Homophobics, “Real Men,” and Effeminate Evangelicals?

May 10, 2009 at 10:13 pm · Filed under The Hated, Uncategorized ·Tagged bias, Bible, church, Gay, hate, homosexual, homosexuality, ODMs, Online Discernment Ministries, prejudice

In recent months my attention has been pulled to a number of websites run by various watch-bloggers and so-called “discernment” ministries. In response, I’ve posted several articles dealing with these websites and voiced my concerns with them (see my main link page of articles). But there is one aspect of SOME of these websites that I’ve not yet addressed—i.e., a bizarre preoccupation with homosexuality and related issues.

Don’t get me wrong. The gay agenda, homosexuality, gay marriage, and biblical views of human sexuality are definitely important subjects that should be openly discussed. But these websites have become almost obsessed with such topics, all the while failing to recognize that beyond the “gay” issue there are many more things to discuss during our pivotal era:

- the church’s health,
- political upheaval,
- ongoing religious dialog between world religions,
- skills for Christian living,
- church unity,
- prayer,
- continuing missionary efforts,
- suffering on a global scale and how to alleviate it,
- pop culture influences,
- etc., etc., etc., etc.

It seems that SOME evangelicals have become almost fixated on the subject of all things gay. And as if this were not troubling enough, we are now seeing a degree of homophobia and gay-hate-talk (or at the very least, gay-paranoia-talk) among Christians that is coming out in a most unusual way—i.e., through verbal attacks by various watch-bloggers against assorted Christian men/pastors, wherein the Christian man/pastor is being depicted as:

1. “effeminate,”

2. less than masculine,

3. practically Gay-i-fied

And this is all because those whom the watch-bloggers are criticizing simply do not preach, teach, behave, or run a church in a way approved by those watch-bloggers. The frightening specter of homosexuals running amok and effeminate men everywhere is being used by these watch-bloggers to scare their readers into believing that certain pastors/teachers have lost their Manly-Man edge and gone the way of gays (even though a preaching style, teaching method, or church structuring philosophy cannot actually be either effeminate or masculine).

Rather than simply stating their disagreements/criticisms, and then backing them with biblical passages (used in context), these watch-bloggers have resorted to using homophobic, anti-gay lingo that castigates their targets as “Effeminate Evangelicals”—i.e., not masculine men of God, but “sissified” (actual quote) compromisers of God’s Word whose manner of preaching/teaching is more akin to weak women.

WHAT CENTURY ARE WE LIVING IN?

It is difficult to know where/how to even begin responding to such a backward and destructive mindset. But it might be helpful to point to one of the worst examples available on the Internet—i.e., “Some More Thoughts on Effeminate Evangelicalism” by 56-year-old Phil Johnson, “executive Director of Grace to You, a Christian tape and radio ministry featuring the preaching ministry of John MacArthur.”

The first thing one notices upon reading Johnson’s diatribe against what he calls “Effeminate Evangelicalism” is the disturbingly sexist & near-homophobic language he uses as a means of mocking, degrading, and vilifying fellow men of God with whom he disagrees (i.e., in the area of preaching style, teaching content, and methods of presenting the Gospel). His bottom line is that “[t]he pulpit is not for wimps.” That comment, in itself, smacks of a culturally-determined machismo that categorizes certain men as “wimps” and others as non-wimps — as if a choice in preaching style/substance is a reflection of one’s sexuality and masculine/feminine behavior.

But Johnson says much more. Consider the following words, which in my opinion, have no place in any article that is supposedly intended to voice a difference of opinion Johnson has with various pastors who approach preaching/teaching in a way that differs from the approach Johnson endorses:

“Today’s evangelicals seem committed to keeping the church a soft, delicate, sissified environment.”

“Even the tone of the preacher has to be suited to the sewing circle”

“Have you ever thought carefully about what’s implied in just that term (seeker-sensitive)? It sounds like something a weak and frightened person thought up. Where does “seeker-sensitivity” fit into the biblical description of what the church should be. Answer: it doesn’t. It’s a typically effeminate trend.”

When I first read these words, I couldn’t keep myself from thinking, “He can’t be serious.” But then, to my horror, I realized Johnson was very serious.

The absurdity of declaring that those who do not preach/teach as Johnson sees fit have somehow abandoned their core masculinity is absurd beyond words—not to mention the fact that Johnson’s apparent definition of true “masculinity” seems rooted/ground NOT IN THE BIBLE, but in social/cultural roles and expectations in the Western world of what being a REAL MAN is all about (i.e., behaving, responding, an feeling in ways that should only be intrinsic to a women).

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

The sexist language and chauvinistic jabs in Johnson’s article are deplorable, insulting, degrading. . . . and to be honest, embarrassing. While reading his thoughts, I was immediately struck by how the Bible refers to a number of characters who, if we were to look at them through Johnson’s eyes, would be rather effeminate:

GOD = EFFEMINATE: “… but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper”
(1 Ki. 19:12).

WISE ONES: = “A gentle answer turns away wrath”
(Prov. 15:1 – “A soft answer,” KJV).

JEREMIAH = EFFEMINATE: “I had been like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter”
(Jer. 11:19).

GOD’S PEOPLE = EFFEMINATE: “I will leave within you the meek and humble”
(Zeph. 3:12).

JESUS = EFFEMINATE: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth”
(Matt. 5:5).

JESUS = EFFEMINATE: “…learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart”
(Matt. 11:29).

JESUS = EFFEMINATE: “Jesus wept”
(John 11:35).

PAUL = EFFEMINATE: “By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you”
(2 Cor. 10:1).

In light of these verses, we can see how far Johnson has strayed from biblical truth when he says, “certain qualities which are admirable traits for mothers and wives are dishonorable mannerisms for men to exhibit (or hide behind) when duty calls them to proclaim truth boldly or defend the faith against error.”

God forbid that men should exhibit “certain qualities” like love, tenderness, compassion, kindness, gentleness, empathy, sympathy, sensitivity, considerateness, and vulnerability (which seems to be a dirty word to Johnson) when they are preaching God’s Word and offering the Gospel to those who are helpless and hurting.

Paul clearly outlined the fruit of the spirit, which I would think should be most evident when preaching: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:22-23).

Contrast these sentiments with Johnson’s comments, which are made even harsher and more offensive by the picture he provided as a visual aid—i.e., a frail-looking, skinny, geeky, non-macho young man attempting to shoot a basket underhand (not overhand, like a real man). Here is a picture of the stereotypical male who is cruelly taunted in high school by names like faggot, sissy, girlie-boy. Isn’t it time that we, as REAL MEN of God, grow up and leave behind us this kind of juvenile mentality that seeks to show one’s true GUY-HOOD through bullying tactics, mockery, intimidation, shaming, name-calling, finger-pointing, and imagery like that? Does Johnson think that using such an image is funny? Manly? Biblical?

Although offensive and less-than-Christ-like in the obvious message it sends, Johnson’s image fits his article, which is rife with archaic, sexist, narrow-minded, Western-influenced, culturally-based, and decidedly unbiblical images/stereotypes of what is (and what is not) masculine—then he links it all to his own SUBJECTIVE ideas about the proper/appropriate way to deliver the Gospel (or to give a Bible-centered message) from the pulpit.

Of course, it almost goes without saying that choices made by various pastors with regard to their preaching styles and/or teaching content are just that—i.e., choices. And those choices are neither male, nor female; neither masculine, nor feminine. Such choices have nothing to do with a man being truly manly. Johnson’s arguments are rooted in nothing but a subjective, sensationalistic, and fear-inspiring spin he puts on this topic—a spin that is obviously linked to some as-yet-unidentified facet of Johnson’s own psychological makeup.

GODLY MEN = MANLY MEN

The article noted above, unfortunately, was actually the second article by Johnson wherein he setup the odd connection between preaching/teaching style and masculinity. His first article, “Manly Men,” started off by tracing the inability to reach today’s men to “the eighteenth-century tendency of post-puritan preachers to temper hard truths and cushion the message as much as possible.”

There, according to Johnson, we have the root-cause of numerous church-related problems. Today’s preachers, says Johnson, are altogether different from real manly preachers of yesteryear like Charles Spurgeon. As Johnson writes: “Spurgeon was a man’s preacher, and his ministry reflected that.”

Ahhhh, a man’s preacher. It seems that Spurgeon, given Johnson’s description of him, was a real tell-it-like-it is, in your face, like-it-or-lump-it preacher. And that’s what made him so manly and masculine. Well, it might come as a surprise to Johnson that Joseph Smith—founder of Mormonism and a resoundingly non-Christian preacher—preached in a similar way. And so did many other preachers of that era (c. 1830-1860). Why? Because they were all preaching in a manner consistent with that time.

Oddly, Johnson notes: “But everyone has utterly forgotten all the effeminate preachers of that era [i..e, Spurgeon's era] who at the time were absolutely certain that they were more ‘relevant’ because they were more in tune with their own times than Spurgeon was.”

But the truth is that Spurgeon was actually very much in tune with his times, being one of the foremost adherents to what was then known as “Extemporaneous Teaching,” which was popular during his years on the preaching circuit. That was his style. And as wonderful as it was, it had nothing to do with him being:

1) a “man’s preacher,”

2) masculine (rather than effeminate), or

3) manly.

It’s tragic and pathetic that Johnson’s way of thinking is still alive and well not just in America, but in the church. Why so tragic? Because Johnson’s whole concept of masculinity and strength are the very antithesis if what it means to be truly masculinity and strong in Christ. Throughout his anti-effeminate rant, Johnson displays not the Bible, but rather, his own subjective/culturally-determined ideas of how a manly pastor should preach; how a truly masculine pastor should present the Gospel. And if someone doesn’t line up with his own personal views, that person is not simply wrong, but effeminate!

For example, Johnson notes: “Post-evangelicals don’t want teachers who will declare the difference between truth and error with manly conviction. They just want to have fun.”

But Johnson here has set up a false dilemma; a false either/or scenario. Can’t someone “declare the difference between truth and error with manly conviction” AND “have fun” at the same time? Or can only effeminate men have fun? And this leads to more questions:

-  Can only effeminate men preach with tenderness, kindness, love, gentleness, compassion, and understanding?

- Is Johnson saying that to “declare the difference between truth and error with manly conviction” is essentially the same thing as just blasting out scriptures at people with no thought or concern for them?

- Does Johnson thing that preachers should not be vulnerable to their listeners when he not-so-subtly mocks how “Evangelicals constantly say they want their leaders to be “vulnerable”?

It takes NOTHING for a man to be bold, hard-edged, direct, to-the-point, insensitive, thoughtless, harsh, sharp-tongued, callous, and unfeeling. All of that comes naturally to us GUYS. But it is the supernatural work of God in a man that makes him better—i.e., kinder, gentler, more sensitive, filled with greater compassion & understanding, thoughtful beyond his nature, more loving. In other words, more like Christ.

Johnson diatribe, IMHO, is an embarrassment to true godliness and the kind of men that we are called to be in Christ. TBH, I was surprised that he didn’t add somewhere how men shouldn’t enjoy pretty flowers, shouldn’t wear/like pink, and shouldn’t EVER cry during a movie.

A MANLY CONCLUSION

Sadly, Johnson’s readers fell right into his net of sexist jargon designed to inflame their innate prejudice/fear of  homosexuals and effeminate men. Consider these comments:

“Blue Collar Todd” (clearly, a REAL MAN): “It seems once Christians befriend gays, their view of homosexuality changes and their conviction of its sinfulness subsides.”

Mark B. Hanson: “I read somewhere that the psychological profile of the average American pastor is virtually indistinguishable from that of a homosexual man.”

Let us all be careful and watch that we do NOT fall into the traps laid for us by society, culture, the world, the flesh, and the devil by going to any extreme with regard to our roles as men and women of God. Let us go instead to the Bible to see how we, as followers of Christ, should live, work, minister, love, serve, and grow in the knowledge of him who saved us. Johnson, in my opinion, would do well to read “Profiling Christian Masculinity,” which is an excellent article dealing with masculinity as a godly man.

(The above article can also be found at PoP CuLTurE MiX blog).

peace in him,

Richard Abanes
PoP CulTuRE MiX

Update

In response to my criticisms of Johnson’s article, the following accusation was made against me by Ken Silva, another ODM: “Apparently there’s a marked difference between the man-centered effete evangelicalism as represented by Richard Abanes and the Biblical preaching of men like Phil Johnson.”

(“EFFETE” means “Lacking strength or vitality; feeble, powerless, impotent; decadent, self-indulgent, effeminate.”)

Author’s Note

The online blogger discussed in this article—Phil Johnson—does not necessarily fit perfectly into the model of ODMs or into what I have dubbed The Cult of ODMs. However, throughout his blogging days he has not only echoed many of the sentiments/positions of ODMs, but also used some of their same tactics against his chosen targets of criticism.

Permalink