A church’s men’s ministry ought to be based on 1) prayer 2) theology and Bible study 3) works of charity according to the strengths of the group 4) retreats/recreation according to the will of the group.

Exactly. When this is not the case, and if number 4 becomes the raison d’etre (whether stated as such or not), with the rest hopefully thrown in, the focus is not inclusive and, though Godly in execution, not directly on the Lord. To use a more direct example, I don’t remember reading of the Apostles seeking diversion in their fellowship and retreats.

Why can a Bible Study not be exciting for men? Why does it often appear to be reserved for women? Brethren Assemblies have shown for decades that Bible Study is the quintessential male retreat focus. And it includes everyone!!! How about a men’s retreat challenging men to witness for Christ, not just in theory but in reality? The reality of that is a much greater risk for 99% of men than any adrenalin exercise.

The reason for our fellowship is Christ and we desire to know the Word of God. The focus of our followship in Men’s ministry, therefor, can be the same I pray, without the need of wordly window dressing.

If men want a battle to win, go on a short term mission together, fix someone in the community’s house, etc… Do something that only a group of men can do. There are lots of “male” activities that everyone would agree to. (I admit some may not “enjoy” these activities, but at least, they would agree they are good works)

A church’s men’s ministry ought to be based on 1) prayer 2) theology and Bible study 3) works of charity according to the strengths of the group 4) retreats/recreation according to the will of the group.

I think there’s a temptation to say “Let’s put the recreational stuff first, which is more attractive to newcomers than prayer, theology and works, and then later, we’ll sneak in some of the rest.” It makes sense, though, because the recreational activities are good for new people. But it can’t be made foundational…

For good or bad, whether people are acting reasonably or without apparent justification, what I have seen is the factionalization of Men’s ministry based upon an imposed vision. That yields divisions based upon views of how things ’should’ be, rather than having a division of activities based upon acceptance of different interests or preferences OF EQUAL VALUE.

The critical aspect here is the perception of the differences being in preference and thereby of equal value, rather then as a correct of incorrect view of masculinity.

Now, am I calling this a type of male relativism. Absolutely not. That would only be true if Eldridge held the only valid view, support absolutely Scripture, which he does not.

Put it this way… If you interpret Eldridge (irrespective of what he actually says - which is what ‘we’ have been discussing) to mean that the ‘wilderness way’ is the correct way, then others are clearly missguided, maybe even effeminate (yes, sadly, I have heard that term used in this context in church circles). True men’s ministry would then be Eldridge, wild experience based, and other venues would not be of equal validity for any Christian man. And that, subtly, is exactly what I have seen occuring in many venues.

From that point of view, when many don’t participate in Men’s ministries, no-one can understand why, since the assumption is that there is only one way. It is a getto, plain and simple.

The opposite view is that Eldridge-ification is just one path, expressing a preference of choice, character, whatever. Other approaches are just other preferences and theorectically of equal value. This is non-divisive in nature, but requires a different scope of view.

Surely there are more important places for Men’s ministry to go (theology and discussion of Scripture to name just two), that go past these areas of difference. Just my admittedly biased opinion, of course.

With the advent of technology and the associated societal changes roles have changed. While there are a growing number of women scientists, with lots of encouragement for any girls who want to go in that direction, there are still a lack of push for boys to go into nursing. With the feminist movement women have moved into many of the traditionally male-dominated roles. This has left men thinking “there must be more to being a man than standing whilst I pee.”

Popular science offers little comfort. A lot of pop-psychology writing these days seems to imply that women are the evolutionary superior sex its only natural for men to wonder when their use will finished.

Then along comes Eldridge. He gives an answer to the question. It may not be right, or correct, or even very good, but it _is_ an answer. And it’s an emotionally satisfying one.

However, the way he does it is somewhat questionable. Primarily, he states a principal. Then does he back it up with scientific study? No. Instead he chooses one of two routes. The first route is with scripture. But he is no theologian. He says that God made Himself vulnerable, and that God took a risk. But that implies that He might not know the outcome, or that the outcome might turn out the way He didn’t want. (If that’s the case, then either God wanted Adam and Eve to sin and it all went according to plan. Or He didn’t and the plan went wrong.) I find this hard to reconcile with the Sovereignty of God.

The second route he chooses is with movies. First of all, I didn’t know that movies, or any literature (other than Scripture) was authoritative, either on the human condition or social psychology. Secondly, to defeat one of his arguments all one has to do is find a movie which shows the opposite principal [to his] to be true. Thirdly, his method his manipulative and powerful. What he’s _really_ doing is saying “Remember how you felt when you saw such and such happen in this or that movie?” Then you recall your emotions, and associate those emotions with what you’re reading.

I think I saw through him on three counts: 1) I’m no outdoorsman, 2) I hadn’t seen many movies he used as his proofs, and 3) in Wild At Heart he says “Man is a warrior! That is one of those things that make him male! Just look at Braveheart, The Galdiator, and Herculese (but don’t bother watching Sailor Moon, Xena or Supergirl).” Then in Captivating he says “Woman is warrior! This is one of those things that makes woman woman! Just look at Sailor Moon, Xena, and Sailor Moon!” Well John, which is it? Is man warrior or is woman warrior or are both? If both are then it’s not a condition of masculinity or femininity. It’s a condition of humanity.

And I think the people that have seen those things, whether for those reasons (realized or unrealized) or others, have thrown Edridge aside with the rest of the pop-psychologists. Others that haven’t seem to think of him as something akin to a prophet. “Finally, someone with a Biblically-based answer!”

The world’s definition of masculinity will never be able to incorporate obedience and servanthood, thus can never be made a part of Christianity. The manliest verse in the Bible IMO is “Deny yourself, take up my cross and follow me”, which makes Biblical manliness forever at odds with the world’s definition. Ne’er the twain shall meet.

I’m leary of any plan to make Christianity more “masculine”.

This one of the places I was approaching this from, although I think that it is limiting with a much wider scope. In this particular aspect, thought, I feel that it is fundamentally flawed. Yet more significant is the potential for it to be taken at face value and even inadvertently miss-used. IMO it speaks of a very limited and unsupportable view of both men and women. It is also not likely to increase overall fellowship within the body of believers.

One of the main purposes of the Nazi Volkskirche was to “masculinize” the church.

The Church has always been seen as too feminine. St. Augustine was disgusted by his mother’s feminine faith. C.S. Lewis admitted that the pagan religions were wrong, but manly.

The American talk radio personality Doug Giles is big into the “manly” church, and it’s very fake feeling. He describes the old church male as wimpy, limp-wristed, etc… It bugs me.

From my memory, I don’t recall the focus on the wilderness. To me, the wilderness is itself a metaphor for the interior encounter of the individual and God, and the individual abandonment of all to seek God. The desert is typical because it lacks all comforts imaginable. The days are hot, the nights are cold, no food, no water, no shelter. If you haven’t God in the desert, you’ve nothing. Sometimes, the actual wilderness is useful for cultivating this interior life, but it’s not required by any means.

I don’t see the prototypical Christian man as a wild-man at all, but a desert mystic. He has a certain indifference to worldly circumstance. He’ll congregate with other men, but for a purpose, never just to be around people. He’s got a confidence that if he were stripped of every comfort, he would be fine. Even immersed in a community where he is very comfortable, he never feels like he totally belongs, like he is more than traveller.

So in the end, I probably agree with you in disagreeing with Eldridge. I agree with you that he’s onto something but it’s not the “Holy Grail” of men’s ministry. Spending time with men can be very beneficial, of course.

And I did not mean to malign Calvinism. I’ll be the first to admit that I am ill-read in general and Calvinism in particular. I’ve read Calvin, Knox, Spurgeon, Piper and some others, and I’ve probably missed the more personal, reflective writings.

Most important of all, though, is that it is a complete copy of New Age Men’s philosophy from 25 years ago, with a few bible verses thrown in to muddy the issue. I didn’t buy it then, and seeing it rerun now is just more of the same. Sorry. It puts forth too simplistic a definition of men and as such places them in an experiecial getto exactly the same way that the feminist movement did to women. There is much more than that.

Now to the issue of men requiring men, in that they are somehow wired differently universally. I don’t buy it. I think there is a small grain on truth there, but the rest is social conditioning. Actually, it wouldn’t matter and I would just shake my head and smile, but the result is that ministries are based on it. The directly results in alienation of a significant segment of Christian men. They Eldridge approach can all too easily result in casting the un-wild man as inferior or effeminate. This is not deliberate, but the approach tends to result in it. I base this on a number of men expressing these exact sentiments to me, based upon various men’s ministry experiences in numerous churches.

Lastly, as one who has never been lukewarm on church and who sees Calvanism in a quite different light, I would just have to say that our experiences are very different unless I wanted to write a book here…

Thanks for your comments.