Pages

Monday, January 03, 2011

Old queens in chamois vestments


When church historians write books about the Downgrade controversy, the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, etc., they usually focus on the intellectual factors like Darwinism, higher criticism, the New Geology, and the repercussions of the Enlightenment.

I assume this emphasis is due in part to the fact that intellectuals naturally seize on intellectual factors. Church historians are intellectuals. Their analysis mirrors their predilections.

Another reason is that Christianity is an ideology, so even though one can approach church history from the standpoint of economics or politics or sociology–all of which can bring a useful perspective to bear–still the theological orientation of the Christian faith invites an emphasis on the history of ideas.

However, one of the problems with this emphasis is that it runs the risk of overlooking other key dynamics. I’m reminded of something I once read. I don’t have the quote at my fingertips, so I’ll have to reconstruct it from memory. As I recall, it was an elderly Anglican commenting on the Catholic sex scandal. And he said something to the effect that, in boarding school, his headmasters were old queens (or old queers). This was an unspoken perception among the student body.

He didn’t accuse the headmasters of molesting the students. Rather, as I recall, he was making the general point that his headmasters were uninspiring role models for young men. The boys didn’t look up to them. Didn’t respect them. The headmasters were soft. Farcical. “Eccentric.”

And I’d like to broaden the point. Not only do you have certain denominations in which “old queens” are disproportionately represented among the clergy, but the same denominations foster an “old queen” mentality among the clergy. Clergymen who are not old queens, clergymen who are straight, nonetheless cultivate a soft, ineffectual demeanor–a soft, ineffectual outlook.

Take the knee-jerk pacifism of the modern Vatican. Same thing with the current Archbishop of Canterbury. Or, for that matter, N. T. Wright. Likewise, take the Vatican’s knee-jerk opposition to the death penalty. Or take those ineffectual bromides about how Jews and Muslims should lay down their arms and learn how to get along. In some denominations, that’s what men of the cloth are expected to say. It’s so predictable.

And I say that to say this: I suspect the “old queen” mentality is as much a contributing factor to liberal theology, to dying denominations, as the intellectual factors. For normal men find that repellent.

Let’s compare it to Mark Driscoll. I don’t know much about Driscoll. I haven’t read much of his stuff. I’ve seen his ministry repudiated merely because he has a reputation for using indecorous language.

Now, from what little I’ve read about him, he came from a working class neighborhood. And he brings his blue-collar ethos into the pulpit.

For some people, that precipitates culture shock. Traditionally, many of us view the pastorate as a white-collar profession rather than a blue-collar profession. Except for the Hollywood caricature of the hillbilly preacher, that’s the cultural expectation.

But given what I’ve read about Driscoll’s background, I assume that he’s actually toning down the way he used talk with his friends.

Mind you, I don’t think prep schools boys at Exeter talk any differently to each other than working class boys. But part of projecting an upper class image is the ability to instantly to switch from lowbrow to highbrow depending on where you are and who you’re with.

From what I’ve read, Driscoll has the same onstage persona as his offstage persona. He is what he was.

I don’t know enough to offer a specific evaluation of his ministry. And I’m not trying to. I’m just citing him to illustrate a certain type. To contrast that type with another type.

But a Driscoll can obviously reach a demographic which the “old queen” mentality cannot. In particular, he can connect with men in a way that the “old queen” mentality never has and never will.

To illustrate the same point with a different example, take Mark and Donnie Wahlberg. They come from a working class background, and they are drawn to working class characters. From what I’ve read, they were lapsed Catholics who recently returned to their church.

Now, it doesn’t surprise me that they were alienated from the Roman church. How could two guys like that really relate to the “old queen” mentality?

To take one more example, I remember reading about the impact that Dwight Moody had on the student body at Cambridge. Moody came from a hardscrabble background. Had little formal education.

He was the antithesis of what the students were used to hearing at chapel. They were probably accustomed to a lisping, mincing, butterfly-collector. A Lewis Carroll type.

By contrast, Moody was passionate, burly, uncouth speaker. Yet I daresay that for the first time in life the students were face-to-face with a real man in the pulpit.

When we consider the sources of infidelity, we should make allowances for factors besides liberal ideas. Sometimes we need to consider the effect of the messenger as well as the message.

17 comments:

  1. "And I say that to say this: I suspect the “old queen” mentality is as much a contributing factor to liberal theology, to dying denominations, as the intellectual factors. For normal men find that repellent."

    Game-Winning walk-off homerun. Money quote.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Steve

    I don't wish to place demands upon your time but would you consider viewing one of Mark Driscoll's latest online sermons on Luke?

    I would very much value your appraisal of his style, theology and manner (as much as one can from one sermon I suppose).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,

    I think you've not only nailed it in regards to Driscoll, but also in regards to girly-man preachers. I can testify that all of the men in our church are tired of wimpy "preacher-boys" that give them sermonettes designed to feed and attract goats but do nothing to feed the sheep and help them interact with the real world biblically.

    As a matter of fact, I have some older men in our church (i.e., mid-60s), and they were so gun-shy because they had been burned by so many preachers that it took them years to truly trust me, even though I've preached it hard from day one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "And I say that to say this: I suspect the “old queen” mentality is as much a contributing factor to liberal theology, to dying denominations, as the intellectual factors. For normal men find that repellent."

    And what's a large contributing factor to the "old queen" mentality? Answer: Egalitarianism.

    And that's why it's so important to affirm complementarianism or Biblical patriarchy in the home and church.

    I highly commend the reading of this post by Tim Bayly titled Can a Christian be a feminist....

    ReplyDelete
  5. The language issue with Driscoll is a case of people decontextualizing a polemical statement he made in a sermon more than a decade ago. Since I actually heard the sermon where he said that "anyone who sells you on the idea that salvation can come apart from Christ is selling you a God-damned lie." (very close wording to what he said) I have felt obliged to explain at a few points that the "cussing pastor" reputation is based on a lot of fourth-hand hype. Since so much of what circulated about Mark as the "cussing pastor" has seemed so inaccurate and since I was at Mars Hill from late 1999 to later 2008 I feel obligated to at least try to dispel some misinformation and misunderstanding about where that came from.

    Rohan, Driscoll is essentially Reformed Baptist and avoids committing to any particular eschatological view. He is a firm TULIP and is probably supralapsarian. I know for a fact he has read John Murray and the Plantingas. He does not treat Arminianism as outside orthodoxy but last I checked you'd have a very hard time serving as a deacon or elder at Mars Hill if you're an Arminian. His handling of NT texts is very strong, his handling of OT texts proved so consistently disappointing that it was one reason I eventually landed at a Presbyterian church led by a pastor who studied under V. Phillips Long. My hope is that over time Driscoll will get much stronger handling OT texts. I would say one of the highlights of his preaching career was his 2005 series on theories of the atonement and that his christus exemplar sermon is one of the best he ever preached in his fourteen year career. Unsurprisingly if you get a blue collar preacher around to preaching on an atonement theory favored by liberals it ends up being far more compelling than from the usual liberal preacher because a christus exemplar bound to substitutionary atonement actually has power.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    This post reminded me a great deal of the book "Why Men Hate Going to Church" by David Murrow. He gives many examples of what he calls the feminization of church, and that drives men away.

    It's found even in the songs we sing. For instance, our songs now ask us to gaze upon the face of Jesus, to lose ourselves in Him, to open our souls and cry for him--all the types of things guys typically don't do. Gone are the days of triumphant hymns, like "Onward Christian Soliders". And we rarely even sing such classics as "A Mighty *FORTRESS* Is Our God" these days.

    Murrow's point (and mine as well) is not to go to the opposite extreme and demand only a masculine church, but rather to balance it out.

    Speaking on my own now (i.e., Murrow doesn't make this point), I believe that the reason why we have such a feminization of the church is because many pastors are not actually called by God to be pastors, and the churches they're in don't bother to ask that portion. It's assumed that someone who wants to preach has been called to do so--a tragic mistake. And, speaking broadly with much generalization, women tend to be more talkative, with better verbal skills, better vocabulary, than men do; so, if you have not been called to preach by God, yet you feel the need to preach, you're most likely going to be doing so in a more feminine manner.

    Again, there are exceptions, but I sense a trend nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I identify strongly with the uncouth "blue-collar" type you describe here, Steve. In fact, it seems just the other day I somewhere commented on a certain "old queen" by the name of O'Shaughnessy. The spam filter must've eaten my words; or else my macho gaucheness momentarily got the better of me and I slipped over the border of Dark Humor into the land of Poor Taste. Sometimes I do that, to my brutish chagrin. :-)

    At any rate, excellent post - timely and astute.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wenatchee the Hatchet:

    "The language issue with Driscoll is a case of people decontextualizing a polemical statement he made in a sermon more than a decade ago. Since I actually heard the sermon where he said that "anyone who sells you on the idea that salvation can come apart from Christ is selling you a God-damned lie." "

    Ha! I chuckle at that seeing I was asked to teach for a friend his class on the Book of Romans. I was told I needed to use my King James Version of the Bible because the people who would attend the bible study were KJ only believers.

    I read: Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
    Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
    and then said something similar in wording as Driscoll. I think I said, "those sorts are God-damned people"

    I then went on through the rest of Chapter 13 and concluded for the night announcing that I would pick up starting with Chapter 14 on the next regularly scheduled bible study so read ahead and come with questions so we can have a vigorous discussion after.

    A couple of days later the Pastor of this Church called me and asked me to meet him for lunch. He told me he wasn't going to have me come back and finish the series on Romans because some of the people complained that I cussed during the bible study time and offenses were taken.

    I couldn't for the life of me think what I had said that would be offensive sense I did not recall cussing when teaching on Roman's 13.

    A couple of days later I called the Pastor and asked him to help me out and find out just exactly what it was I said that was cussing and he said he heard that I said that some people are "god damned people"!

    Oh, I said, oops! Oh well!

    ReplyDelete
  9. You make it sound as if people's theology and image of God is merely a reflection of their own personalities.

    That is: those that are "soft" and gentle in nature will focus on those aspects of Scripture and God's character that reflect similar qualities (such as the Beatitudes and so forth). Likewise, hard-edged, brittle characters will focus on things like the "wrath" of God and His "judgment".

    That does seem to be the general tendency, at least as I've seen it.

    If that is the case, doesn't it seem to you that people end up worshipping a God of their own desire rather than God as He objectively is? (Although I'm not sure how accurate an objective picture one could get, anyhow.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. If that is the case, doesn't it seem to you that people end up worshipping a God of their own desire rather than God as He objectively is?

    James, granting that for the moment and overlooking all your unsubstantiated "it seems" assertions, how does this get you any closer to the legitimization of homosexuality, since you could be accused of "worshipping a God of your desire rather than God as He objectively is"? See the problem? On what objective basis could you oppose those who disagree with you, since their ground is epistemologically equivalent to yours? Or do you have an exegetical/theological basis to prove your case?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wenatchee the hatchet:

    Thank you - that was very helpful!

    ReplyDelete
  12. C A asks: "James ... how does this get you any closer to the legitimization of homosexuality, since you could be accused of "worshipping a God of your desire rather than God as He objectively is"?"

    Well, you avoided my question, but I'll answer anyhow.

    First of all, I've made no blanket endorsement of homosexuality in all circumstances. Secondly, I don't know for certain that God as I imagine He might be has any bearing on God as He actually is. I could be quite wrong in my judgments. He may decide to throw everyone but a handful of hyper-Calvinists into Hell. I guess we'll see.

    My limited "legitimization" goes as follows:

    - Ultimately, I think that if it is true that "God is Love", then we are to strive to lead lives of self-sacrifice. No small task, as most people are wearisome and a pain in the arse. At best.

    - Efforts at "converting" gays to heterosexuality has generally been shown to be a farce and doomed to failure. Exhibit A: George Rekers. If you were a woman, would YOU marry such a self-deceptive man?

    - Monogamy requires self-sacrifice, as does rearing children. It's often more demanding than living the life of a carefree bachelor for one's entire life. Many gays have taken it upon themselves to care for difficult-to-place children abandoned by their biological parents.

    So, yes, I think it's possible for a gay person to live a life of dignity that can still be pleasing to God just as a woman on her second marriage can (despite the fact that Scripture is also clear that to remarry after a divorce is to commit perpetual and unrepentant adultery - Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, you avoided my question, but I'll answer anyhow.

    I don't want to speak for Steve, but your question struck me as problematical in the first place. He started by talking about how orthodox Christians (such as Spurgeon and Machen) would analyze problems with the church and ended with the statement "When we consider the sources of infidelity ...".

    So obviously he's not trying to imply that "people's theology and image of God is merely a reflection of their own personalities" but rather observing that these analysts may have missed an obvious fact on the ground that helps explain alienation of many young men from the church.

    That is: those that are "soft" and gentle in nature will focus on those aspects of Scripture and God's character that reflect similar qualities (such as the Beatitudes and so forth). Likewise, hard-edged, brittle characters will focus on things like the "wrath" of God and His "judgment".

    But he hasn't characterized the source of alienation as a mere matter of taste leading to selective reading, as you imply above. Rather I think the point is that excessively effeminate mannerisms and a lack of rigor and passion when it comes to expositing scripture is often linked with effeminate mannerisms that would disgust or bore many men and predjudice them against Christianity for the "wrong" reason (ie. not because of the scandal of the cross, but because they project the flaws of these preachers onto the religion itself).

    This is a "high context" blog, as anyone who has been reading it for any length of time should know, so it should not be expected that the posters should restate the entirety of their position on orthodoxy before commenting on causes of apostasy. Their views and justifications for them are well known already.

    And I see there are no scriptural arguments in your justification, and that's the saddest thing about homosexuality. You've given your whole loyalty to a sexual desire, and made it the highest principle of your life. But this is bondage. It's what Christ came to free us *all* from.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. To clarify my first paragraph, I meant that Steve's first and final mentions of heterodoxy (such as "liberal" theology or "infidelity") shows that deviation from orthodoxy was his main concern and starting point, thus he was not trying to ground his theology in the symptoms he listed afterwards. So he obviously wasn't arguing for personal tastes as a first principle, as you seemed to think one might get the impression of.

    ReplyDelete
  16. C Andiron: Have we met? Do you know how I live my life to confidently say that my highest loyalty is to sexual compulsion?

    I can assure you - and as anyone who knows me can attest - that is far from the truth.

    As I said: the Bible says that everyone who remarries is an adulterer, and adulterers go to Hell.

    Now, think of every person you know who is remarried with a living ex-spouse. Are they all doomed to perdition? I'm betting you don't really believe so, nor do most Christians. If not, how is my approach any different?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The acceptance of divorce is a widespread and grotesque blight on the church. The right solution is to reverse this trend. To encourage more churches to adopt church discipline. The wrong solution would be to just accept the "status quo" and allow even more transgressions against what is clearly taught in scripture.

    1 Co 6:9 lists adulterers and homosexuals as equivalent. I stand by that. But adulterers do not generally try to promote their lifestyle as neutral. They generally regard it with regret.

    ReplyDelete