Real Men are Orthodox

[Fish and Bread]

F&B, your comments are over the top and inappropriate. The article did not imply what you said it does.

Here are some quotes from the article:

Men need a challenge, a goal, perhaps an adventure-in primitive terms, a hunt. Western Christianity has lost the ascetic, that is, the athletic, aspect of Christian life. This was the purpose of monasticism, which arose in the East largely as a men's movement.

Men need a challenge? And a goal? In primitive terms, a hunt? The article didn't even bother to say "most". We all secretly wish we were running around in the forest killing things, is what I get from that. It's insulting. And it's insulting to women, too, because it implies they don't like challenges or goals. And, in any event, it defacto includes all members of the male gender and throws us into one category. Personally, that turns me off more than the "feminization" of church, whatever that means -- I'm assuming something else based on a stereotype..

Women entered monastic life as well, and our ancient hymns still speak of women martyrs as showing 'manly courage.'"

So women have to become like men to show courage? Learn something new every day.

"Christ in Orthodoxy is a militant, butt-kicking Jesus who takes Hell captive. Orthodox Jesus came to cast fire on the earth. (Males can relate to butt-kicking and fire-casting.)

Males can relate to butt-kicking and fire-casting?

After several years in Orthodoxy, one man found returning to a Protestant church for their service of traditional Christmas carols "shocking, even appalling." Compared to the Orthodox hymns of Christ's Nativity, " 'The little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay'

Yeah, because if there's one thing men hate, it's infants asleep on hay.

The fact that you must 'struggle' during worship by standing up throughout long services is itself a challenge men are willing to take up.

Personally, I'm a man, and I find the standing part the thing I like least about Eastern Orthodoxy, in theory. It's probably actually the reason I've never been to a Divine Liturgy. Granted, I have health problems, so I know for a fact I'd have to sit, and then I'd stand out and I hate to stand out in a large crowd, since I am uncomfortable in crowds to begin with. But even when I was healthier, I don't think I'd have said something like "Yeah! I get to stand for three hours! Maybe after this I can hit a deer with a rock and burn something to the ground!", which apparently should have been my reaction if this article were accurate. I'm not criticizing the Eastern Orthodox custom in this matter, I am just taking issue with the idea that I must love the idea because I am a man and I must like "challenges" and "athletism", in every conceivable context.

Back to the more recent poster's comments:

Even when I was an evangelical, I was acutely aware of how feminized the church was and that was why men were scarce. I didn't know there was anything else out there at the time, though. Orthodoxy appeals to men, bc as my priest said in the article, it's balanced.

I agree sometimes prayers at some churches can be a little sappy or over the top. But that doesn't mean the solution is to introduce "manly" things. How about we just say the liturgies as they've been handed down? That's one thing I love about Eastern Orthodoxy, they *don't* resort to stupid gimmicks to appeal to men or women or anyone, really. They just do what they've done, for the most part. An article convincing me that they're super-manly, though, strikes me something like when I read an article from Protestants about how "hip" and "groovy" Jesus is. It's a turn-off.

 

[Breaking Babylon]

I agreed with the notion that the modern protestant hymns don't do much to glorify God Incarnate miraculously and terrifyingly humbling Himself from the pinnacle of Heaven, below the ranks of angels, to below men. Lord have mercy! I agreed that Orthodoxy has a very fair and unbiased light, we all come to Christ as we are.

I see exactly where Fish and Bread is coming from though and agree. I'd hate to see this turn into a debate, I really liked the article and agreed with a lot of the points, but it does seem to me like it's a hook and reel approach to people who are just tired of feminized churches.

Not trying to debate or argue in any way here, just throwing out some thoughts.

 

[Orthosdoxa]

I'm not going to go tit for tat with you F&B. I am frustrated that you as a guest will come in here with vitriol and sarcasm, not with genuine questions or attempts to understand, and attack an article many of us liked and related to. I also feel you missed the larger point. But continue to attack away, if you like.

BTW, I sit during much of Liturgy, due to health problems and also due to having to hold on to two chubby 13 month olds, which can be difficult while standing. A lot of people do and it's not a big deal.

 

[disasm]

Coming from a protestant background, I read many books, many would be considered heretical, but the one I enjoyed the most was "Wild at Heart". It suggested at a Christianity that wasn't feminine, and I was drawn to it, but aside from reading the book, I never could figure out how to practice it.

One of the things I like about Orthodoxy is it's built around practicing it. There is that challenge to rise to the occasion. It isn't easy. It's downright difficult at times. But we press on in the race. The problem with the protestant Christianity is it removes the reason for the race. By being "saved" once and for all, there really is no reason to run the race. Without the race, Christianity is reduced to something less than it should be.

I Apologize ahead of time for the run on sentences and lack of coherently making a point, it's time for me to get to bed, work in 5 hours ;-)

Sam

 

[rusmeister]

We should be careful to distinguish between perceptions of the Faith and the Faith itself. Otherwise, people like F&B will take something like this (which is an issue of perception, not dogma) and use it to decide that this is what Orthodoxy is and run away.

Something that I've become aware of more and more in recent months, on a wide variety of topics, is how much baggage we bring to the Faith. By this I mean that we wind up judging either the Faith itself, or practices and customs that arise from it through the lens of something that we are placing higher than the Faith - equal rights, tolerance, law...something that is assumed to be part of the Faith when in fact it is not.

To someone like F+B, I would try to get across the idea that it is possible but wrong to try to get the Faith to bend to our own criteria or standards. If a faith is True, then we must learn what standards we need to begin conforming ourselves to.

People come to the Church and see that men and women are treated differently in certain ways. They never bother to discover the ontological equality of all in Orthodoxy, being blinded by what they see as 'unfairness' 'inequality', 'lack of diversity' or whatever. That our practices simply acknowledge that God had a real purpose in creating two sexes never gets through the haze of indoctrination.

 

[nestoj]

The article is personal comments of lay EO and catechumens who try to address what draws them to Orthodox Church. If you would take careful look, you would see that all passages are comments of different persons – and their personal experiences. Fact that someone is not that big fan of challenges doesn’t make one who is – an idiot and vice versa (which, if you would take another careful look, is nowhere imputed in said article). I just don’t understand – if article doesn’t mention ALL reasons why a male person could be interested in Orthodoxy, it doesn’t mean it is a pile of garbage automatically…

Second:
(athletics, challenge, ascetics) = (hunt, hitting women on their head with a club, burning villages….) ???????? Where the heck is this said in the article???????

All mentioned terms, as I understand, are in regards with confronting one self. “war with my own sins, evil that is from me”. Challenge is a challenge of battle with what is wrong with me not with others. I’ll admit, Orthodoxy doesn’t let anybody, who accepts it, sleep – it smacks you and asks “Are you without sin? Do you stand with God already? No? Do you think that is the way it should be?” – so you might say that, in a spiritual way, it is highly active and, I think, that was what those men ware talking about….

About more feminine part: there is none, just as there is no manly part – it is whole - united and indistinguishable. Only difference that might be is in experiencing it as men from experiencing it as women, given that we agree that there is a difference in temperament, preferences, priorities… between man and women.

Pay attention to both, leading and second vocals, in fallowing video and a way they build a whole – that may explain better than all this rant of mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEHJY0T9RsQ

nestoj
God helps

 

[Michael G]

After a very quick read of this, I find it interesting that FMG came up with the same views of men that John Eldredge the author of Wild at Heart has of men. For any man out there who thinks God is a passive wimp you should read Wild At Heart. The book will breathe life into your soul.

 

[rusmeister]

Second:
(athletics, challenge, ascetics) = (hunt, hitting women on their head with a club, burning villages….) ???????? Where the heck is this said in the article???????

This sort of view is extremely common, nestoj, because people are schooled to believe that men who lived 1,000, 2,000 or 10,000 years ago were more primitive, not in the sense of having lived earlier but in the sense of being inferior. IOW, that we live in a 'kinder and gentler' world today - man is better now and will continue to improve - the myth of progress; the mentality of Star Trek. Plus, our schools and media propagate the idea that there are no differences at all between the sexes ("Men aren't men - they're people! Women aren't women - they're people! We're all just people!") - that science will 'fix' the inconvenient ones that cannot be conditioned away, such as the ability to bear and breastfeed a child. That view, strongly encouraged by feminism seeking to 'free' women strongly discourages and even attacks expressions by men of independent manliness. (Didja notice, tho', how women swooned when the film "The Titanic" came out and the hero took the 'old-fashioned' (disparaging term!) concept of husbands loving their wives even as Christ loved the Church to its logical conclusion? I sure felt that it was right and what a man ought to do!)

It's really hard to break such conditioning because most people don't even know it's there - you have to become consciously aware of it first.

Just as an example, look at history books that teach us about an 'Enlightenment' and an 'Age of Reason'. They were called so most specifically for challenging Christianity (granted, mostly Catholic, but does it really matter?). And just think - everytime you have some intellectual discussion with someone involving terms like those, you are unconsciously undercutting your own position that Christianity IS enlightened and chock-full of reason.

 

[Kristos]

Interesting. Not the first time I've read something along these lines. I don't see the church busting at the seams on Sunday, so this must be a fairly limited phenomenon.

 

[Thekla]

well, I was somewhat offended by this article.
I have not followed the thread carefully enough for a response, but my time is limited so apologies ...

Firstly, Christianity is neither "male or female" at its core (or in its Orthodox practice). Secondly, the article is based in a post-scarcity cultural/social/economic view; it conflates economic development with gender "roles".

My first introduction to this "thinking" was several years ago; a speaker mentioned this 'phenomena' and Matthewes-Green's observations. He then went on to say (as a support) that "women want things to be pretty and comfortable". Perhaps I remember too much of that statement in (mis)reading this article, but I was deeply offended then, too.

Primarily, the article seems to carry an underlying assumption that humans (in this case OChristians) do things or want to do things in a particular way out of base needs and "chromosomal" impulses. I disagree. When we do the minumum, maybe this is from impulse or need (including bodily 'need'). But when we exceed the minimum, I think we act in an effort to "find meaning", and in EO the "meaning" is love for God and man.

Per women and men (and their "work") in general, I fail to see how one is "less manly" than the other. Both roles (as parents) require ongoing self-denial. And in three parishes, I have always been impressed by the sheer athletic (manly) endurance of women -- a quiet, humble persistence of attending many services, doing prostrations (at age 80+), then preparing and serving the food. Food beautifully made, too -- in my eyes, evidence of an impulse to 'give meaning, love' by going beyond the minimum (of opening a package and pouring it out as an afterthought).

As a mom I am curious to find that my efforts are in some way "soft"; six pregnancies, labors and 18 years of not being able to sleep through the night, etc -- doesn't this qualify as "athletic" ? This is why , in part, I think the article is grounded in a rather peculiar notion of male/female; I cannot imagine that a female "role", especially in a society without washing machines, would be considered less than physically and personally very demanding.
Not to mentioned that parents must be "more than present"; they aspire to be "fully alive, all there" in interactions with their children.

My husband is not an "outside boy"; further, he suffers from (sometimes intense, > 8) chronic pain. I've seen him break out in a cold sweat on a brisk day, I've seen his body tremble from pain -- yet he still works full time and more from home to feed us -- and not from some desire for athleticism and struggle, but because he loves us . This is "doing for meaning"; love is the impetus, not some desire to slay dragons.

I cannot assume, as the article seems to, that our (my family) experience of struggle (just to get through the day, sometimes) is not repeated in the lives of others. I am particularly offended that many in even more difficult circumstances than our own (the majority of families in this world) may or may not stand at the Liturgy, fast, pray out of some self-serving impulse.

Again, I may have misread the article; I think I am even guilty of "not reading" the article. And what I could not "read", I could not read because of what I perceived as the base assumptions on which it was built. My apologies again if my response is "off the mark" or offensive !

EDIT: Finally, I am offended because this article "reads" somewhat like an advertisement for Orthodoxy; to paraphrase Ralphie in "A Christmas Story" ... " a commercial ?"

 

[Mary of Bethany]

The article made some good points in places, but it also contained a lot of stereotypes about men that I thought went beyond what was necessary to make their point. I mean, just because I am a man doesn't mean I am at heart a fierce warrior who wants to slay random people and see things burn and who hates all notions of tenderness and warmth. My maleness also doesn't mean I am just itching for a physical challenge, any physical challenge.

I was almost tempted to write a parody article where there are quotes about how women like certain churches such as "Like all women, I hate violence and love little babies and feminine looking things. Why can't we hold hands more? And dress the altar in pink? And sing songs that imply I want to marry Jesus, which I do? I'm glad there isn't fasting here, because as everyone knows, women like me lack self-discipline! And why can't we do more sermons about fashion design?". I think people would find that kind of ridiculous, yet for some reason when there are quotes that imply men at heart just want to raze a village to the ground and watch it burn while everyone within dies or something people chuckle knowingly and agree. Kind of a double standard.

But the quotes are all from the men themselves - not from anyone else. And yeah, a couple of them are exaggerated to be funny, but it's what the men said.



Mary

 

[Mary of Bethany]

well, I was somewhat offended by this article.
I have not followed the thread carefully enough for a response, but my time is limited so apologies ...

Firstly, Christianity is neither "male or female" at its core (or in its Orthodox practice). Secondly, the article is based in a post-scarcity cultural/social/economic view; it conflates economic development with gender "roles".

My first introduction to this "thinking" was several years ago; a speaker mentioned this 'phenomena' and Matthewes-Green's observations. He then went on to say (as a support) that "women want things to be pretty and comfortable". Perhaps I remember too much of that statement in (mis)reading this article, but I was deeply offended then, too.

Primarily, the article seems to carry an underlying assumption that humans (in this case OChristians) do things or want to do things in a particular way out of base needs and "chromosomal" impulses. I disagree. When we do the minumum, maybe this is from impulse or need (including bodily 'need'). But when we exceed the minimum, I think we act in an effort to "find meaning", and in EO the "meaning" is love for God and man.

Per women and men (and their "work") in general, I fail to see how one is "less manly" than the other. Both roles (as parents) require ongoing self-denial. And in three parishes, I have always been impressed by the sheer athletic (manly) endurance of women -- a quiet, humble persistence of attending many services, doing prostrations (at age 80+), then preparing and serving the food. Food beautifully made, too -- in my eyes, evidence of an impulse to 'give meaning, love' by going beyond the minimum (of opening a package and pouring it out as an afterthought).

As a mom I am curious to find that my efforts are in some way "soft"; six pregnancies, labors and 18 years of not being able to sleep through the night, etc -- doesn't this qualify as "athletic" ? This is why , in part, I think the article is grounded in a rather peculiar notion of male/female; I cannot imagine that a female "role", especially in a society without washing machines, would be considered less than physically and personally very demanding.
Not to mentioned that parents must be "more than present"; they aspire to be "fully alive, all there" in interactions with their children.

My husband is not an "outside boy"; further, he suffers from (sometimes intense, > 8) chronic pain. I've seen him break out in a cold sweat on a brisk day, I've seen his body tremble from pain -- yet he still works full time and more from home to feed us -- and not from some desire for athleticism and struggle, but because he loves us . This is "doing for meaning"; love is the impetus, not some desire to slay dragons.

I cannot assume, as the article seems to, that our (my family) experience of struggle (just to get through the day, sometimes) is not repeated in the lives of others. I am particularly offended that many in even more difficult circumstances than our own (the majority of families in this world) may or may not stand at the Liturgy, fast, pray out of some self-serving impulse.

Again, I may have misread the article; I think I am even guilty of "not reading" the article. And what I could not "read", I could not read because of what I perceived as the base assumptions on which it was built. My apologies again if my response is "off the mark" or offensive !

EDIT: Finally, I am offended because this article "reads" somewhat like an advertisement for Orthodoxy; to paraphrase Ralphie in "A Christmas Story" ... " a commercial ?"

I guess I'm reading this a lot differently. She's just made an observation - which I also have made about the parishes I've been in - that men are more involved in the Orthodox churches than in many other churches. And so she asked men why that might be. So obviously their answers are from a man's point of view. I don't see where they're putting down women or our strengths or contributions at all. They're stating the differences they see in Orthodoxy from their previous congregations.

What I get out of it is that Orthodox Christianity *is* for all, regardless of gender, race, nationality, etc. It doesn't cater to any particular group of people. And because it hasn't given in to feminism, it is as welcoming to men as to women.

Mary

 

[Thekla]

I guess I'm reading this a lot differently. She's just made an observation - which I also have made about the parishes I've been in - that men are more involved in the Orthodox churches than in many other churches. And so she asked men why that might be. So obviously their answers are from a man's point of view. I don't see where they're putting down women or our strengths or contributions at all. They're stating the differences they see in Orthodoxy from their previous congregations.

What I get out of it is that Orthodox Christianity *is* for all, regardless of gender, race, nationality, etc. It doesn't cater to any particular group of people. And because it hasn't given in to feminism, it is as welcoming to men as to women.

Mary

Thank-you !

as I said, part of my offense was at the speaker's comment used to support this observation. And to be fair, yes -- the comments are quotes. (And I have about zilch experience with the Protestant Churches past aprox. 20 years ago).

So yes, I WAS off .

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

As a man, I find it ridiculous when "churches" advertise "mens' services" with giant screens behind the preacher showing football games. I often wonder if any men actually show up.

Rdr Mo

 

[Kristos]

Yeah, football and church - they go together like water and oil...

 

[Fish and Bread]

I'm not going to go tit for tat with you F&B. I am frustrated that you as a guest will come in here with vitriol and sarcasm, not with genuine questions or attempts to understand, and attack an article many of us liked and related to. I also feel you missed the larger point. But continue to attack away, if you like.

I'm sorry that I offended you. That was not my intent. I want to make sure I clarify again that it is not Eastern Orthodoxy I am in any way taking issue with. I think the EO church is an incredible institution and I admire much of it's liturgical traditionalism and iconography greatly. I just don't like the why this specific article stereotypes men in some aspects. There were some parts of the article, even, that made valid points, though, as I mentioned initially. I hope those things weren't lost in my comments because some other comments I made stuck out more due to their intensity.

if article doesn’t mention ALL reasons why a male person could be interested in Orthodoxy, it doesn’t mean it is a pile of garbage automatically…

Of course you're right, but the article and quotes also didn't have to come together to paint such a large picture of generalizations and stereotypes about the sexes. Someone can say "I like challenges and the feel of a hunt, and Orthodoxy provides those things for me." and that's perfectly valid, but when over and over again we see "Men like ____" with more and extreme examples, it paints a certain inaccurate view of the entire gender, and also to some degree may lead us to false conclusions about women as well by implication.

Second:

(athletics, challenge, ascetics) = (hunt, hitting women on their head with a club, burning villages….) ???????? Where the heck is this said in the article???????

The article specifically mentioned that men enjoy fire-casting and the feel of a hunt. I actually think a more extreme wording was used for the latter, but since I didn't go back and look it up again as I was typing this and am not 100% sure, I'll just say hunt for the sake of charity.

Plus, our schools and media propagate the idea that there are no differences at all between the sexes ("Men aren't men - they're people! Women aren't women - they're people! We're all just people!") - that science will 'fix' the inconvenient ones that cannot be conditioned away, such as the ability to bear and breastfeed a child. That view, strongly encouraged by feminism seeking to 'free' women strongly discourages and even attacks expressions by men of independent manliness. (Didja notice, tho', how women swooned when the film "The Titanic" came out and the hero took the 'old-fashioned' (disparaging term!) concept of husbands loving their wives even as Christ loved the Church to its logical conclusion? I sure felt that it was right and what a man ought to do!)

There are obvious physical differences between the sexes. Even the shape of our brains are different. And I do think these contribute to some differences in world view from time to time when we break a group down into a standard or average person in each gender. I'm not trying to dispute that at all. We were created male and female.

However, having said that, I think that often times the differences between the sexes are unduly exaggerated because of cultural stereotypes in a way that makes things more difficult for all of us, because clearly not every man is not super-aggressive and athletic with violent tendencies and craving a challenge and unemotionally aware and so forth. Likewise, not every woman loves babies and faints at the first sign of conflict. We do people a disservice when we put them into boxes that go above and beyond what the real differences are between the sexes and obscure our common humanity.

For example, you mentioned Titanic. I loved Titanic, one of my favorite movies. I also listen to a lot of sappy soft rock love songs and wish I could find a wife. These are stereotypically feminine interests and desires, but they're part of who I am (in addition to my more "manly" interests and instincts) and nothing that I think make me any less of a man. They might even make me a better husband if I could find a spouse (Which is sadly unlikely turn of events for reasons I don't want to go into because they could derail the thread), since romantics probably tend to find more meaning in marriage to some degree.

In addition to that, though, I love watching football (some would say I am even obsessed with it), drinking beer, and eating red meat. And I have a really deep very masculine voice, and strong hands. And usually have a beard, or at least a goatee. I also have very little tolerance for being told what to do. And almost always drive when I am in a car with someone else. So I don't even fit the reverse stereotype of the feminized man.

Like most people, of both sexes, I have some degree of what we would call masculine qualities and some degree of what we would call feminine qualities.

What I get out of it is that Orthodox Christianity *is* for all, regardless of gender, race, nationality, etc. It doesn't cater to any particular group of people.

I think that's a great quality about Eastern Orthodoxy. It knows what it is and doesn't cater to anyone with gimmicks. Unfortunately, the article has overtones of almost an evangelical church trying to somehow appeal to men by operating on the basis of gross stereotypes almost saying "Join us, we're a manly church for real men.". As evangelism goes, it seems fairly Protestant-influenced and gimmicky. That's not the sort of thing I would normally expect from the EO -- I'd expect more "We are the church of the New Testament. We have history and the tradition passed down from Apostolic times. " not "If you're a man and like to kill things and can relate to fire-casting, we're the place for you.".

As a man, I find it ridiculous when "churches" advertise "mens' services" with giant screens behind the preacher showing football games. I often wonder if any men actually show up.

Exactly.

 

[Fish and Bread]

The other thing I picked up on is the article's specific mention of lace being a feminine thing with the implication that it's not something clergy should wear. It's possible that the author was unaware that some of the more traditional Roman Catholic priests wear lace because it is an ancient liturgical tradition that comes from a time when lace was not considered to be feminine. I will give the author the benefit of a doubt and assume she wasn't intentionally trying to ridicule the long standing liturgical traditions of the western church and make them out to be less than manly. If we really wanted to take a modern eye to liturgical traditions and what seems manly or not, no priests or ministers would be allowed to wear robes and folks probably couldn't properly venerate icons (kissing them and such) any more. It's a dangerous road to go down. Just because the modern culture says something is feminine doesn't mean it is in an intrinsic sense.

 

[Protoevangel]

Some people will take offense at anything, and take something meant to be fun, and try to ruin it for everyone.

Alright, F&B. You said what you had to say. Can you let it rest now?

 

[Thekla]

Some people will take offense at anything, and take something meant to be fun, and try to ruin it for everyone.

Alright, F&B. You said what you had to say. Can you let it rest now?

yes, but I'm guilty too.
Mary was kind enough to point this out. I'm still not altogether comfortable with the article - it can be helpful to explore these issues.

 

[rusmeister]

We do people a disservice when we put them into boxes that go above and beyond what the real differences are between the sexes and obscure our common humanity.

I agree. I'm simply asserting that our schools above all, with some support from media put people into a common box that goes above and beyond what is common to all of us and obscures our differences.
I actually witnessed staff meetings where we (the teachers) were told to increase (high school) girls' involvement in traditionally male sports like tackle football and boxing for the sake of 'equity' (and Title 9 funding $$$)

PS - no one is questioning your manhood or says that you have to grunt and spit or assert it in such infantile ways - but at the same time it is true that men do benefit from and are naturally inclined to certain types of activities that women are not (and vice-versa). Yes, there is a spectrum of difference, but on the whole it is so.