According to the New York Times, apparently there is a small but growing trend in churches promoting mixed martial arts–ranging from hosting MMA pay-per view parties to churches doubling as fight training centers. One pastor is also the team coach for a faith-based MMA fight team!
Is this a good idea? Owen Strachan says no and mostly summarizes what I think about this development.
Drew Dixon is a co-editor of CaPC, a husband, pastor, soccer coach, reader, movie buff, and gamer. Drew has a BA in Speech Communication from West Texas A&M University and a MDIV in Christian Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Drew is interested in all facets of pop culture but writes most often about videogames and music. He also writes on videogames for Relevant Magazine. Look him up on Twitter at drewdixon82. Email: dixon.drew [at] gmail [dot] com Steam: Drizzoo703 XBL: Drizzoo82 
Sacred Space: Superbowl Sunday
“Something in the regular life of the church is going to conflict with the Superbowl this Sunday. What ought the church to do?”
Eat Your Vegetables: “The Age of Innocence” (Wharton, 1920)
The novel’s tone is thoroughly ironic, as Archer continually misreads as progressive the very traits that consign him to the status quo.
Mixed Signals: What the Christian Message Says to the Masses
Targeting a message to your “superfans” doesn’t mean that they are the only ones listening.
Perhaps the #1 rule of approaching a game rightly is as follows: take it seriously, but keep your perspective.
Music at Mars Hill: Lana Del Rey, Rebecca Black, and Ethics
“Marketing, branding, image, and production are not just afterthoughts in our musical culture.”
Hey, I almost posted an aside on this story! You beat me to it, Drew. So, instead, I’ll link to Eugene Cho (whose hour-long interview was reduced to a single quote for the article): http://blog.sojo.net/2010/02/03/i-don%E2%80%99t-live-for-the-jesus-who-eats-red-meat-drinks-beer-and-beats-on-other-men/
Great link Carissa. I agree–I think the various forms of “Wild at Heart” men have taken things too far. I am all for being tough, manly, and strong, but I also want to be really into self-sacrifice for the sake of my wife (Eph. 5:25)–that is a super manly thing to do but less popular to talk about.
What led me to find Christ was that Jesus was a fighter is maybe the most nonsensical thing I’ve read today. (And that includes Booster’s comments in the other thread.) My favourite part of the Gospel According to John was when Jesus put Nicodemus in a hammerlock and threatened to make him wish he’d never been born the first time let alone the second time that would be required of him—reborn in fire and blood into an age of violence, honour, and the constant threat of noogies.
Also, I’d link to it here, but I’m a little unsatisfied with the original article, so I’ll prune and restate a bit (though I will link to the awesome He-Man masthead I originally used for the article). It’s a tad long, but I think apropos. And I think it helps get across how silly I find this push toward a quote-unquote masculine Christian man to be.
_________________________
One of the currently popular hobby horses of American pop-Christianity is the so-called feminization of our culture. This comes up all the time. This article is only the most recent reminder of our society’s effeminacy and its detrimental effect on the world as we know it.
The proposition forwarded by so many is that there is an ideal level of masculinity toward which men in society should strive and an ideal level of femininity toward which women in society should strive. And further, many of the problems evident in our current culture are seen to be a result of a reversal of this standard—where men are increasingly feminized and women are becoming more and more masculine. I think a thoughtful reflection on this idea will come to the conclusion that such talk is, well, without merit.
To start with, we’ll have to presume both that there is such a thing as masculinity and femininity and that there is a level of each to which each sex should aim, neither exceeding nor falling short of such marks. But wait! Why should we presume such things? Let’s start apart from the presuppositions and only then come to evaluate the argument from the realm of pure hypotheticals.
In the first place, while there are certain characteristics that we tend to assign to the descriptions masculine and feminine, I tend to think that those descriptors have no connection more necessary to the sex with which we’ve tied them than pof and hil do (that is, masculinity and femininity might as well be random terms for all they relate to the sexes). The typically admirable traits associated with masculinity (courage, honour, bravery, strength, charisma, leadership, decisiveness) are as lauded in females as they are males, and probably no less present. Contrawise, the negative traits associated with masculinity (anger, violence, laziness, heartlessness, aggression) are as loathed in females as they are in males, and probably no less present.* Similarly, the typically admirable traits commonly associated with femininity (compassion, sensitivity, romance, nurture, domestic prowess) are lauded in men while the negative traits (cattiness, over-sensitivity, moodiness, menstruation) are loathed in men as well as they are in women.**
Masculinity and maleness are two entirely separate descriptions and intersect about as frequently as masculinity and femaleness.*** Question: Are men brave or are women brave? Answer: Men and women are brave. Fact: Both men and women are capable of bravery and prone to cowardice. Question: Are women compassionate or are men compassionate? Answer: Women and men are compassionate. Fact: Both women and men are capable of compassion and both are prone to callousness.
And then what if there was some testable difference between men and women? What if it wasn’t merely anecdotal? What if 60% of men were brave and only 20% of women were? What if 75% of women showed compassion while only 13% of men bore the trait? How would it be that we could tell whether the distinction was something natural to the sexes or whether it was merely just the cultural hegemony showing its colours and influences.
And with how fuzzy our understanding is of whether femininity and masculinity even exist, how on earth can we responsibly make it a moral thing? How can we say that men should aim to be, quote-unquote, masculine (with all that entails) and women should be, quote-unquote, feminine (with all that entails)? How can we honestly do that? Answer: because people are clowns. We are. We’re ridiculous and we like to make rules to govern things whether those rules are at all realistic.
So wait, let’s go back. Let’s pretend that there really is some such thing as this Platonic form of masculinity and another of femininity. Let’s pretend that there really is this objective standard. And let’s further pretend that we, as men and women, are supposed to strive toward our respective gendered standards. Let’s pretend that I and all American men should be striving for True Masculinity. And even more, let’s pretend that if we don’t, as a society, meet that standard (and that the women don’t meet theirs)—let’s pretend that if we are truly negligent here that society will get all screwed up. That all sorts of horrible things will happen. That kids will stop learning well. That we won’t have prayer in schools. That incidents of homosexuality will rise. That Bush will attack Iran and kill more people who are not white enough to care about. That teenage boys will start wearing women’s pants that are too small for women their size. That the rest of society will follow suit, crumbling around our ankles.
Let’s pretend all that will happen if we don’t get the masculinity/femininity thing right.
OMG We ares doomulnated!!! No really. If the health of society rests at all upon us getting the masculinity/femininity distinction correct, we are without hope. We are so doomed that even the doomed will feel safe, happy, and well-cared for by comparison. And why is this?
Because we have no freakin’ standard to look to!
Not even a hint.
There is nothing we can reliably look at, point to, and say, “Behold! Femininity!” There is no example of what true masculinity might look like if it were to actually exist. Even if there is this fabled objective standard, we, the people of earth, have no possible way of discerning it. Well, unless God decides that it’s important enough for us to know that he sends a third testament to explain it. Maybe it’s in the Book of Mormon, I don’t know. What I do know for a certainty is that such a standard is very much not found in the Bible as delivered to the saints in ages past.
No, everything we know to be masculinity and femininity is made up. Which is part of the reason we see such vast differences in the so-called gendered traits from culture to culture. So knock it off already.
___________
Incidentally, what really kills me about this kind of fight-fight-Jesus ideology forwards is how common it is in certain segments of Christendom. My wife has regaled me with tales of how in her own college town, there was a big movement**** toward letting boys reclaim their masculinity by letting children fight it out. Instead of quashing fights before they could get out of hand and before lips were bloodied and teeth were lost and ears were punched, boys would be allowed to duke it out, presumably to make mens out of ‘em. Part of the justification was that we should be encouraging boys to be boys.
Somehow though I doubt that the Christians in this particular town really followed through on their own line of thought, because heck if you’re gonna let boys be boys, there is nothing so immediately boyish than teenage boys doing anything within their power to engage the fairer sex in a little first base, second base, third base, GRAND SLAM! Really, more than fighting, boys seem to be all about the dream of fornication—though I doubt if they would ever term it as anything so vulgar as “fornication.”
Example. I am in eighth grade. I have a water bed. I have also just purchased a small colour television set (back in the day when you could still get a black-and-white). To which I have connected my NES. The NES being the current Rad Thing, neighbourhood kids would come by, hoping to taste the finest cuisine proffered by the Japanese technation. So me and three other kids sit on my bed and the following conversation takes place:
Now, neither Bob nor Ian were particularly aberrant.***** They were just average boys from an evangelical Christian home who had what might be considered something nearbouts the normal level of sexual curiosity. They just really wanted to fornicate their little brains out. A fifth grader and a something like a second or third grader. But hey, after all, boys will be boys.
___________________________
NOTES:
*I believe a case can be made that the presence of testosterone in males can cause heightened and sustained aggression, surpassing that normally found in females. This would be a part of the male chemical environment.
**I only included menstruation to see if you were paying attention.
***The rate of intersection differs based upon cultural influences.
****I actually made up the “big” part and have no idea exactly how prevalent the “movement” really was.
*****They did still like Michael Jackson in 1988, but what did they know…
Hey. I don’t know if I ever tried. Can we put images straight into our comments? ‘Cuz if we can, that changes the whole ballgame.
Guess that’s a No. *sigh*
@ Da Dane,
If we allowed you to insert photos into comments we’d spend all day deleting comments containing photoshopped images of various CaPC writers with different bodies.
But animal bodies! Think of it Alan! You! The body of a meerkat! Carissa! The clam-hugging form of an otter! Ben! The agile form of a lemur! Rich! Crawling free from his recently shed carapace!
I think we’ve struck upon an exciting new era for CAPC.