(Hat-tip to LAF)
What a thought-provoking article I read at Boundless called, Girlie Christianity. It struck so many chords with me. It opened up a rivulet of thinking that brought some clarity to topics we discuss here often. It really made me think. I think you will love it.
“Maybe Christianity is sort of girlie….”
“All the music was so sentimental and touchy-feely,” he said. “And it went on and on as though the musicians were trying to work us up into a sugary trance. One more refrain of ‘His Banner Over Me is Luhhhv’ and I think I would have passed out. You know that song?”…
“Wait, I’m not finished. It’s also hard to sing. I used to think that’s just because I’m not a great singer, but I can sing other songs. This time it hit me. The problem is that most of it is pitched way too high for male voices. Wouldn’t you call that girlie?”
“It would certainly raise questions,” I answered.
“It sure raised questions for me. Then, when the offering was collected, a woman from the choir crooned a solo.”
“A hymn?”
“Not like that. More like Jesus was her boyfriend. I was actually embarrassed.”
“Oh.”
“And the sermon was gooey. Do you know what I mean? Lots of sweet sentiments about luhhhv, just like Nathan said — but nothing uncomfortable, nothing challenging, nothing that forced you to think, nothing that made you want to go out and do hard things….”
“Understand, Professor, I’m not against love. At least I don’t think I am. It’s just —” His shoulders slumped again. “It’s just that I’m a little tired of hearing about it right now.”
“I’m not so sure you’ve heard anything about love.”
He looked up. “Huh? Isn’t that what we’ve been talking about?”
“No, I think we’ve been talking about luhhhv….“
36 comments
Wow whoever wrote that hasn’t been out much. They obviously haven’t been to our church or any like it. Maybe their problem is that they need to stop complaining and go look for another church.
Thought provoking article! This inspires me to further support my husband with love, encouragement, and respect in the home, helping to give him even more confidence to assume his rightful place as a man in the body of Christ. When we, as women and men, assume the roles intended for us by God, the beautiful collaboration of the two will give a more accurate picutre of the image of God. Not patriarchal, not effeminate, but the perfect blend of beauty and strength, of tenderness and assertiveness, of leadership and support, of love and submission.
I certainly agree that that type of church is out there.
I actually grew up in a church that was quite the opposite – it was a very masculine church, love (and certainly not luurrrrvh!) was rarely mentioned and women really were not encouraged to serve in the church much beyond making the tea after services – nothing wrong with that, it’s a form of service – but motherhood and it’s importance were never ever talked about.
It’s not about whether churches are masculine or feminine – it’s about whether they are biblical. If they are biblical, then all sorts of people should be able to come and worship the Lord there. The fact is, the attributes of God are complex – he is just, yet merciful, holy yet sympathises with our weaknesses, omnipotent yet condescended to humble himself for a time and become human. The Lord Jesus is fully human and yet fully divine. There is a true balance and perfection about the character of the Lord – and that should be reflected in our worship of him and how we present him to others. Both male and female were made in the image of God. We may see certain attributes of God as more appealing to females or males, but in reality, “love” is not masculine or feminine – neither is justice, holiness or mercy. They may just manifest themselves in slightly different ways in men or women, but even then I would profer that that is slightly simplistic.
And I can see that the end of the article was hinting at the point that true love can encompass all sorts of things – it may be giving someone a hug and shoulder to cry on, which may be perhaps be seen as rather a feminine thing – and there is certainly nothing wrong with that! But love can also take it’s form in a corrective may, say with a child, or in sacrificing one’s life in a violent way for someone else (as our lord did) – perhaps things that are less mushy, but equally love and are perhaps seen as more masculine. But actually – my husband has hugged and comforted me, and remained completely masculine whilst doing so. And there are mothers who die for their children, and remain fully feminine! I guess my point is – the problem is that the church has lost all balance, and in some cases perhaps doesn’t present a complete image of the Lord, and that maybe because we have somewhat simplistic notions of the attributes of God.
And certainly, doe-eyed angels and rainbows on service sheets don’t help! On the other hand I don’t see the rememdy as having pictures of our Lord with muscles etc etc – strength is certainly masculine and certainly something that is an attribute of the Lord, but to portray it in that way is just as wordly as portraying the Lord as some sort of mushy hippie. The truth is, he was gentle enough to sit children on his knee, and he talked of feeling like a mother hen wanting to gather her chicks to her, and yet at the same time was a man who could rebuke people very strongly, turned over the tables in the temple and will return to rule as a King.
What we need is balance and a rounded and complete picture of who our Lord is – not simplistic notions of feminine and masculine based upon 21st century culture.
Oh, and worship songs that are like popular lovesongs are a major bugbear of mine.
Sorry, a very long, rambling and incoherent comment!
Very true, unbiblical love is preached very often. True love includes so much more than acceptance and forgiveness. It includes discipline among others. A one sided gospel is no real gospel of Christ, no matter which one side is preached.
Perhaps so, Mrs. W.
I love that last line. No, I luuuhhhvv that last line..
HAHAHAhaha! I have friends who have been calling CCM “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs for years! And my brother pastor (the pastor of a CCM worshipping church btw) has had to scold the young ladies “Jesus is NOT your boyfriend!” So I’m guessing it has its practical ramifications when it’s the bulk of the theology driving worship.
Hey, “I love God, woah,woah,woah” is biblical, but we’re not seeing the other psalmist counterparts, like:
“Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.” Psalm 144:1
Lori,
Yes, the balanced Word. It’s not the gospel unless it’s the whole gospel.
Our Psalm for this morning read:
But I, through the abundance of your steadfast love,
will enter your house.
I will bow down toward your holy temple
in the fear of you.
There you have the love balanced with “fear” because of our righteous Judge.
Rachel,
Great thoughts.
“It was a very masculine church, love (and certainly not luurrrrvh!) was rarely mentioned and women really were not encouraged to serve in the church much beyond making the tea after services”
Definitely not good. Perfectly said, Rachel.
Christianity is not girlie. Lots of American churches are girlie. Big difference. What makes the author think those are churches have anything to do with Christianity?
Underground churches in other countries would never be accused of being girlie. There wouldn’t be so many martyrs if they were. People don’t give their life for churches like that.
Ginger, you’re right, Christianity is NOT girley. If you click on “girly christianity” you will link through to the full piece from which this excerpt is taken. I think it’ll make more sense if you read the full piece, and have more resonance for you. Sounds as if you’d like it.
Terrific article, you’re my favorite linker in blogworld, Kelly.
We’ve discussed before the misconceptions contemporary Christians have of Christ, to suit their own comfort levels and more perversely their own political agendas. I always refer to the Robin Hood mentality – the Genie with the Light Brown Hair is the analogy my husband uses, which is funnier and probably more accurate based on many of the churchy images of Him.
I think the interesting thing is what we set aside, like so many have already mentioned, is his perfect balance. We forget the the Perfect Lamb is also the Lion of Judah, and that while He comes in love, He does not come in peace to suit our limited understanding of what real peace is. Hard to accept that perfect peace might require we get a little uncomfortable….big concepts that aren’t spoken of much in Church, and if they are, it’s considered old fashioned, or dogmatic, or “fundamental” – as if that’s an insult.
It’s sad that we’re willing to forfeit the fullness of Christ to fill pews, as if it’s about a headcount or a busy bulletin or a VBS leader. We are to be Christ-like, but somehow we keep trying to make Him like us instead.
This is interesting my husband told me sunday he felt like he had set in on a slumber party.I was sad because I felt that he just didn’t get it.I guess I am the one who didn’t get it.Thanks Kelly as usual God has used you to open up my eyes mind and heart.
So very true in many churches today! Our church tends to be accused of being harsh in doctrine and the gospel message. Balance is the key, and we cannot depend on just our pastors to provide that balance. All the more reason to ensure our men are being fed spiritually!
True love cannot exist without discipline; discipline is ineffective without love.
Kelly,
As a Catholic Music Director this really struck a “chord”!
So much of the music in our own hymnals is very “high” pitched – in fact, not many of the women in the congregation can sing it as it is written! I usually transpose (that is lower) the music to where it can be sung by everyone – isn’t this what we’re supposed to do – sing His praises?
Thanks for this thought-provoking post – and thanks for sharing!
I think this article has a lot to do with why I like pastors like Mark Driscoll. He brings an almost shocking element to the “sissy church” and I like that he’s trying to swing things back in the other direction (even if he swings too far sometimes). I like his charge to men–challenging them to man up and his balance to the concept of who God is. And my favorite quote of his seems so fitting here (which got a lot of people up in arms the last time I quoted, yet, I can’t help myself):
“There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types want to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelations, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity.”
Once again, false reasoning by him: Christ WAS beaten up, so I guess He’s not worthy of Driscoll’s worship. He asks men to macho up, not man up, I think. I dislike the boyish church as much as the girly church, and I think there are far more suitable men to get men to man up; John Piper, Max Lucado and Charles Swindoll for example.
I’m the same Lori from the gratitude post. I gave myself an initial to more easily distinguish myself from the other Lori.
I agree with Jennifer. Not only was Christ beaten up, but He stood there and allowed Himself to be beaten up…not because He was a sissy, but because it was the right thing to do.
Still, I understand what Mark Driscoll is saying to a degree. The sad fact is that Christianity is bleeding men into harder faiths like Islam or into atheism.
Why? There are a lot of reasons. One important reason that has been overlooked by many examining this problem is that there is no good model for manly friendships and manly brokenness before God in this world. If you are a man with a close friendship with another man, but your friendship doesn’t involve some “manly” activity, you’re accused of homosexuality or being a sissy. If you are a man whose sin against God brings you to tears when you enter God’s presence in church on Sunday, you are weak, you are a sissy, you are gay, you are feared. In the environment of vulnerability elicited by true spiritual worship, men simply don’t know how to act. In the time of Christ, men kissed each other; they reclined on one another’s chests, like John did with Jesus. Now, a man in close relationship with another man like that would be viewed with suspicion to say the least.
Women are more comfortable in such an environment because they generally know already how to love a man, and men don’t. Jesus is not your boyfriend, but your Maker is your Husband (Isaiah 54:5). So I don’t know about the objection of singing about love; the Psalms, in my opinion our best model for music to be used in worship, mention love frequently. But I do think that there is a need for positive role models of what it means to relate to God as a man.
The Church is, by nature, feminine, the Bride of Christ without spot or blemish…but men are part of that Bride, and we should strive to provide an environment where everyone can worship comfortably without feeling like they need to go shopping afterwards.
SO well-said, Lori.
I hope many men will find the Godly sort of men I mentioned, and there are plenty more as well.
“I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”
Jennifer and Lori, y’all are missing the bigger point. YES Jesus got beat up. But it’s not because he was weaker than Mark Driscoll, it’s because it suited His purpose for our salvation. The fact remains that Jesus absolutly could have beaten down any of the Roman soldiers. It had nothing to do with ability, but permission.
And Mark Driscoll was addressing ability, not permission.
So? Even if Jesus had been a hippie God, He still would have been able to take down anyone He WISHED to, because He was God, even if it wasn’t an image Driscoll prefered. So the point remains. It was a stupid way to word things.
“Wrong ideas about God are not only the fountain from which the polluted waters of idolatry flow; they are themselves idolatrous. The idolater simply imagines things about God and acts as if they were true.”
“Let us beware lest we in our pride accept the erroneous notion that idolatry consists only in kneeling before visible objects of adoration, and that civilized peoples are therefore free from it.” ~ A.W. Tozier
False image, false idol
A. W. Tozer, sorry
I think I agree with Jennifer and Lori H. I do think that Mark Driscoll can go too far the other way. I think he is sensationalist to get people to think – I can see why he does it, but I don’t think it’s right to address an imbalance by swinging to the other extreme.
In the end, if christian men convert to Islam, then yes it is right to examine the church and to see if maybe it is presenting a false gospel – but not whether we are masculine or feminine! At the end of the day, perhaps these men convert to Islam because they want a religion that suits their own fleshly needs – they want a religion where they can physically fight a jihad and get macho excitement from that. They don’t want a religion where they have to humble themselves and perhaps have quite a (seemingly) mundane life for Christ.
Jennifer, I agree – this image of masculine that Driscoll presents is macho – but it is not true masculinity. There are men out there – wonderful christian men, who are truly masculine, but yet are not physically strong, who are quiet men, but who are yet truly men. It’s the same with feminimity – I’m a tall girl and a sometimes struggle with the fact that I have big feet and broad shoulders and that I’m not overly keen on pink! But that doesn’t make me less of a woman. A truly biblical view of gender is so much more than these superficial things!
If we based our hymns and songs on scripture and had hymns that presented both the love of God and his holiness, his justice, his mercy etc etc – then we wouldn’t need to worry about male and female – it would just be about him and no one would be put off except for sinful reasons. And do there need to pictures on the service sheets that could risk putting people off? Or do we really need any picture of Jesus on the wall at all?
Comparing Jesus to todays simpering wimps is outrageous!
Have you forgotten how He addressed the scribes and Pharisees? Jesus Christ really laid it on the line for them and told them exactly what their problem was. Touchy feelie Christianity does not do that. It also does not stand up for the truth of God’s word but let’s it get contaminated by the world’s ideas of what God’s word should be. Love, God is love. Oh, but ladies, lets not forget, He is a HOLY GOD above all. What do the angels around His throne say?? but “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, Who was and Who is and Who is to come.” Those angels are not saying love, love, love. The HOLINESS of God and the fact that He cannot tolerate sin is the reason Christ laid down His life. Don’t diminish it.
As far as Christ LAYING His life down on the cross, it was a work of love but no means was it girlie. He let Himself be beat to pulp, His back was like hamburger, spat upon, mocked, scourged, crown of thorns – do you honestly mean to tell me that you DON’T see the MAN – REAL MAN in that. There is absolutely no comparasion to Jesus Christ and this type of girlie Christianity Kelly wrote about. The world does not revolve around women.
Jesus Christ stood up in the temple and threw the money changes out – twice. You don’t call that a real man? The kind of man “John Piper, Max Lucado and Charles Swindoll” would look down upon perhaps??? Just as you do? No, Jesus was exactly the kind of man todays church doesn’t want – pity that – perhaps that’s why it’s so ineffective and perhaps that’s why so many people leave it to worship at home. A lot of today’s church has absolutely no impact on the way people live. If we are true believer’s of Jesus Christ it does affect our life and we are a “pecular people”.
As far as differences in gender – God, Himself, made the genders. HE meant them to be different and He forms each one of us in the womb of our mothers. Enjoy the form He gave you and use it to His glory. “it would just be about Him” yes, except that He came as a MAN, refers to God as Father and He died as a man and He sits at God’s right hand as that same man. Gender does matter because God designed gender – that makes it important.
“I can’t worship a god I can beat up” is like
“I can’t worship a god weaker than I am”
Analogous statements:
I can’t worship a god who is dumber than I am.
I can’t worship a god who is more lascivious than I am.
I can’t worship a god who is less honest than I am.
I can’t worship a god who is more fearful than I am.
Driscoll is making a comment about false gods. And some people are so falsely representing Christ, and that is a false God, not the Satan-butt-kicking evil punishing God of the Bible. He is making a statement about re-making Christ over in our image!
See the point.
And while you might disagree with Driscoll about what constitutes a false representation of God, it’s foolish to argue about condemning false representations of God in and of itself.
great article! I was recently in a conversation with someone who was complaining about the weakness of the deacons in her church and talking about how much stronger the women are and how they have to stand up and say something to make things happen. I suggested that “maybe” 🙂 a way to encourage the men in her congregation was for the women to be silent so it would be more difficult for the men to abdicate their responsibilities.(1 Cor. 14:34) it certainly might take some time for them to get the hang of actually humbly leading but it is a horrible thought to picture men of the church being led around like puppets by the women. my reason for bringing this up is to illustrate how the situation described in the article is not unique and has broad ramifications. May we seek Christ alone and His Word to form our churches and stop adding to and taking away from what is biblical. Thanks for the thought provoking link and the great Driscoll quote, WW! blessings, jen in al
I feel the need to expand a thought :
There are many wonderful, strong men arond today but they are under seige by the “world”. They are constantly told that the way they are is wrong & they need to change, so they get confused. Confused because they are designed to run things, to go out & conquer. Our feminized society says this is wrong, so they must deny the way God designed them. James Dobson’s book Bringing up Boys explains this well.
Who were you addressing in your original comment, Grace? I agree, Jesus was a fine man and I think it’s clear all women here have recognized this. I wish both the macho and the girlie dopes would realize this.
The point is, it was a foolish analogy to make, Lori. It’s another macho point against Driscoll.
Jesus wasn’t just a fine man. He was Gos incarnate! There is difference between merely a man & God come to earth as a man.
Jennifer, I’m not sure that I was addressing anyone in particular. This another soapbox for me. Jesus didn’t come to bring peace to the world. The form of Christianity described by “girlie christianity” is really no type of christianity at all. The gospel centers around the diety of Christ. If you aren’t worshipping the right Christ – the 1 born of a virgin, tested by Satan, lived a perfect life, always spoke the truth from the Father, died on the cross, ressurected on day 3, currently sitting at the right hand of God – then you aren’t worshiping the right Christ.
Our salvation is found only in HIM. Churches teaching a watered down -God is love w/o also teaching, the judgment & diety of Christ are not teaching Christ crucified. Jesus said “if you love, obey me.” He taught hard things – love, love, love does not teach the hard things.
Does that help? To me those hard things include: creation, submission, living a life of servanthood, dieing to self daily etc.
Excuse me – GOD incarnate! Typing on a phone is difficult!
You know Jennifer – I kinda like my man to be macho. It’s also nice to see him be mushy with his children or myself on his lap 😉
I’ve never much cared for an inept kind of man. Jesus grew up a carpenter’s son. I bet he could take care of business when needed. It also strikes me that at 12 he was fully capable of taking care of himself but still submitted to his parents. Then He submitted Himself to death on the cross. Amazing manly, man!
No problem Grace, just wanted to make sure you weren’t offended by something said here.
BTW, thanks a lot for your nice last comment to me on the “Raising Daughters” thread 🙂 I would have replied, but comments were shut off.
I like a lot of this article, but there is also something I dislike, and I think it’s the use of the word “girlie.” Later on, Peter calls it “cute,” and that I resonate with, as well as his description of “luhhhv!” But, to say that something is “feminine” because the songs are high (for the record, tenors can often sing higher ranges than most women who are typically mezzo-sopranos–I can barely sing most of the stuff that male CMA write if it isn’t transposed) is just silly.
Besides which, it is wrong to say that the “cry-on-your-shoulder” sort of love is only for women. I know a lot of men who would be healthier if they were able to really confide in another man. This, I see, is more of a cultural bias than a biblical rule. Just refer to David, Jonathan, Peter, Paul, and Jesus Himself if you want to see real men hugging and crying!
I’m not saying we should all have dried flower displays in the mens room or touchy-feely prayer sessions at our churches, but churches need to be accessible to all people AND we need to be sure that in promoting biblical masculinity and femininity that we’re doing so on God’s terms, not men’s (or women’s).
For example, Kelly, you mention Mark Driscoll. I live in the town where he preaches, and I’ve been to his church. I have to tell you, I did not feel welcome there. And, I have NEVER heard a worship band sing in such a high range! I could hardly hit the notes–and what’s more: no one else could either. In a sanctuary of several hundred people, my husband and I were the only ones I could see singing.
I’m not trying to bash Driscoll. I believe that he genuinely wants to serve God, and I agree with so many of his motives. I think the way he inspires new believers is wonderful. BUT, Driscoll’s method of trying to “masculinize” the church is not biblical, nor is it particularly welcoming to women or to men like my husband who are not into the “machismo” image of manhood, which he believes to be more worldly than Godly.
One last thing: I would love to see the Complemntarian world stop blaming women for demasculinizing men. It is offensive to men–and it victimizes them! Manhood is not tenable and femininity is not contagious! Are there ways that women can build up their men? Yes! Are there trends than can confuse men about what it means to be men? Certainly. But, is manhood vulnerable to every whim of femininity? I certainly hope not. I have a much higher opinion of manhood than that; it is strong and can withstand anything, even a “girlie” church.
Anyway, that’s my 2cents.