Act Like Men 2014: it's complicated, is what I'm saying.

This past month I had the privilege of attending the Act Like Men conference in Fort Worth, TX due to the generosity of an anonymous church member. It was a whirlwind weekend, and stirred up a lot in me. I’ve had some time to think about what I experienced, and sort through it. Since I had some strong feelings, I felt I should share with you, o anonymous internet reader! While there was much that I enjoyed, there was some that tripped me up and really just rubbed me the wrong way. So I'll start with that, since chronologically it is first, and go from there in what may be a 3-part series. Maybe. This may not be entirely organized and polished, but this is a blog post not a book. I’m writing it from a more stream-of-consciousness position, and will likely perform endless edits. 

The conference started out with a video and speaker articulating the premise that traditional manhood is under attack. And, we need to reclaim our rightful place as biblical men in our families and in society in order to be fulfilling God’s will. Which honestly made me cringe. Now I will grant that the privilege traditionally held by males is constantly being eroded, and I would agree that there are many different sources for obtaining a definition of what manhood should be. But, I immediately felt internal red-flags, because I am not for traditionally-defined rigid definitions of gender roles. I see no problem with stay-at-home dads, men that chose to stay single, men that only work in volunteer organizations, or men who follow a more traditional life path. I honestly do not see how the challenges to “manhood” are a bad thing. In a world where my biology does not give me a starting advantage in irrelevant positions, meaning my sex results in no meaningful distinction in my ability to act a role or perform a task set, I will only be able to take advantage of opportunities I am actually qualified for. Much like being “Christian” in a non-Christian world creates enough of a contrast for me to figure out who I am rather than who I am not, I lean towards thinking that no longer being able to define manhood as not-feminine or not-animalistic is progress, but rather having to create a definition that does not marginalize others could be beneficial to everybody. 

As I was looking around, it struck me just how insular and white the audience was. The speakers were primarily Caucasian-Americans, the audience was almost entirely Caucasian-American, and judging from apparel and advertising primarily conservative and protestant. So apparently I was not the only one who got the message that the traditional Caucasian-American-Christian definition of masculinity was under attack, because there was virtually no-one else there. There were virtually no Asian-Americans, very few African-Americans, and no nods to virtues that other communities, even within the Christian greater community, espouse as important. The advertising booths around the arena advertised for “X product, now with Christian.” Whether it be hunting with Christians, investment with Christians, reading with Christians, the list goes on and on. Friday night felt very insular and conservative, to a degree I haven’t experienced since high school. 

And the weird part is, the danger of traditional gender roles is never addressed even when exploring Biblical passages such as the story of King David and Bathsheba. Within that story Bathsheba is a pawn, an object within the story who becomes complicit in the crimes of the King. However, in many ways it is questionable whether she had any other recourse. If the expectation wasn’t that he was the lead, and what he said went, and he had the preeminence, would the story have wound up different? Perhaps with great power comes great responsibility, and privilege combined with selfishness results in silent victims who could otherwise have spoken up. And yet that never came up. While the speaker used this passage to hammer the point that men have jobs they need to be doing, and things go pear-shaped when  they don’t do them, I feel like a better point may be when we worship our own strength and identity, we have no idea the harm we cause. 

The fun and games continued with the exhortation to not be children, not be women, and not be animals, but instead be men. While I understand that contrast is important, and can often be an effective and efficient tool, there is some contradiction in defining one-self by who one isn’t, and again some marginalization of others by assigning them less-desirable characteristics. Being “like a woman” should not be an insult or an indicator for need for further growth. Many women are like a women, and are just fine with that. Such things should probably be left on the playground when we outgrow that particular part of childhood. My particular field of study grades gender roles on a continuum of lesser to greater rigid adherence, and perhaps that would be more appropriate. The exhortation to not be the above, but rather a man, leads to the possibility of girly-men, for example, which isn’t edifying or educational for anyone. So perhaps it should go. 

As I was listening, it occurred to me repeatedly that the line between maladaptive behavior and sin can be very blurry, to the point of them being one and the same. A good example of that would be porn addiction. The speakers repeatedly made the recommendation to starve the vice rather than minimally feeding it. As I was listening, I couldn’t help but feel that would result in an unproductive cycle. A married man who indulges in porn to fulfill his needs has chosen an option to, again, fill his needs. This option was chosen above other options. Therefore, wouldn’t an effective manner of fixing this vice look at what maintains the vice, and find  a more legitimate way to meet that need? In this case, the more legitimate way would be sexual intimacy with his wife, which exploring that will likely lead to feelings of anger and betrayal, and perceptions of being unwanted and lonely, and internal assumptions that all future efforts down that road will lead to failure and rejection. Therefore, wouldn’t addressing all that material result in a reformed man more likely to take the harder, albeit more rewarding, road to be satisfied rather than taking the easy road? How much of that crucial core material would be missed by just starving the vice? Would that fix the dysfunctional relationship that would make a porn addiction viable? 

Now, it wasn’t all bad, to be sure. Later on in the session, the pastor made a couple of very good points worth mentioning here. The first was that some temptations just need to be fled from. That path of escape promised is sometimes very direct and involves kinetic action: make like Joseph and flee. Additionally, men are typically action-oriented, so we should be watchful and do. When we fail to do, and we sit on our hands, those who depend on us suffer as a result. It was refreshing and encouraging to be exhorted to stay busy and use my predispositions, as that is what I am supposed to. I am not sure about the complaints about younger men pursuing hedonism, play, and sensuality. If that was a dig at millennials, then I shall blow raspberries. But I have not completed re-reading my notes. Spoiler alert, I really liked a lot of Saturday’s material. But Friday… I was very conflicted. Walking through that experience then, and later reflecting on it, I felt torn between what I was hearing I reject, and what I was hearing I find beneficial and accurate. However, I decided to stick through it since I was there on scholarship, and I’m glad I did because Saturday was where the good stuff was!

Until next time!

Mike