Young Men are like Cain

In Genesis 4, the story of Cain and Abel is recounted. The two brothers offered up sacrifices to God. God accepted Abel's but rejects Cain's. Cain became angry that God didn't accept his and jealous that Abel's was accepted. God warned Cain, "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” (ESV)

Cain was in a tight spot. He failed to please God and was angry that he didn't. Specifically he was angry that his brother did well. As a result, Cain murdered his brother.

Many young men are in Cain's position. We are just starting out in life, taking the first steps outside of college and working on our own. A bunch of us have offered poor offerings to God while in college. We've given him our video games, sports, movies, foolish relationships and worst of all sin as ways of glorifying Him. God has no regard for these things.

Now, we're at point where we can get mad at God for not accepting our works. As a result we can reject the church, shirk our holy responsibilities and walk deeper into sin. The deeper a young man walks in sin, the closer he gets to murdering his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. In the least, he greatly hurts them.

God warned Cain that sin was crouching at his door. Likewise, sin is crouching at our door. Our lives are unacceptable to God. Sin wants us to take its path.

The question before young men today is whether we will rule over sin or will we be like Cain?

Chivalry was Never Alive

A blog I keep an eye on and occasionally read is Hermeneutics. A guest blogger, Ruthie Dean, just posted on how women are fueling the "man problem." In a nutshell, the man problem is that there are very few men who are ready and willing to marry women. There are too many boys who are not being responsible. Dean's point was women are encouraging boys in their behavior in hopes of getting married. I thought this was a great post and a great point. I'm glad someone is saying this.

Dean has her own blog, and on her Hermeneutics post, she linked to a post that Michael Dean wrote on regarding chivalry. (I assume last name menas they are married?) His point: chivalry isn't dead. Men need to "man up." Being a man includes reading your Bible, getting a mentor, growing facial hair and pursuing a woman.

People who personally know me, know I'm very interested in this issue of manhood and gender relations. I don't want to come across as judgmental, but this topic needs to be dealt with in a serious and thoughtful manner. If we don't take captive our thoughts on this subject then we are in some very serious danger. Hence, I am critiquing Mr. Dean's post. I don't want to take away from the discussion but the way he frames the discussion, I believe, has some serious errors. These errors will send us down the wrong road. This post is an attempt to try to better frame the discussion regarding manhood and chivalry.

Michael's Definition of a Man is unBiblical
Manhood is not defined by behavior. Another way to say it, behavior is not where we find the definition of manhood. If we just point to behaviors as being the conditions for what makes a man, we're not getting to the heart of the issue. We're looking at shadows, not the thing in itself.

Dean says, do, do, do and do. Anyone can do what he suggests. It doesn't take a man to pursue a woman, grow facial hair, get a mentor or read your Bible. Furthermore, it doesn't take a Christian to do any of these things. Non-Christians can read the Bible just as well as Christians, sometimes better. Lastly,  some men grow beards, get married, hopefully read their Bibles and have a mentor. These are good things. Just don't make it a part of the definition of a man.

Chivalry was Never Alive
I define chivalry has being respectful toward women. If we think chivalry was alive at some time in history then we are not considering how serious the fall of man was. Let's start with the beginning of the world. Was Adam chivalrous when he followed Eve into sin? Was Jacob chivalrous when he stole his brother's birthright? Was Judah chivalrous when he committed adultery with Tamar? Was David chivalrous when he committed adultery with Basheba AND had her husband murdered? And we're only talking about the ancient world here. Let's skip the gospels and New Testament for the sake of time. Here's just a short list since then: Henry the VIII, Charlemagne, Pope Alexander VI, Charles I and Benjamin Franklin (I don't need to go into the detail on his exploits...). These are just a few people in western history who did not act with chivalry.

One could object by pointing to people like Joseph, Jesus, Paul and George Washington. They had chivalry. They were respectful to women. My response is that these men are the exception to the rule. The world is full of bad boys. There are very few good men. Men have always been rare.

The Problem with a System of Chivalry
Sin is deeply entrenched in us. Even paradigm examples of men are problematic. A good example is David in the Old Testament. The problem with thinking that chivalry isn't dead or is dead but was once alive is that it assumes we're are capable of being good people. This is unBiblical. No man is good. All have fallen short of the glory of God.

One may object that chivalry as a system doesn't have to do with the heart, but with how one behaves. In a sense, it has to do with manners. My response is that if that's what chivalry is all about then I don't want it. I don't want to just have good manners, have good behavior. I want something deeper then that. I want to have chivalry as a virtue. But just keep it at that. Don't make it into a system for life!

What is Manhood? 
Manhood is defined by the human Jesus Christ. That means a man is perfectly balanced between being respectful and telling the truth. It means a man are perfectly balanced between being merciful and just. It means a man is perfectly loving.

Ladies, there is only one man. He is Jesus of Nazareth. Flee to him. Do not look to earthly men for safety. Do not entrust yourselves to us. It is in only Christ you can find healing, safety and peace. The rest of us boys will, and have, failed you. It doesn't mean you don't get married, but you can't put your trust in men, you must put your trust in the Lord.

Chivalry as a System
My personal opinion of chivalry as a way of life is that it is philosophically poorly based. It assumes that man is good. It assumes that behavior defines personhood. None of these assumptions I agree with nor do I want to do anything with them. This is different then seeing chivalry as a virtue, as a part of one's character. But it is the opposite way. Instead of behavior defining chivalry. It is the disposition of one's heart that defines it. Dean may have been trying to promote chivalry as a virtue rather then a system. I could easily be wrong in my critique. Regardless, it is important to remember that we can't let good things like the virtue of chivalry to become an all-encompassing system for how we ought to live our lives. The more I think about this, Dean is probably not promoting that. Sorry Dean...

Conclusion
I would love to hear people's thoughts on this issue. It is a hard and important topic that we must work through carefully and thoughtfully. This is just a blog post. You could write a couple books on this topic.

The Definition of a Man

I am coming to the end of my last semester on campus at Taylor. I have enjoyed the five years I spent here. Looking forward is sometimes terrifying and exciting all at the same time. It's like looking down a huge cliff. I have learned so much and am taking away a lot of good things Also, I have accumulated a lot of things I wish I had not seen, heard or said. As I grow older, I develop a greater knowledge and a part of that knowledge is evil.

Where ever you go to college, you will encounter evil in its various forms. Some of it will be ugly and revolting. Some of it will look deceitfully beautiful and seductive. All of it leads down a sad path.

I read a book called, "Eric," by F.W. Farr, over Easter break. It's about a young boy who goes to school living in Victorian England. It was written, for high schoolers and junior high, but I think those in college can learn a lot from it. The book talks a lot about what happens in college and the evil found there. In one section of the book, the main character asks his teacher whether it would be good if his brother came to school. He was worried that the evils (drinking, swearing, crass behavior) in the school would corrupt his brother. This was his teacher's response:

The innocence of mere ignorance is a poor thing; it cannot, under any circumstances, be permanent, nor is it at all valuable as a foundation of character. The true preparation for life, the true basis of a manly character, is not to have been ignorant of evil, but to have known it and avoided it; not to have been sheltered from temptation, but to have passed through it and overcome it by God’s help. (p. 113)

This is a great quote, especially for men, because it contains, I think, the core of what it means to be a man. What makes a man is someone who has known evil but avoided it. In this context, to know, does not mean to have participated in. Rather it means you have known about evil, know where you can find it, get it and have it yet avoided it. I think that's what makes a man, someone who has known evil but avoided it.

Commodification of Women Conference - Shalom

Today I went to the Commodification of Women Conference here at Taylor University. John Stackhouse was the key-note speaker. I thought he had some very good things to say. Right now I have a lot going through my mind regarding the conference. For this post I will develop only one of Stackhouse' thought.

It's the concept of shalom. To develop shalom, according to Stackhouse, is the idea of universal flourishing, everything fulfilling its potential. Because everything is interconnected, the flourishing of one person contributes to the flourishing of another. When you're happy I'm happy.

Stackhouse explained this idea in terms of why he spends so much money on his kids. He's spent enough money on his kids to buy a couple of cars. One may ask why. His response was that he loved them. When they are happy, he's happy. He wants to make them happy.

I was surprised that Stackhouse didn't take this and say "now we need to help women who are in great need," or "women don't have shalom, and we need to empower them." He didn't even use the term, I think, "the commodification of women." Yet, he dealt with the issue squarely. When we attempt to bring about shalom into this world, it is no longer just about us, but "the other." (Those who are not like us, completely different from us.)

I think you can take this theology into many different ways, but one obvious way, for me, was looking at it in terms of the doctrine of Christ's kingdom. As servants of the king, aren't we battling for this universal peace? Don't we want our king to rule a world full of shalom? So when I work to see women as humans and not just objects, I am bringing about shalom, bringing about Christ's kingdom here on earth.

No longer is trying to bring about justice in the world, for the sake of stopping injustice. Its about bringing something very special that God intends for us to enjoy and to increase his dominion here on earth.

Update - Definition of Success

This is a follow up post regarding my thoughts on "Sex and the Cornfields."

Last night I was able to have a conversation with Dr. McMann regarding what he meant by redefining what it means to be successful. I thought his response was helpful and interesting. He had two thoughts.

First, we should start looking at success in terms of moral success. How successful is a man in terms of his personal moral character? Has he worked to developing an ethical life in which his character is not driven by money but by morality.? (This is a paraphrase of what he said, but I think it captures the core of what he was tying to get at.)

Second, and this was really interesting, according to society's definition of success, pastors are complete failures since the majority of them make very little money. For us Christians, pastors make a good model of what it means to be a successful man. Pastors play an important role in society, and we would be in a very tight spot without them. We can look to pastors as a model for what it means to be a successful man in terms of loving others and sacrificing our time and energy for society and the church.

Note that Dr. McMann is emphasizing the character of a man and not his clothes, the way he talks and his money. Also it take time to get to know a successful man since it takes time and energy to discover a person's character. Often we judge the success of a person in the moment we meet them by the quality of their clothes, whether they make eye contact, do they speak clearly. If we define success in terms of character though, this will have to stop. Our judgment of people will have to be held back.

In conclusion, redefining success for men is a very hard thing to do. We judge people very quickly and often on a superficial level. When people judge us like that it is easy to quickly try to be acceptable to them. If a man rejects culture's definition of success, it is very possible society could look down on him as a failure, and that's hard to take.

What does it mean for a Man to be Successful?

Update: I have updated this post with Dr. McMann's response to my question.

At Taylor this week we are having a series of lectures/discussion on the topic of "Sex and the Cornfields." This has sometimes been misconstrued as "Sex in the Cornfields." Let me clarify that the former is accurate and the latter incorrect.

There have been three talks so far. At the first one we watched a movie about gender and media. Most of it dealt with the commodification of women, but it also touched on men and the media. Tonight and this morning Mark McMann spoke on the issue of hope and fears in intimate relationships between men and women. In this post I will focus on his discussion of a common trait of men and their fear of not succeeding.

The Fear of not Succeeding

McMann explained that a major fear men have are is that they won't be successful. Specifically, this is in regards to communication, views on marriage and financial success. McMann explained that men sense a burden to be financially successful, otherwise they are failures. He used different media images to prove his point. in his conclusion, he challenged the audience (who was mostly a female audience.) that our definition of success for men needs to be broadened, though he didn't define what it means to be successful.

Its About the Money

I appreciated McMann's talk. He is bringing out an issue that needs to be discussed. I thought though he partially missed the issue. From my experience, the fear that men experience regarding success is not the issue of whether they're going to successful, it is whether they are going to have a lot of money. Success in our culture is defined by how much money you have. The real fear that men have is specifically dealing with whether they have a lot money or not. So what men are fearing regarding success is whether they are going to have a lot of money.

Also, I think it would have been helpful for McMann to have given a better definition for Christians to have when we think about what it means to be a successful man. A good definition will include being able to provide the necessities of life for one's family. Yet, the necessities of a family are more then just monetary. They include emotional, spiritual and ultimately relational support/leadership as well.

Conclusion

To conclude, McMann's talk opened up some important talks that need to be raised. I would have appreciated him providing a better definition of what success means in our culture and what it should mean for us as Christians.

Unrelated but great quote: "If a man will set no limit to his labor, God will set no limit to the reward." - Augustine (quoted by Thomas Aquinas in Meditations for Lent)

Women and Leadership

While at Ethics Bowl I was able to have a discussion about women and leadership. I was the only male student in the room and a question regarding women leadership was posed to me. "Do I find it hard to work under leaders who are women?" This question comes about in the context of whether women ought to be leaders.

At first I didn't know and then I thought. In the moment I concluded that it is harder for me to work under women leaders. There are three reasons. First is how I have been brought up. I am supposed to treat women with respect, the "don't hit a girl idea." Second, don't you have to be more polite to a woman who's a leader? You can't just joke around them like you would a guy leader. Lastly, you can't really get close to a leader who is a woman like you can a guy. You can't have your "guy time."

After further reflection, I find these reasons I put forward to be poor. The main reason is that I didn't think carefully about how in general I interact with leaders. Every employer, superintendent or superior I work under is different, and so my relationship will obviously be different depending on the leader. I can't really say that it is "harder" to work under a woman who is a leader rather then a man since everyone is unique. The more I have thought about it, to say that it is harder for me to work under women who are leaders is absurd. How I interact with different leaders will change from leader to leader, not gender to gender.

In conclusion, I think that to say women should not be leaders because it would be harder for men to be under them for various reasons (see above) is hard to argue for since all leaders differ in their methods. Also, women are inherently leaders since many of them lead their children every day in the most important leadership position one can possibly have.

So Much to Talk About

This has been a very full week so I thought that I would take a shotgun approach to this blog post. Below is a wide survey of the topics I have been a part of lately.

1. Illegal immigration - Arizona Law 1070

At Ethics Bowl we had to prepare a case regarding the infamous illegal immigration law in Arizona. After my research I found this law to be unethical because it invites discrimination. Hence it is an unjust law. Discrimination is inherently unjust, the reason being, it is basing judgment of another off of something they can't change. (Note, I am talking about racial discrimination. I am uncomfortable saying that all forms of discrimination are wrong since we discriminate against federal offenders.) I don't think that the amendment changes the law given the social context of Arizona and the U.S. We have a terrible history when it comes to racial relations with Hispanics. For example, the Reparation Act during the Great Depression.

2. Gender Issues - Men

Why is it that men are passive? They hold a slight majority in the world population in comparison to women. Also, men in the United States hold more powerful positions then women. Why is it that men hold more power then women yet the majority of men are passive? Furthermore, why is it that men are often "attacked" for being passive? There seems to be more proactive dialogue regarding the empowerment of women yet the discussion of men is more often ignored or mis-understood. My thought is that whenever we talk about the empowerment of women, we must talk about the empowerment of men. Who causes all the world's problems? Who fights all the time, who doesn't support their wives, is addicted to pornography, rapes others, encourages women to get abortions and is in prison a lot? Men. The origin of many of the problems with women today are in men. We need to empower men in order to help women.

3. Alvin Plantinga - fear of ideas

Professor Plantinga spoke at Taylor this past week. He is a humble, kind and sharp philosopher. I could talk a lot about some of the things he spoke on. (For instance, he spoke on how naturalism can't explain how our cognitive faculties produce truth-oriented beliefs, why religious pluralism fails to be internally coherent and how miracles are compatible with science.) Something that fascinates me about Plantinga is that he is not scared of any idea. This was an observation by one of my professors. Many Christians do not share this trait. I hope that as I grow I can develop the ability to rationally consider an idea respectfully no matter how odd or strange it is. Why should we be afraid of ideas that are false or could be false? If all truth is God's truth, what do we have to fear?

4. Government Control and Information

At the conference for the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, I heard a discussion on a new book called, "Mass Surveillance and State Control: The Total Information Awareness Project." It was a very insightful and fun discussion regarding the overwhelming ability of the government to watch our lives through the internet. The author, Elliot Cohen, argues that we must push back before its too late. He was critiqued by three others. I am looking forward to cracking open this book in my spare time. I got it through interlibrary loan. I may dedicate a blog post to this subject once I finish the book.

5. Intellectual Open-mindedness - Dr. Jim Spiegel

My professor, Dr. Jim Spiegel, gave a paper at the same conference regarding intellectual open-mindedness. He attempted to show the connection between humility and open-mindedness, that open-mindedness and humility are closely connected. One thought I had is that because of the issue of "moral luck" we have more of a obligation to have humility and hence open mindedness since our situation in life is not wholly the result of our actions and choices, but other people and our environment.

6. We Lost - Ethics Bowl - Nationals

It was frustrating but we did not get beyond the first round. We beat Dartmouth which was a good feeling since we tied with them two years ago. This time we soundly defeated them. The two cases argued were whether "cybrids" (human embryos that are 99% human and 1% animal.) bring about more benefits then harms and whether it is ethical to debark. Debarking is cutting a dogs vocal cords so their ability to bark is greatly inhibited. On the former, we argued for the negative, that cybrids are unethical and man did sparks fly. All the judges disagreed with us, as well as Dartmouth, but in the end, they were fair judges. (I don't say they were fair because they gave us the win, but because everyone else in the room thought we had won.) On the issue of debarking, I believe we argued for the practice being unethical unless the alternative is killing the dog.

Something that took the bite off the loss was that Montana State, who we lost to, went on to go to the finals where they were controversially (they lost by three points0 beaten by the University of Central Florida.

In spite of losing and no longer being an ethics bowler, I am thankful for these past three years. I have learned so much through ethics bowl. By far, it has been one of the most important activities I have participated in at Taylor.

Empowering Men

In another blog post, I discussed the question, "why are men passive?" In one section of the post, I made the following statement,

If you want to insult a guy, don't listen to him, acknowledge what he says or respect one of his requests.

In this post I will develop the former statement.

Are Men Naturally Leaders?
The answer to this question is no. The reason being, a natural leader develops this characteristic from his personal character, not his/her gender. So, the previous statement is not saying that it is important to acknowledge all men as leaders.

Do Men Need Power?
The answer to this question is yes. The concept of "power" is very complicated, and I do not have room to dive into a developed definition. I intend use the world "power" to signify authority and respect. Men naturally desire for others to look to them as authorities and in a respectful manner.

One with authority, is one who's perspective or opinion has value, enough value that one should listen to what they have to say. To do so respectfully means to listen carefully and to do so without attempting to offend or harm.

How is this Different from Leadership?
In leadership, one has authority and, sometimes, respect. Yet, one can have authority and respect yet not be a leader. One who leads is one who commands/leads a group to a specific destination. Leadership is also a deeper concept like power and I don't have room to dive into a better definition.

What does this have to do with Empowering Men?
At the beginning of this post I stated that men naturally desire power. I believe that in order to help men fulfill their potential in life and not be passive, you must empower them. This means giving them authority and respect.

How one does this will be a post for another time. Please post your thoughts, do you agree, disagree? Is this clear or muddled?

Why are Taylor Men Passive?

The other day I stated on my facebook a question, "Why are Taylor men passive?" Two people who were not from Taylor commented. (My lovely sister Sarah Pulliam Bailey and not so lovely looking Eddie Burris) Thank you to both of them for commenting and I hope they continue to dialogue with each other on this issue.

The reason I asked this question was because Taylor men are quite passive. The most recent evidence is regarding the number of males who applied for Lighthouse trips next year. For those of you not familiar with Taylor or Lighthouse, Lighthouse is a campus organization that sends out students on short-term mission trips for J-term every year. Approximately 25% of the applicants were males.

Men are a minority on campups so there should be less male applicants then female applicants simply because there are less men on campus but why is it so low?

Eddie Burris blames the feminist movement, Sarah disagrees. I'll let them debate that point.

I think that there are deeper reasons for this serious problem. I strongly believe that it comes down to two issues: gender relations and identity.

First, gender relations.
Men on campus don't see themselves as authorities or examples to women. Some think this is linked with how women see themselves and men, but ultimately, it comes down to how men see their relation with people. Guys don't want to be leaders and those who are leaders are often hurt by people's rejection of their authority. If you want to insult a guy, don't listen to him, acknowledge what he says or respect one of his requests. This doesn't obeying a every guys wish, but boy it is extremely insulting when you ignore a guy who is in a leadership position. (This is not to say that this excuses men. God calls men act like Christ [and women]. Christ took insult all the time, but did not quit or become passive. Men have no excuse!)

Second, identity.
A man's identity is a really big deal, a really, really, really big deal. If a man loses his identity (generally) or does not have one, he will more likely be passive and counter-productive. Furthermore, if he doesn't have a strong identity or a stable identity the same result will occur, passivity. (Generally speaking of course.) Especially with young men, there needs to be a battle for us to fight, and it has to be one which we think we can win! (So don't suggest to a guy that he defeat world poverty.) Fighting a battle can be a major part of a guy's identity. I do not mean by "a battle" literally fighting or picking up a big cause. I mean holding to something that is seen as important and worth sacrificing for. More importantly, most of the time, a male's identity is more then likely trapped in an addiction. Specifically, a lot of men are addicted to pornography and sexual sin. There are more and more studies coming out on the addictive nature of pornography. There are other substances that are addictive in nature to men, but I want to specifically point out pornography because it is becoming more of an issue for the church.

Conclusion
So that is what I think about that. I would be especially interested in hearing people's comments and observation about this problem. By the way, I can't go on lighthouse because I have school.

passing note: people often point out video games are the problem, I think that they are a consequence of the problem, not the problem itself.