This is a short post in response to some things discussed in our group.

Family experts of every discipline agree: being solely focused on your children's happiness makes them, their siblings and their parents, both mom and dad, insecure!
This isn't a "dis" of attachment parenting.  Attachment experts point to the importance of a secure base from which children can explore the world.  Attunement can happen best when our own needs are met first.  Then we wont resent the demands of children.  We will respond to them from a place of fulfillment.  Give your kids a secure foundation of a loving marriage. One of the most important things we can give our children is the security of knowing that mom and dad have a passion for each other and a zest for life.
One article here:

Into the wilds. . .

Ready for controversy?
One idea I've been stretched by is the concept that men are by nature wild.  Women tend to want to tame them, and then wonder why their men loose their vitality, ie passion.  I find Esther Perel's ideas to be infusing vitality in my couples work.  What is so interesting is that she is challenging feminism/egalitarianism and sexual liberation as part of the reason eroticism in many marriages is waning.  She illustrates how domesticity spells the death of passion and responds to that dilemma by encouraging eroticism, not just sexuality.  She advocates NOT necessarily more frequent sex but more connected alive sex. Her secular perspective is one that honors truth.  That is refreshing coming from a humanist.  She is clearly existentialist, too.  Still it's good stuff!

One of her many videos on Youtube:

We'll get started. . .

...reading and discussing the book,For Women Only during the second half of April.  Woman are encouraged to find a friend with whom to discuss and process the content face to face.  The blog is here to facilitate additional discussion and to  make it possible for women to participate, regardless of time or location.

My friend, Cheri has been blogging  to women for nearly a year.  She has written some thought-provoking posts that correspond to the main theme here, ie being an encouragement for men so that they may have freedom in faith in Jesus to freedom to express themselves authentically. Cheri's blog can be found here  and her thoughts on how a woman should respond to the movie, Courageous.  Take some time to look at her posts.  They're good!  I responded in her comment section about Courageous, because I thought she raised an important topic; one that is close to my heart.

I'd like to know what you think about the notion that many wives try to be the Holy Spirit to their husbands.  Do our crusades to get our guys to "man up" tend to be counter-productive.  Why?

Incidentally, if you would like to comment, you may need to click on the word, "comments"  or on the pencil in the highlighted area.  A window should pop up.  You my have to copy the words you see and then click "submit".  I am moderating comments in order to filter certain variables.  Thus, it may take some time for your comment to appear.  I will try to respond, thoughtfully.  Mostly I'm screening against abuse.  If you want to challenge something or add a thought, even seemingly tangential thoughts, that would actually be encouraged! 

I shall be aliterate no more

I thought I'd provide you with resources so you may research for yourself some of those who are informing my  thoughts here.  These are amazing provocative pieces.  I am providing multimedia links in the hopes that these "teasers" will encourage you to  join me in resuming literary habits.  It's great, in this day and age, that there are so many means to appeal to multi-sensory input. If you simply cannot make time to read, at least there are audio/visual options to engage in learning and spiritual formation.  But, in my opinion, we ought to maintain the discipline of reading good books and engaging in critical discussion of ideas. 

I have been reading some really different kinds of books by people who are asking questions about the best way to follow Jesus in today's culture.  Check out the links below:
 
Skye Jethani, The Divine Commodity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV9Da5-DNwM

Francis Chan, Crazy Love
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvtNTUV9O50

David Platt, Radical Together
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZfC7vAbte4

Philip Yancy, The Jesus I Never Knew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_2bFNISlVc

David Murrow, Why Men Hate Going to Church
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEGIy_Ms50I

John Eldredge, Wild at Heart (I apologize about the audio on this one)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBEgrU90tbw

Henri Nouwen, The Wounded Healer
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004CWKKX4/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0232521026&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1Z96GY1F5QGY5G2ZFB7H

AW Tozer, The Pursuit of God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocfm497wxKE

Can You Handle It? A magic lesson.

Many churchgoers, though they profess moral aversion to practicing magic/sorcery, unwittingly engage in magic through the platitudes they advance.  One of my pet peeves says "God won't give you any more than you can handle."  I have heard folks make the claim that the Bible says precisely that, as though there is a specific address to which one can turn and find that verse.  I challenge folks again and again: Where does it say that?

Perhaps the quote was originally derived from one or two Biblical references that do exist.  One deals with temptation, 1 Corinthians 10:13

"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."

and the other to suffering or torment 2 Corinthians 12:9a.

"But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” "

It is  one thing to know that in the face of apparently overwhelming temptation that God always provides a way out.  Arguably, the case can be made that no temptation will exceed the ability to escape. Hence, the claim that God won't permit more temptation than a believer can handle may be valid. As a loose paraphrase, it lacks spiritual clarity and is a potential stumbling block.
A faith problem arises when people try to generalize the temptation application to the issue of suffering.  In regards to the latter, God has not said that he would remove it and has not even promised a way out, this side of eternity.  Rather, he has offered us himself, in the form of grace to live with it, to endure it and even to have fellowship with Jesus in and through it. There is no scriptural basis for the belief that God will shield us in any way from hardship.  In fact a great deal of scripture points to an increase of suffering to those who follow Jesus. (Luke 9:23, Luke 12:11, Jesus' repeated demands of extreme devotion)

The quote is used regularly by well-meaning do-gooders to quell the enormity of emotion  that wells up around tragic loss, incidents of grievous devastation,such as death of a loved one.  It is a pseudo-spiritual piece of pop-wisdom which misappropriates credit to God that rightfully belongs to other forces, specifically the forces of destruction. All too often it is said with the effect of casting a spell on its recipient that he or she should quietly not bother anyone else with his or her burdens.  It also has a tendency to protect the one casting the spell from becoming involved in carrying burdens. 

What is implied in that word, "more," anyway?  What theology underlies this commentary? Is it the idea that God 1.)either has such great trust in us to give us such great burdens, or 2.) that he will employ all of his cosmic powers to prevent us from hurting?  Perhaps God just knows that we believers can handle it and therefore entrusts it to us because he has faith in us. Somehow,  just because we bear Jesus' name we are suddenly imbued with superhuman powers to be inoculated against any kind of hurt.  This is magical thinking - not spiritual maturity.

If the space in our minds is inhabited by such fantastical demands of God, how does our spiritual house accommodate it when God allows tsunami waves to swallow up half an Asian country, or when he permits cancer to consume the life of a young  wife and mother or lets political forces massacre their own unarmed citizens that are young, elderly, women or sick? What about when, as happened recently in Florida, God  allows a blazing inferno near a freeway to blind drivers going in both directions to the point that 70 cars pile up within moments and the result is death and devastation. Some of those killed in that pileup were returnees from a Christian conference, eager to get home for worship and to share their week's learning with those at home.  Surely any of those scenarios qualifies as "too much,"  right?  Does God cease to exist when horror happens?  Or does he just cease being good?  These questions hopefully illustrate what's wrong with believing God won't allow suffering

By definition, magic is the manipulation of spiritual forces to do our bidding.  Faith is something very different.  It is something that trusts in God's goodness despite the conditions we find ourselves in.  It is not conditional on whether he permits overwhelming pain into our lives, or not.