Can you imagine Dirty Harry Callahan attending a highly effeminized church?
Perhaps a bit overstated but the point is clearly made!
11.30.2004
Doug Giles: Dirty Harry Goes To Church
Perhaps a bit overstated but the point is clearly made!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great! So let's return to the days when women were excluded from decision-making in the church - that'll do it!
Seriously, there is a *spectrum* here, people - one that includes highly masculine men like Harry, but that *also* includes guys who are, in Giles' words, "soft". Is soft bad? To Giles it is, but he's wrong. It's one way of being out of many. Get over it, Giles. There are also plenty of strong women like me who hate the ladies' functions, but I deal. I find like-minded women and men and create my own niche. There are plenty of people who can relate to and teach Harry - have you or Giles never heard of John Eldredge?
Susan Carley Oliver
Hi Susan-
Thanks for the comment. I don't believe we should return to the days when women were excluded from decision making in the church.
But I do know from the two churches that I pastor, many rough and tumble men in our community (which is small and rural, so I am very safe in speaking in generalities!) won't even think of setting foot in the church. Is it because the church is feminine in their view? Is it because it's "soft"? If it is because the church is feminine and soft, are they right in staying away? The strong, hard, masculine men stay out of the churches here. The question for me as a pastor is, how do I go and incarnate the gospel for them? And for my churches, the question is are we sending a subconscious message that keeps them away?
Frankly, I don't think much of Eldredge's work. It's poor theology. It's rampant in suspect exegesis. And I have seen many men use it as an excuse to go buy a kayak or an SUV and spend their weekends away from their families in an effort to be "wild at heart".
Hmm, I have no info on Eldredge vis a vis any suspect exegesis, but I can say that one can use just about *any* writer's works to justify crappy behaviour!
As for reaching our rough&tumblers - it helps to be reminded that Jesus was not the effete wimpy persona that often gets represented at Christmas and Easter on TV and in the movies. No - this guy was heavily muscled (carpenter, remember!), dirty and sweaty, and probably wore dark colours (not that prissy white) that covered the grime. He was incredibly charismatic - tens of thousands of people followed him from town to town, so this guy was *engaging*, not quiet and wispy. He was probably more like JFK or MLK Jr than Willem Dafoe or Max Von Sydow - except, of course, that he lived a sinless life (ahem).
Plus, he probably looked kind of semitic. I am currently envisioning a kind, strong Naveen Andrews-type of Jesus. Women-love-him, men-want-to-be-him kind of guy.
Cheers,
Susan
Post a Comment