A timely post about something that is fast disappearing in our skewed culture! I would add to your point "a gender-neutral vision for humanity is gnostic, not Christian" that it is also represents open rebellion against God.
I recently listened to your interview with Larson and Rich on Got a Minute. I am curious about the main arguments brought up by the opposition party during the church split. What were the main talking points they peddled and why was it so hard to reconcile them with your position on gendered virtue?
I'm just curious to see if it is similar to my own experience bringing up these issues and the reactions I would get.
There were a cluster of issues that are hard to pin down. One of the problems was their inability to specifically articulate their complaints against me. It was quite vague. I think at the bottom there was a discomfort with my willingness to address social and cultural issues plainly from the pulpit. I would always speak with charity and grace, but that didn't matter. The fact that I would address feminism, critical theory, male headship, etc., was considered too controversial. It might offend visitors who disagreed. If I talked about LGBTQ sins and the need for Christians to have a strong stance against these things, I was accused of being too political. The word that emerged in the conflict was "winsome." The leaders of the opposition wanted more of a Russell Moore/David French style pastor. My disagreements with them were regarded as me being stubborn or refusing to submit to the their authority (since the majority of the elders at the time were opposed to me). Anyway, I hope this is clarifying. Are you in a similar situation?
Hello sir. I'm still feeling out our new church in terms of willingness to discuss these issues. But at our previous church, the attitude toward masculinity was basically that if you were male, then you were masculine (as though masculinity was a static state of being). Also, the attitude toward the men's ministry was oriented toward doctrine only, as though the essence of manhood was knowing doctrine.
Consequently, when some of us would approach other brothers, saying that men should be physically strong (in addition to doctrinal soundness), it was almost always a visceral reaction against our claim. Usually in the form of a "what about man X, who is disabled" (you know, the failure to grasp generalities). Some would even react as though we were saying that they were not men (very defensive).
When some of these brothers were pressed about the fact that men are responsible for protecting families and the weak, the essence of the rebuttal would be something like "Yes, of course I will protect my family if/when that time comes, and as long as I try, that is what God requires of me" (as though they would be innately prepared for such an encounter apart from training, which runs counter to Biblical wisdom).
These are just examples from my experience so far. But I know there a myriad of other reactions that I want to be prepared for, which is why I was curious about your experience.
I've got an interview with Joe Rigney I'll be publishing in the next week or so on my podcast and Youtube channel. If you're interested in how the emotional and relational dynamics played out with people, give it a listen. It's called plain speech podcast. youtube.com/@plainspeechpodcast. Its on all audio platforms as well
Makes sense. I am familiar with this mindset. Sounds like your old church was influenced by a combination of feminist and pietistic thinking. Feminism seeks to minimize sexual distinctions, and pietism seeks to minimize outward expressions of the faith in real circumstances. They often work in tandem. This is exactly the sort of thing that occurred in my church conflict. I was pressing for an understanding and application of sexual distinction in everyday circumstances, but frequently encountered the kind of resistance you described. Some were unwilling to engage the subject at all. I was persistent because of how much this ideology is harmful to people. This escalated to the point that elders resigned and took other people with them. It was a sad situation.
A timely post about something that is fast disappearing in our skewed culture! I would add to your point "a gender-neutral vision for humanity is gnostic, not Christian" that it is also represents open rebellion against God.
Hello Mr. Clary. I really enjoyed your book.
I recently listened to your interview with Larson and Rich on Got a Minute. I am curious about the main arguments brought up by the opposition party during the church split. What were the main talking points they peddled and why was it so hard to reconcile them with your position on gendered virtue?
I'm just curious to see if it is similar to my own experience bringing up these issues and the reactions I would get.
Thanks for all the good work!
Yes sir, absolutely right.
Hey thank you Joshua! I appreciate that brother.
There were a cluster of issues that are hard to pin down. One of the problems was their inability to specifically articulate their complaints against me. It was quite vague. I think at the bottom there was a discomfort with my willingness to address social and cultural issues plainly from the pulpit. I would always speak with charity and grace, but that didn't matter. The fact that I would address feminism, critical theory, male headship, etc., was considered too controversial. It might offend visitors who disagreed. If I talked about LGBTQ sins and the need for Christians to have a strong stance against these things, I was accused of being too political. The word that emerged in the conflict was "winsome." The leaders of the opposition wanted more of a Russell Moore/David French style pastor. My disagreements with them were regarded as me being stubborn or refusing to submit to the their authority (since the majority of the elders at the time were opposed to me). Anyway, I hope this is clarifying. Are you in a similar situation?
Hello sir. I'm still feeling out our new church in terms of willingness to discuss these issues. But at our previous church, the attitude toward masculinity was basically that if you were male, then you were masculine (as though masculinity was a static state of being). Also, the attitude toward the men's ministry was oriented toward doctrine only, as though the essence of manhood was knowing doctrine.
Consequently, when some of us would approach other brothers, saying that men should be physically strong (in addition to doctrinal soundness), it was almost always a visceral reaction against our claim. Usually in the form of a "what about man X, who is disabled" (you know, the failure to grasp generalities). Some would even react as though we were saying that they were not men (very defensive).
When some of these brothers were pressed about the fact that men are responsible for protecting families and the weak, the essence of the rebuttal would be something like "Yes, of course I will protect my family if/when that time comes, and as long as I try, that is what God requires of me" (as though they would be innately prepared for such an encounter apart from training, which runs counter to Biblical wisdom).
These are just examples from my experience so far. But I know there a myriad of other reactions that I want to be prepared for, which is why I was curious about your experience.
I've got an interview with Joe Rigney I'll be publishing in the next week or so on my podcast and Youtube channel. If you're interested in how the emotional and relational dynamics played out with people, give it a listen. It's called plain speech podcast. youtube.com/@plainspeechpodcast. Its on all audio platforms as well
Michael Clary
just now
Author
Makes sense. I am familiar with this mindset. Sounds like your old church was influenced by a combination of feminist and pietistic thinking. Feminism seeks to minimize sexual distinctions, and pietism seeks to minimize outward expressions of the faith in real circumstances. They often work in tandem. This is exactly the sort of thing that occurred in my church conflict. I was pressing for an understanding and application of sexual distinction in everyday circumstances, but frequently encountered the kind of resistance you described. Some were unwilling to engage the subject at all. I was persistent because of how much this ideology is harmful to people. This escalated to the point that elders resigned and took other people with them. It was a sad situation.