This recent post from Carolyn Custis-James is a much-needed addition to our July Conversation on Gender and the Kingdom:
I mostly like what Richard Rohr has to say. In fact, at this point I probably qualify for a Richard Rohr Reader Fan Club membership.
However, as I was reading From Wild Man to Wise Man: Reflections on Male Spirituality, Rohr crossed a line that triggered a firestorm in me. He dropped an F-bomb, and I can’t let this pass without comment.
As Rohr laments the absence of fathers (especially as spiritual influences) in the lives of their sons, he writes,
“Religion in our culture has become the province of the female, and spirituality has become feminized. American Christianity is much more about belonging andconsoling [alleged “feminine” traits] than doing, risking and confronting [aka “male” attributes]. Nor can Jesus even provide a real male model for [men], for we have become so used to seeing Jesus as God that we never truly see Jesus as a man. He even has blond hair and blue eyes…” [italics and bracketed comments are mine]
Rohr is not the first man I’ve known to use this kind of offensive language. I’ve had several candid “conversations” with Christian men I’ve heard talk about “the feminization of the church” when speaking publicly. They often appear surprised that women would find their language objectionable.
Well, we do!
I can understand and even appreciate Rohr’s larger point, but the use of the word “feminized” (or “feminization”) misses the mark. Such language disparages women—actually points the finger of blame at them for what is wrong with American Christianity and why some men avoid attending church. It misdiagnoses the problem and justifies promoting a testosterone-driven version of Christianity as a cure (as we are seeing in certain sectors of evangelicalism).
This just creates a whole new set of problems.