Shedding Identity

There was a time when I could simply say “I’m Mennonite.” That is what I was. It was my religion, culture and ethnicity wrapped up into one tidy package. It was as real to me as my gender and first name. But now, having left the denomination of my youth behind, it is really difficult to buy-in to a new identity or at least not to the extent of feeling a significant attachment to the distinguishing title.

We live in a great identity crisis. We might celebrate more identities than ever, and yet somehow along the way, we have lost the very meaning of the words that we use to define these identity categories.

What is an identity?

An identity is a word used to distinguish one from another. Or a statement of what we are in comparison to the whole group. Are you Catholic or Protestant? Black or white? A Republican, Democrat or Independent? And whether it is identity or not has much to do with the emotional weight that we place on these categories and terms. In other words, blue-eyed is certainly a category that some of us belong to, but is not currently an true identity marker.

There are also various kinds of identity, there are those inborn or assumed—Charlotte, due to her inherited genetics, is Kankanaey, and would be no matter what she believed about herself or if she prefers that another term be used. Then there are those types of identities that are less about our immutable being and more about what we are doing. By contrast, trucker or truck driver is an identity, and even comes with a license to prove it, but it is not something that is actually written in a CDL holder’s DNA.

Identity is never something we can select for ourselves. I can claim to be a Dill Pickle and even legally require the moniker be used in reference to me. But this is never going to change what other people will perceive me to be. Identity is something that others construct, with us, and not only a thing that we independently choose for ourselves. Put another way, a rose by any other name is still a rose and even if we paint it blue. And blue does not become yellow because we switch the color identity labels either.

Our “I am” identity…

I’m sexually attracted to the female form and this has dictated my priorities and activities throughout the years. But, as important as it is to me, I don’t tout my ‘straight’ preference as being my identity. I am many things, but my sexuality is not something to hang my sense of who I am on. There are no hetero pride parades for this reason and no need to fly a special banner in front of my house to announce my preferences either. Sexuality is not who we really are.

So, when someone says “I am gay,” my mind always must go to the question, “you are a sexuality?” The reality is that this identity is about far more than what they do in bed. It is about the community or lifestyle and an identity built around being their status as an exception. Being “gay” is just as much about the social aspect as the orientation. It is not just something you only do in private. No, it requires a public display and solidarity with others like you. If it were simply about sex there would be no parades or neverending need to be legitimized by others. Identity is bigger than the individual.

And trans is simply the next level. Those calling themselves “trans” may (in direct contradiction with their biological gender assignment) self-identify as a man or a woman. But those who are truly male or female simply are and there is no need for hormones, reconstruction of genitals or to exaggerate gender stereotypes with weird provocative displays. On the other hand, no matter how much surgery is performed on the body of a ‘trans’ person they will always be trans. The more trans people try to force others to recognize them (despite our own eyes) the more they will stand out as being different. Which is truly the point.

Identity is about our distinguishing ourselves from the larger group. It is also about what is the most important thing to us. If a person were ask who I am I would probably start with my given name. That is where I am oriented in society, as a product of my parents, and also gives others a shorthand to address my person. Then I might mention my role as a husband and father as those things are currently the most meaningful parts of my life. Of course, also in the mix is my religious affiliation and occupation. Sexuality, while very important, wouldn’t even make the top of the list.

Furthermore, there is no need for anyone to defy their own eyes or be forced to recognize anything about me against their will. Identity is not only about what I declare. A large part of real identity is what others recognize with no coercion. If I had to demand that my son call me daddy or that my wife appreciate my bad cooking the same as she did the work of a master chef, would their bending to my will really make me any more legitimately those things? No, it would certainly not! It would make me a bully and look very insecure.

The Identity Gambit…

Special identity is a way to gain advantage over others. In the past it was about having the right privileging title or family pedigree. Now it has become a no holds barred fight between various victim categories. But in both cases it was about unearned respect, about people who did not do anything noteworthy enough in their lives to be recognized and thus invent illegitimate reasons why others must genuflect to them. These frauds are enabled by those who have twisted morality and a corrupted political system.

People can lie about their identity for many reasons. Impersonation of a police officer, for example, gives a person false authority and ability to manipulate the unsuspecting. Or stolen valor, in the case of those who, for attention, dress like and pretend to be a military veteran. Sure, the act is usually off, since these posers don’t have the requisite qualifications, but it fools enough people that they get the payoff of the true identity—or at least until caught. Then again, prancing around and pathologically pretending to be a girl is now extremely lucrative for some men.

Pretending to be a doctor or airline pilot is something children do innocently and yet it would be silly to legally recognize this as not to make them feel bad. True identity is not an act or a costume we put on.

Shedding identity…

Identity is powerful. For example, a person calling themselves a “gangsta” or “thug” is declaring a whole package of behaviors and dress styles. It is a choice as well as a habit, they could change and yet their momentum is in a particular direction. They have been conditioned, for years and years, by culture and peers, to assume this posture towards the world.

There is some truth to the statement, “you can take the boy out of the country, but you can’t take the country out of the boy.” We have many things instilled in us, accents to tastes, but this is not written into our DNA and doesn’t mean it is an “I am what I am” excuse. We will send children to speech therapy if they have an impediment rather than let them be their true selves. We can and should modify things that an identity is built from. This notion of a genuine self that can’t be changed is ridiculous.

Right now there is a Ukrainian vs. Russian war. The narrative we’re being sold is that there is a vast difference between the two sides—that this is a fight between freedom and democracy or authoritarian rule. We are told the Russians are barbaric and cruel, the Ukrainian’s heroic and capable. But both are from the same Kievan Rus origins, speak a dialect of the same language, and truly have much more in common with each other than they do with us. Furthermore, the regime in Kiev is hopelessly corrupt, and had been shelling those trying to escape this rule for years prior to the Russian invasion—it isn’t a distinction worth dying over.

Ukraine vs. Russia is more like the US Civil War than WW2.

The reality is we are not bound to identity, especially not to those that are more about what we are currently doing rather than our actual being. We choose our divisions as much as we are born with them. Sure, we can’t help what side of a border we are born on nor if our personality traits are judged as being masculine or feminine. But we can decide what is most important to us. And, more importantly, we can pick identities that are greater than sexuality or gender. We must reject this idea that we can’t change or improve while also accepting what we are and were born to be.

Many people get off from being contrarian and offending others, they especially enjoy being able to force others to go along with their language games. But, in the end, their ‘preferred pronoun’ is a distinction without a difference. We will remain what we are no matter how we dress it up or how much we compel others to go along with the delusion and falsehoods we peddle. It is only in our spiritual transformation, in finding a bigger purpose, that we can be free from needing the approval and attention of others.

More and more I have no identity to cling to outside of being who I am. I am what I am and don’t need to hide behind a special label or find my place in the world. While many in my religious past hold conference in search of their identity and as many converts in the tradition in which I currently participate tout the Orthodox adjective in the manner some do they/them pronouns, I have little interest in joining them in this inane competition. St Paul, in Galatians 2:38, would have us shed our divisive identities for a joint identity in Christ.

Empowerment: When One Plus One Can Equal Three

The pro-choice versus pro-life argument is only one manifestation of a bigger divide in worldviews. For some it may be as simple as dichotomy between Patriarchalism and Feminism, the latest iteration of the gender wars, or an oppressed versus oppressor narrative, but the truth of the matter is a bit more complicated in that the dividing line is not where the two competing ideological extremes put it.

Rather than Patriarchalism versus Feminism, there are actually three distinct hierarchies, two that are openly male-led (and are often lumped together) and one that is covertly male-led in that it both minimizes the most unique female strengths and is almost entirely defined by masculine pursuits of power.

The first is what is what is most commonly referred to as Patriarchalism and refers to a male dominated social structure, it is where the stereotype of men that keep women barefoot and pregnant originates, it is what motivates Feminists everywhere. The second is that of the secular world, the American mainstream, where the focus is career, success is about earning more money, climbing the corporate or political ladder and sacrificing anything that stands in the way of these ambitions. In these first two hierarchies the leadership role is about imposing our own will through brute force or coercion. The third, which I will get to later, is vastly different than these two and inverts the power structure.

The Rejected Patriarchalism

It is no big secret that traditional hierarchy, in the West, has been on the decline since the Protestants pulled out from under the Papal authority and rejected their kings. There is certainly a case to made against Rome and their abuse of power over the centuries. But that hasn’t stopped their wayward children from following in their footsteps.

Like Father, like son, right?

The misuse of authority did not end or begin with the Pontiff and the Patriarchalism of the most defiant fringes of American Biblical fundamentalism is clear evidence. You won’t ever tell these men what to do, but they sure like invoking God’s will to make their wife and children submit to them. The far extreme of this small minority, if they could ever agree on anything, may even resemble the fiction of Handmaid’s Tale if given power.

However, there’s about as much chance of this type of hierarchy gaining prominences as there is of Joseph Smith resurrecting himself from the dead. This is the strata of internet trolls who post memes and enjoy calling women whores for prudently avoiding men like them. And, this, incidentally, is what feminists happily use as a stereotype and strawman version of all men on the religious right. Misogyny is a good term, as these are men threatened by strong women and see their rule as entitlement rather than a respect that is earned. These men *do* stifle women because it is the only way they can feel strong or significant.

Opposition to abortion isn’t really isn’t about the babies, for the loud mouths of this particular patriarchy, rather it is about the competition and gaining back the social position they think they deserve. In their cult groups women play the role of enabler, they must smile sweetly as their dear husband speaks of his superior role. The great irony is that this is the kind of narcissistic man who creates his own mortal enemy, the angry ‘liberated’ woman, because he’s the embodiment of unqualified, irresponsible and just plain bad leadership. No intelligent woman wants to be his baby making machine.

The problem with this hierarchial structure is that it is all about male dominance without male accountability, it is entirely populated by morally (or otherwise) deficient men and abnormally weak women. It always spawns rebellion. It is precisely what has led to the alternative, which has risen up in reaction to abuses, and is the ultimate expression of an American ideal gone off the rails.

The Dominant American/Western Order

Industrialization has changed the world. The United States was once envisioned as an agrarian society, of small communities, but the rapid technological advancements of the past two centuries have rewritten the vision. The American dream of upward mobility and greater economic independence has now inspired generations in the working class. This ideal of more more more has given birth to our age of consumerism. But the thing is, this has not lived up to the promise, those who do achieve find their success to be a hollow victory and those who do not will always be chasing the next fad.

Many believe more money and increased independence will make them happier. It started with men, the bread winner, leaving the home in the wee hours, with lunch pail in hand, working in the factories or mines, but since WW2 it has ‘progressed’ to include women. I mean, Rosie the Riveter, who started her life as cynical war propaganda tool, has taken root as women have both increase labor supply (driving down wages) and have also provided a generally more compliant workforce for our powerful corporate overlords.

The sad reality is that the rapid changes have not provided additional security for women. Women told that their significance can only come from following masculine pursuits are not any more empowered than their grandmothers a couple generations ago. Indeed, this idea that happiness comes earning more money or that empowerment comes from women filling traditionally male roles is the greatest myth of our time.

Worse, unlike husbands or children that have a real emotional connection to their wives or mothers, these corporate and government bosses only see women as ‘human resource’ to exploit. Sure, they might promote this idea and image of the emancipated woman, claim to care about rights, but it’s all a lie to keep women enslaved. We are made to think fulfillment comes from our next paycheck, but it’s all a ruse. The working class is benefitting less and less from their long hours, big corporations make record profits at our expense.

It is no big surprise that corporations are offering to pay for abortion and even the travel expenses. The bottom line is that they can’t make their huge profits without docile and compliant employees. It is simply much cheaper for them to end a pregnancy than it is for them to pay maternity leave benefits and potentially lose the services of a female employee forever. It is never actually about her well-being or the future of the nation, it is always about the parasitic self-serving elites and their political or financial interests.

The whole system is structured to downplay the most uniquely feminine contribution to our future and that being childbearing. Men cannot do this. Sadly, many women, due to corrupted patriarchy and various narratives designed to subdue her potential (climate change, overpopulation, etc.), have been convinced that their most wonderful asset, the ability to bring new life into the world, is a liability and that they should work for ‘the man’ rather than invest in the only ones who would ever truly love them.

Abortion is truly a result of female despair and not empowerment. It is a ‘choice’ that is brought about by insecurity, a fear of being alone raising a child or their own inadequacy, and stifles the real strength of women. The most insidious thing about this patriarchy is that it is sold as Feminism and freedom, but it is truly as denigrating of female achievement as the widely rejected traditional version of patriarchy. In this new order women are simply the lower cost, lower maintenance, rented mules to replace the poor immigrant men of a prior generation.

Unfortunately, many will realize too late that they’ve been fooled into giving up their youth to the soulless industrial machine. Women, in particular, with their narrower reproductive window, will carry regret as their only lasting reward for their academic excellence and being the employee of the month. No, not at all saying that we should not have a career, or that money is unimportant, it is nice to have financial freedom, but who will care for this current generation as they age?Communities and social structures, like marriage, things that provide stability, have faded. The patriarchy of corporate boards and government bureaucracies is only truly concerned with expanding their power or profits. Even if the intent isn’t explicitly to subjugate, this regime run by controlling men and women attempts to monopolize our choices. To corporate bosses even the competition of a baby is too much for them to handle, that’s why they promote and pay for abortion.

The Faithful/Healthy Patriarchy

Patriarchy gets a bad name because most people see the first two manifestations and not the ideal. There are patriarchs just like there are matriarchs, some are very good while others are very bad and, therefore, we must approach the topic with appropriate nuance to sort the better examples from the worse.

The ideal role of the patriarch is to use their male strength as a means to provide and protect. He is not a tyrant nor a pushover, he is never in competition with or threatened by a strong woman. Instead, he lifts everyone around him up, is the model of submission to authority and willing to sacrifice himself fully for the good of others. He is, like the Centurion commended for his faith, “a man under authority,” and a stark contrast to the abusive Patriarchalism of small men. This is an authority that comes through actions and example rather than through his physical stature, his feelings of entitlement or bellicose demands.

It is the way of Jesus, who both spoke with an authority not matched by the religious elites of his day and yet was also gentle to those of lower social status. In saying, “the last will be first, and first will be last,” (Matthew 20:16 NIV) Jesus points to an inverse hierarchial structure—one that is led by humility and repentance, defined love and faithfulness, rather the power to dominate others through brute force or disparaging comments:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
(Mark 10:42‭-‬45 NIV)

Men who do not lead by the self-sacrificial example of Jesus, who as a man equal to God still fully submitted to the will of the Father, are not worthy of their position and make a mockery of the leadership role. We live in an era where there are flamboyant displays of gender stereotypes, but none is more ridiculous or absurd than these grown little boys who try to dress themselves up as men and yet have nothing to offer the world besides shit posting on social media.

Some need the male genitalia dangling from their loud smoke spewing vehicles to try to prove what would otherwise be open to question, they call women whores for being single moms or sexually active (in a way that excludes them) and yet seem to forget for every sexual encounter there is another party involved. Women certainly do not impregnate themselves. And most women would not seek to terminate the life inside their womb if they were in a relationship with an emotionally secure and Godly man.

No, the alternative of soft and sanctimonious men is not better. The enablers of the current political establishment, who appease women in a desperate bid to gain sexual access, are just as much an embarrassment to masculinity as their fake tough guy ‘conservative’ counterparts.

Women could be fully actualized as women if men were adequately filling their role. No, this is not to say that women are incapable of sinning, of being power hungry or evil, but only to say that good men will be like Jesus and even take responsibility for sins that are not their own as a means to bring salvation to the most damaged individuals and lost sheep of this world. Sure, laws to protect the innocent and vulnerable are important, but they themselves cannot hold back the rising tide of self-centered abusive men and angry reactionary women.

True empowerment is about giving life, not in taking life. It is about creating, not controlling others. It is found in the soldier’s sacrifice and also in the woman who bravely and courageously carries her pregnancy to term in an uncertain world. Salvation came through Mary’s womb and was finished by the life-bearing Cross of Christ. Two plus two can become three when men and women both contribute to the whole, by selfless participation in the transcendent space of loving relationship. It is when two are brought together in spiritual union with the Divine that a new generation can find a good home.

The Feminist Plot Twist

My grandma, a firstborn (and her mother as well), I’ll always remember her as my fierce defender, giving grandpa a sharp rebuke after I came in crying having crossed gardening implements with him while defending an unauthorized dam project. She wielded her matriarchal authority well, always able to stand up to grandpa as need be and yet never in a demeaning or inappropriate way.

My mother, also a firstborn in her family, was always willing and able to plot her own course. She sent us to public school, after stopping in at a local Elementary school and feeling comfortable with the staff there, which is unusual in conservative Mennonite circles where everyone else was fleeing to the safe spaces of parochial and home school alternatives. She taught us to think and now, as a grandma, has helped to start a medical clinic, which she currently manages.

My eldest sister, a firstborn, was a trailblazer. To pursue her childhood dream of being a medical doctor, faced a strong headwind of conservative Mennonite cultural ideas as to the appropriate role of women. She was always an overachiever, set the bar impossibly high for me, she was all-state violin, she finished in the top tier of her class and did this as the child of two high school dropouts. Her academic success continued throughout her university years and into medical school. She now runs a pediatric clinic for Amish children with genetic disorders.

My little sister continues to impress. She has always been her own person, able to hold her own with three older siblings, and has also progressed with her own education. She’s a registered nurse and, more recently, a certified midwife. Petite and pretty, as she is, she is quite capable of speaking her mind and has always kept me honest in any kind of intellectual discussion. She is both sensitive and practical, feminine and fearless or at least she’s not afraid of snakes like I am.

The point is, I have always been surrounded by strong and independent women. Sure, my grandma, my mother, and both sisters (at least through their time in school) all dressed according to conservative Mennonite religious/cultural tradition. But this outward appearance did not mean they were oppressed, the women in my life would never allow it, and that’s how it should be.

Women Should Be Given Special Protection

One of the results of feminist backlash against patriarchal abuse is the idea that the differences between men and women are entirely a social construct rather than something of nature. Of course, this is in defiance of science and things that are easily observed. Men and women are physically different, that’s how we make the distinction at birth, and also slightly different in our natural programming.

Sure, not every woman wants a pink ribbon in her hair. We’re all unique individuals. And, absolutely, women can do the same mental and basic physical tasks as men. Women can be engineers, men can be hairdressers, and there’s nothing at all wrong with those who go against gender stereotypes. But, generally, when women are allowed to be women, and men are allowed to be men, there are distinct tendencies that emerge.

There is social conditioning or expectations pertaining to gender and yet it isn’t all a construct. Consider the fact that female athletes suffer more injuries, like ACL tears, due to their physiology or hormonal differences. Men do tend to be physically bigger. Women are also capable of doing something that a man can’t do. Women are generally better at some things and men are better at other things. It’s just our biology at work.

For this reason, absolute equality is not ideal. Female athletes may complain about unequal pay and yet none would want to compete on an equal field against men. Men would completely dominate female sports. There is no woman out there that would be able to beat the most elite men for their positions in professional or even collegiate sports. Take the UPenn swimmer who now identifies as a woman, allowed to compete in the NCAA women’s competition despite being born with male genitalia and competing as a man only a few years ago, who is now crushing women’s records.

Even on hormones, male genetics is an unfair advantage.

And that’s exactly why we have separate leagues for men and women.

I haven’t heard anyone say that the very existence of the WNBA is patriarchal and should be abolished in the name of equality, have you?

Women should be given special accommodations. They do have to contend with a different set of circumstances from men and thus should therefore be privileged in some situations. That’s why we have separate sports leagues, restroom facilities, among other things, to allow fairer competition, greater safety, and simply more opportunity for women. Protecting women is a matter of survival for the species.

The ‘Birkenhead Drill’ (otherwise known as “women and children first“) refers back to a tragic incident in 1852. The H.M.S. Birkenhead, a Royal Navy troopship, was sailing around the horn of Africa with 634 souls on board and collided with uncharted rocks. It began to take on water and was doomed to sink. In the chaos, where it was discovered that many of the lifeboats on the ship were unusable, the seven women and thirteen children were loaded onto the few functional emergency craft and lowered into the sea.

Originally the idea would have been to allow the men to jump overboard. However, anticipating that this might imperil the boats in the water, the commanding officer ordered his troops to “stand fast” rather than jump in, which they did—as the ship split in two and went under the waves they stood like good soldiers. This act of self-sacrificial courage does not make sense in an economy where all are equal. Why should these men have been expected to give their own lives for sake of women and children?

But the answer is quite simple. Both the womb and youthfulness represent the greater potential for our species. It is simply for sake of our collective survival, so that there is a next-generation to follow, that in these dire circumstances men instinctively know who is most valuable (usually of their own clan) and act accordingly. And thus, when there is no other way, a handful of women and children do indeed become worth the lives of hundreds of men. It’s a privilege of being a woman.

Statistical Disparities and Oversimplification

I have a new coworker. Other than experience, his qualifications are similar to my own and we perform many of the same tasks. I’m not actually sure what he gets paid, although I do know that it is probably different from the compensation that I receive. It could be more, could be less.

If it would turn out that this new colleague gets paid more than I do could we assume the reason?

Is it because he is taller than me?

Statistics do show that taller men, amongst the many privileges they have, do earn more on average than shorter men. This would make my pay deficit seem like an open and shut case of height discrimination, right? Except, it is not. There is a multitude of reasons why one employee could receive better compensation than another. Maybe he put more hours in? Perhaps he is better at negotiating in the hiring process? I mean, his height could help, who knows? But it is not a certainty and we would have to look into more variables before drawing our conclusions.

Unfortunately, when it comes to similar disparities elsewhere, like the differences in outcomes between genders, many will neglect multi-variant analysis and lock onto the most simplistic explanation. Relevant to this blog, if there aren’t as many female scientists, or there appears to be a pay gap between men and women, then this must be some sort of systemic bias against women, right? I mean, what else could it possibly be?

Of course, the possibilities are endless. No two jobs or people are alike. Assuming gender discrimination also neglects the possibility that most women may (for a variety of good reasons) choose to work fewer hours, be less assertive, or interested in promotion on average, than men with the same titles. I mean, perhaps there is more to their life than earning a paycheck? And, for the same reason, the lifestyle, most men wouldn’t truly want to be a CEO. A more demanding higher paying job simply is not desirable to most people.

Besides, there are other ways to gain wealth that doesn’t involve punching a time card. We often hear how women earn less. And yet somehow, despite this, women also make more consumer decisions and spend more than men. How are both of these things possible? Well, simply, there are other ways of obtaining resources other than going to the office. The wives of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, for example, did not become wealthy by their own market innovations or CEO-level workaholism.

Statistics show that women earn more college degrees, is that a result of systemic anti-male discrimination?

Equal Opportunity, Not Outcomes

A woman who wants a career should not be hindered. I believe that all people should be free to pursue what they see as best for them. There are women who are brilliant mathematicians, engineers, and scientists, they should be allowed to pursue an education and compete for employment like a man. That’s truly equal opportunity and fair.

What’s not fair is when institutions begin lowering standards to meet diversity quotas. Not only does that cheat those who are actually qualified and had to meet the higher requirements, but it will also produce a stigma that disqualifies the achievement of even for those who truly did earn their positions. The sad irony of a “diversity hire” (when someone gets the job because of their genitalia, skin color, or anything else not actually related to the work needing to be done) is that it only reinforces the negative stereotypes.

Not everyone is cut out to be an Olympic gymnast. It would make no sense to replace Simone Biles with a slightly overweight middle-aged male and, for the same reason, it is absolutely absurd to lower physical standards for sake of opening spots for women who would not qualify otherwise. It is not fair to individuals nor beneficial to the collective society to give some a free pass. Equality of effort and qualifications is as important as equality of opportunity, but equality of outcomes is impossible. I’m never going to land a triple-twisting double somersault. Ever. And that’s not because the system is stacked against me.

Differences in ability should not be thought of as being less valuable. Some can dance, others can carry a rucksack for twelve miles, I’m pretty sure I’m not up to either task at the moment, but I am a good friend and decent writer. None of those things are worth much in terms of monetary wealth and yet all things fulfilling in their own way. So who decides what is or is not valuable again? And is money truly the measure of value?

Money and Masculine Qualities Are Overvalued

One of the biggest lies of our time is that value is something that is measured in dollars and cents. I mean, sure, we need money to buy stuff and therefore the ability to obtain this resource is important. And yet there are many extremely wealthy and completely unhappy people. A big bank account does not provide the security, nor the sense of purpose in this world, that many seem to believe it will.

This is war propaganda, not female empowerment.

For that reason, it is sad to me to see so many people, women in particular, who seem to think that the rat race is what life is truly about. Modern parents seem to have decided the things they can provide are more important than their time together and shunt their children to daycare. It is unnatural, dare I say unhealthy (in that it robs children of a safe space) to outsource the next generation to low-wage workers. How did we get to this point where we would rather put our best efforts in for corporations, and those who would replace us in a second, over our own future?

Somehow we have become convinced that masculine interests and abilities are superior. The one thing that women can do, that is carry a child in their womb, is treated as something unimportant or second-rate rather than as the most wonderful of things. Our forebears were wiser, they understood what “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand the rules the world” and the incredible power of the nurturing mother. But, now, instead of men and women complementing each other, working to their own strengths, and being valued for unique their roles, we have them competing for the same spot.

Who sold us this bill of goods and why?

Without a doubt, women have faced patriarchal abuse and discrimination. But is the answer really to this really to measure success in terms of career and raw income earning potential? Is it really empowering women to tell them that their own unique abilities, as women, do not matter and political power is everything? I mean, it’s a lie. I have no deep love for any politician out there, not even those I’ve voted for, but have endless appreciation for my mother and would die for Charlotte. This idea that somehow money and political power are everything is cancer.

The Feminist Plot Twist

Feminism is a term invented by a man, Charles Fourier, trying to enlist women to his utopian socialist political cause. To use people politically, one divides them up into competing identity groups, feeds their discontentment, tells them they would be better-if [insert simplistic political solution to complex issue] and then can pretty much steer the resulting angry mob where ever they need it to be.

The problem with political ideologies is that they externalize responsibility for our happiness. In other words, it is an idea that if only an external obstacle, like the patriarchy, were removed (through political action) then we would finally have that wonderful life we hoped for. This is not empowering. Perpetual victimhood or continual discontentment due to external circumstances is the most debilitating of human conditions.

Women are less happy today than they were in the ‘patriarchal’ past.

Furthermore, it is always false hope, intentionally so, because the ‘revolution’ must always be ongoing, the war against “toxic masculinity” or whatever scary new Boogeyman they come up with can’t end. Your happiness is always in the future and completely depends on the leaders of the movement. The solution will always be out there. It is a promise to keep you pulling the ideological cart they’ve concocted and never leads to your true empowerment.

There will always be things unfair or outside of our control. I’m not a woman, I’ll never be a woman, but I do know that all my complaints about height discrimination and the invisible barrier to my own success never got me anywhere. And truly, once disappointment festered and self-pity took root, I could’ve had all the opportunity, all the money or power imaginable, everything that I had ever craved thinking it would bring fulfillment and still not found a source of happiness.

Contentment is an inner state, a spiritual manifestation, and not a matter of external circumstances. The problem with feminism is the problem with any political ideology and that is that it will never bring fulfillment or happiness. Women have gained voting rights, a higher percentage of women graduated college than men, and yet are more unhappy than ever despite this century of feminist progress.

Could it be that a truly empowered person (male or female) is one that doesn’t measure their own success by how they compare to others?

Could it be that fulfillment comes from losing ourselves, our competing identities, in the service of others, and something greater than our gender?

Contentment is strength, giving is empowered

The feminist plot twist is that the ideology serves those who don’t truly want strong women and merely use discontentment for their own political gain. Women are simply another pawn to thrown at their ideological enemies and only appreciated when they’re useful to their socialist masters. It is worse than patriarchalism because it has convinced many women that their unique abilities are worthless and being more like a man will bring happiness. It has not and will never empower women.

Breaking Down Identities

The other day I was filling out a survey and came to the questions about my race and gender. I paused for a second, “what am I today?” And decided to select what applied to me in that moment, which is the answer that I would typically use when asked those questions, and yet continued to ponder this question of identities.

I understand why these categories exist, we do have tendencies and traits as a part of a demographic group. Generalities and stereotypes certainly do have some basis in reality and I won’t deny that. However, what makes me bristle a bit is what this grouping too often does to relationships across category lines. It is divisive, it robs us our uniqueness as individuals and also puts us at odds with those deemed to be different from us.

It is too black and white. Too simplistic and encourages a distorted picture of reality in emphasizing that one similarity we share in common (or one difference we have) over everything else. The labels themselves are even dumb. I’m not actually white. My skin is a shade of brown. Furthermore, I probably only ever started identifying as white because someone told me to fill in that box as a child and I mindlessly complied.

The idea of “whiteness” is a social construct and has come to mean much more than it ever did before. Now some claim that everything from work ethic and politeness to mathematics is somehow a part of being white. Which is appalling ignorance, unexcusable, given the contributions of people of all skin shades and cultural backgrounds to civilization as we know it. All people should be offended by that nonsense.

I had a classmate, a Jamaican immigrant, brilliant at math, well-spoken, very polite, the son of an engineer or university professor as I recall. And, by the current color obsessed paradigm, he’s more ‘white’ than I am. It is a backhanded insult to the many, like him, who have natural talents that don’t fit within the narrow categories or grievance culture narratives of the racially prejudiced left.

Which is the crux of the matter. I hate these categories because they lie. As Mark Twain quipped, “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Sure one color group may, collectively, produce more elite athletes, another more classical musicians, and another mathematicians. But those group statistics tell you absolutely nothing about individuals nor why some individuals achieved these outcomes.

Much being attributed to color is actually culture. In Europe, in Africa, in Asia, and America, there are as many cultures as their are shades of skin color. Some European regions are known for their industriousness and superior engineering, others for their laid-back attitude and art. The same is true of Asian cultures. The same is true of African people. So how do we know color has anything to do with these differences?

The two biggest lies of our time…

1) The myth that skin color is synonymous with culture.

2) The myth that group statistics determine individual outcomes.

Yes, there may be some statistical correlations between certain behaviors and skin color categories. But that doesn’t mean that what applies to one of a certain category applies to all. For example, many women love pink, but that doesn’t mean the most or even many women are fond of that color. My younger sister defies many of those sort of feminine associated things, she’s not afraid of any critter, has reptiles for pets, and that does not make her less of a woman than those who freak out at the sight of a spider.

Correlation is not equal to causation. And the late George Floyd has more in common with me, as a working class schlub, than he does with the Harvard educated, son of a privileged WASP mother, who calls himself Barack Obama. It’s true. Look it up. One half of Obama’s lineage is as Yankee as you can get, a great great […] grandfather being the first to build a gristmill in the State of New Jersey, back in the 1600s, later elected to the state Congress.

It is a complete farce that a coal cracker kid, raised in rural West Virginia, is advantaged over a college educated “person of color” working as a Wall Street broker. Nah, I’ve been around, I know how the cultural elites sneer at ‘deplorables’ and work overtime to make sure that they know their place. Class privilege is often misidentified as color privilege and misidentified by the very people who benefit most from spreading out the blame for their own sins.

The son or daughter of an immigrant wage-slave has more in common with the ‘black’ category than the trust fund babies of any color pointing the crooked finger. This is what grates me the most. In the real world blacks and whites work together. Out on the road, hauling commodities for the man, I swung the sledgehammer as much as that ‘black’ fellow beside me.

So do I really need my prissy, Che Guevara T-shirt wearing sociology professor cousin, son of a doctor, who could somehow afford to travel the world taking photos while I worked for $7.50 an hour, lecturing me on things that I don’t understand as a white male?

No, no I do not!

Those who associate certain outcomes or behaviors with certain colors of skin, who only ever see skin color in their analysis, are the true racists. There is a stronger correlation between fatherless homes and negative outcomes than there is between skin color and negative outcomes. In other words, things commonly categorized as a color privilege is more strongly correlated with family structure.

Look into mass shooters.

Not at all excusing their violence, but many of them were estranged from their fathers, struggled to fit in, and it is hard not to see this as being an insignificant factor in their outcomes.

Think about that when discussion of privilege comes up.

Unfortunately, there is not much to be gained as far as political power in a “the fatherless unite!” campaign. Racial division, by contrast, is an easy sell. Skin color, indeed, is the low hanging fruit of human difference. Tribalism comes naturally, all you need to do is convince people that they are somehow fundamentally different because of something superficial and their confirmation bias will do the rest of the work for you.

Breaking the Bonds of Designated Identities

I’m not going to minimize the importance of life experience and family inheritance in shaping our identities. I was born into a conservative Mennonite home and that identity was very important to me. In public school it made me a religious minority, subjected me to many inquiries, what would now be called micro-aggressions, and some bullying later in life too.

The strange part is that, while being the Mennonite kid amongst my school peers, I never really felt like I fit in with my ethic church peers either. After years of rejections, both in romantic endeavors and even as far as filling offices or missionary opportunities. Finding my place, complete acceptance, within the Mennonite culture had eventually become an obsession. I desperately wanted to be the good Mennonite for reasons that I can’t fully explain.

That pursuit came to an end with a young woman who declared, “I can’t love you the way that you want to be loved.”

Mercifully, over the same time, a truly fatherly figure, Fr. Anthony, an Antiochian priest and college professor, took me under his wing to help me through this collapse of my Mennonite identity that had left me with a meaningless existence and suicidal.

I had to break from my ethnic and religious identity because I had no other choice. It was not pleasant. I loved, and still do love, many parts of the Mennonite culture. My parents are wonderful. My church was not one of those Pharisaical nightmares all too common in that denomination. But, as Fr Anthony offered, maybe I had simply “outgrown” the tradition.

And, truly, in Christ, we are all called to a higher common identity:

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:26‭-‬29 NIV)

St. Paul, in the context of the tumultuous days of the early church, spent much time addressing the many competing identities within the church. He took on the religious elitists, bluntly telling them to castrate themselves in one letter, and spoke up for those being excluded on a class or ethnic basis. That’s what he’s doing in the passage above, emphasizing that in Christ we can all be “children of God” and share one identity together.

The astounding part is that the church then, like the church now, still struggles on this point. Even in the conservative Mennonite church, where we were basically all from the same ethic and cultural background, there were definitely tiers of acceptance. Some simply check more of the ‘right’ boxes, are more popular, find the beautiful adoring wife, have all the opportunities, work their way up the ranks quickly and others not so much. In short, the words to the Galatians are as relevant now as were then.

Christian Identity Makes Difference Beautiful

One of Mennonite cultural distinctives that I had rejected early on is that of uniformity as a part of Anabaptist non-conformity teaching. My own church wasn’t nearly as strict as some. But there is an undercurrent, undeniably, that if a girl talks more than average she’s a “flirt” or a motorhead guy with a nice car was somehow materialistic compared to a wealthy business owner with three farms. Pity the artistic types in those churches more traditional than mine.

By contrast, an Orthodox Christian friend, gave this wonderful description: The church is like a garden, full of different plants and plants, all watered by the same source.

That is the ideal.

Unity in Christ is not about erasing all differences. Galatians 3:28 is not turning us into an androgynous ‘multi-cultural’ blob of completely equal outcomes. Jesus was not a Communist. Having “all things in common” was not about forced wealth redistribution or reparations. Certainly not about getting mine. Rather it was about bringing our diversity of talents and abilities, bonded together as the body and blood of Christ, to the church.

Diversity can be a strength. Not talking about superficial skin deep token ‘diversity’ achieved through quotas either. Instead, what I love is those of many colors, many backgrounds and classes, working voluntarily towards a common goal, having found a shared identity that transcends all others and allows the entire group to reach full potential. Competing identities keep us in conflict, but through Christ we could create the most beautiful harmonies.

In the end we must free ourselves from identities that keep us at war with each other. However, that is not something we do ourselves. There are many misguided efforts. Many are embracing divisive political ideologies, like critical race theory, that will only produce more hate and mistrust. Condemning “whiteness” or heaping praise on “people of color” and otherwise playing favorites on those currently deemed to be victims is never going to do anything besides add to the confusion.

Only in Christ, in repentance, in faith, can our differences in gender, culture, color or class be something beautiful.

Missing Mennonites and Misallocation of Care

I recall my tears shed after the Nickel Mines school massacre, an incident where a man decided to take his disgruntlement out on some Amish girls, shooting them in the head one by one, before taking his own life. They were targeted, no doubt, for their innocence and vulnerability, what normal person would not be deeply troubled by such horrendous thing?

My emotion was wholly appropriate, especially for someone living in Lancaster County at the time, and yet was quite a bit different from my response to other very similar incidents. For example, when a deranged individual slaughtered dozens at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I did not shed a tear. I can’t tell you exactly why that is, it was very similar to the public school that I had attended and a child is a child, but somehow I was simply more removed from the tragedy and had to contemplate why I would value the Amish girls higher than those other children.

Of course, the key to understanding this is my identity: 1) I was born and raised Mennonite, 2) the Amish are the slightly more peculiar religious cousins of Mennonites and, 3) as someone with an Amish surname, they are actual (albeit distant) cousins in my case. Sure, I had never met those girls nor did I know their particular families, but I could certainly identify with their culture. I could see something of my own childhood, of my family and of my religious identity in them, I mourned my own loss of innocence as much as their suffering a terrible evil.

Sandy Hook, by contrast, while tragic and as terrible, involved people who were less connected to me and thus my reaction was more muted. It just was not as personal to me and therefore I did not feel the same depth of pain. Had I known a child in the school my reaction would have been quite a bit different and perhaps a bit more like the day the child of a close friend died—that is simply the reality of our limited human perspective: One death, if it is made personal to us, will overrule the millions worldwide who have died in similar circumstances.

“A single death is a tragedy; A million deaths is a statistic.”

For Better Or Worse, Nobody Loves Everyone

Many Americans, back in the days when bumper stickers were more common, had “God bless America” message stuck to the backs of their automobile. It was one of those ways a person could show their care for all of their American neighbors and regardless of party affiliation, religious identity, country of origin or gender. Nearly all reading that message (given that it was displayed on American soil and not shared worldwide) shared that same identity and thus should have felt equally blessed by the message.

However, there is that small, but hyper-competitive segment of the population, who (like Topper in the Dilbert cartoon above) simply can’t appreciate what other people appreciate and are determined to outdo their neighbors with their superior virtue. It is that spirit that seems to be behind the bumper stickers in retort to the “God bless America” variety, and proclaiming with great piety: “God bless the whole world, no exceptions!”

Of course, that “no exceptions” part at the end is necessary in case their less sophisticated neighbors, who only expressed love for those actually present and able to read the message, wouldn’t catch the drift.

It has made me wonder, does that same person never tell their spouse or significant other that they love them specifically?

Wife: “I love you, Barry!”

Husband: “I love all women, including you!”

Nothing smug or sanctimonious about that, nope, nothing at all demeaning of the other person either, it is simply a man with a far bigger love than that which can be exclusively reserved for one particular woman and is therefore extended to all women in the world.

Right…

Anyhow, I question if someone who claims to love everyone actually loves anyone.

Yes, certainly, the “God so loved the world” of John 3:16 doesn’t exclude anyone. We are also told that following after Jesus means that our loyalties to our family are secondary (Luke 14:26) to our calling to bring God’s love to the world. Still, we are also told that a man who doesn’t provide for his own family is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8) and also see love expressed for particular groups and individuals. So God loving the world doesn’t mean that our own love is not especially for some. In fact, while we are instructed to do good to all people, there is also special emphasis given:

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Galatians 6:9‭-‬10 NIV)

Love starts locally. Loving our neighbors means caring about those who cross our paths, preferring those right in front of us over some theoretical duty to all of humanity that is never made manifest in real life. In the story of the good Samaritan, remember, it was those who were too important or thinking of responsibilities down the road, who didn’t attend to the suffering soul beside the path of their greater ambitions. In other words, it is the simpleton, with heart, who stops to help you jump start your car and not the self-important pretentious snob, with a global vision and yet can’t see what is right in front of them.

Bottom line: It is good to love those who are close to us and even to prefer investing in those who, like us, are members of the household of faith. If a person cannot especially love their neighbors across the street, whom they have met, then how could they possibly love those whom they have never met around the world?

For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. (1 John 4:20‭ NIV)

Of Igorot and Mennonite Tribes…

When uncle Roland, a man I had met during my stay in the Philippines, disappeared and was later found murdered in an empty lot, the call for justice went out across social media. It spread like wildfire amongst a certain part of the Filipino population and that being the members of his Igorot tribe. The amazing part is that this collective effort very quickly located the stolen van and only potential lead for this vicious crime. The people who located the van? They were Igorots too, they happened to be on holiday in the “low lands” and spotted the abandoned vehicle.

Mennonites, like Igorots, also take notice when one of their own is missing or harmed. There have been several cases over the past few years that have exploded across the Mennonite online community and made a few individuals into household names. I mean who, in the Menno-sphere, can forget that young married couple, Marco and Mary Ann Kauffman, his life cut tragically short by home invader? Or the disappearance, and later reappearance, of Rodney Sweigart? When a Mennonite is in trouble it is natural that others of their religious tribe, even those who have moved on, respond with extra care and concern.

I was reminded of this once again when I could not resist sharing the story of a young woman, Sasha Krause, who vanished from a Mennonite outpost in Farmington, New Mexico.

Dozens of similar posts about missing persons have crossed my newsfeed, there is likely very little that my sharing (as someone on the other end of the country) will do to help, and yet there is this sort of tribal solidarity that compels me to take an interest, to be somehow involved and share. This young woman could as easily be my sister, my cousin, or any of the number of young Mennonite women whom I know and care about.

Tribal identities, like family identities, are a good thing in that they provide individuals with the protection of a group. The world we live in can be a very rough place and not a place that is very easily navigated alone. We, in the developed world, have a wide range of social programs that attempt to fill individual needs, but the best efforts that government put forward rarely come close to what can be offered by a community of those who share a religious, cultural or tribal identity in common. We have finite resources and prefer to distribute them amongst those who share our common biological heritage or cause.

The Two-edged Sword of Tribally Allocated Care…

Both Jesus and St Paul showed a heightened concern for those who shared their religio-cultural background. They certainly did not hold back in terms of criticism. In fact, their commentary on their Jewish people could be very easily misconstrued into anti-Semitism and very soon was quickly used that way once the Scripture became a subject of individual interpretation in the wake of the Protestant movement in Europe.

Likewise, when a concern goes viral on social media, especially when it involves a particular religious minority group, the feedback can quickly turn very negative. Prejudice can rear its ugly head, those with an ax to grind see an opportunity to promote their own grievances. There are always those who had an unfortunate encounter with that particular tribal group and it was the only bad thing that ever happened to them. So, in the minds of these offended folks, that tribe has become the root of all evil and representative of everything bad in the world. Those full of toxic bitterness will, in the guise of empathy and concern, sow their seeds of destruction.

Very rarely does publicly broadcast dirty laundry do much good when it comes from a tribal outsider without a real or personal connection to those involved. When you leave a tribe you pretty much lose any credibility within the tribe, you have made yourself an outsider by rejecting the group identity and therefore your opinion does not need to be taken seriously by the in-group anymore. To those in that in-group you will be viewed with suspicion, as an external threat to their group cohesion, and summarily dismissed. I’m not saying that is how it should be, that’s just how it is, people do not like judgments coming in from the outside and react defensively in most cases.

Tribal identities very often come with tribal obligations. Those who are showered with concern from within the tribe, even those who did not ask for it, in many cases are expected to give something back in return. Tribes have a sort of “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” arrangement that can go terribly wrong when the devotion to an individual from the tribe does not match the commitment that is reciprocated or vice versa. Feeling betrayed by your own is some of the deepest pain a person can feel. Indeed the world is a very lonely place for those who have been neglected or abandoned by those whom they expected would love them.

But, worse than that, tribes, while easily able to spot sin in all other tribes, too often shelter their own abusers or never see their own shortcomings as a group. Some tribes will, too often, send into exile those who dare to confront or challenge their status quo of the group. This is one thing Mennonites and motorcycle gangs have in common, albeit in different forms, the criminals enforce a “snitches get stitches” code” and too often Christian denominations misallocate forgiveness (for only those who have learned how to exploit their system) rather than follow the order of St Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:13: “Expel the wicked person from among you!”

There is also something more insidious when tribes become too insular or only concerned with protecting their own and that being their lack of care for those that are outside of their identity group. This misallocation of care is up last on my list, but it is certainly not the least as far as things that should concern a Christian.

Tribal Misallocation of Care…

I understand why people prefer their own families and tribes. It is something we are biologically hardwired to do. Religions are forced to hijack familial language, like “brother” and “sister,” in reference to fellow members in hopes of capturing that level of relationship within their ranks.

I’ve observed (and years before a book with “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria“ in the title) that my high school cafeteria would segregate along racial lines.

Tribalism has long frustrated me as a force of division and strife. What side of the OJ Simpson case someone came out on, for example, had much to do with a person’s race. The evidence available was the same, yet 67% of black Americans (polled in 1995) thought Simpson was innocent while a vast majority of whites saw him as guilty, that gap has since narrowed. But what that shows is how our perspectives are skewed by our tribal identities and the potential for terrible injustice this presents. The same is true of other identity divisions, such as gender or political affiliation, we tend to see only what is good for our tribe.

Over the past few years wished that I could somehow harness some of the tribal love that is on display in the various GoFundMe campaigns involving one identity group or another. An American, with the right group connections, can easily raise thousands or even hundreds of thousands and despite having insurance, government programs, etc. Meanwhile, a far greater need overseas will often only get a mediocre response because the people don’t look like us, we don’t know them, or simply cannot identify with their struggles being too far removed. That and, given the number of scams out there, we can’t trust outsiders.

Still, we should consider those less fortunate, those less fortunate than the unfortunate members of our own tribes, and love them too. That is the greater implications of Christian love, that our love will erase some of those disparities in care. If we truly believe Galatians 3:28, that “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female,” and that we (as a church) “are all one in Christ Jesus,” then will we ever be satisfied with misappropriation of care based in those listed identities? Can a person be a feminist, a nationalist or an activist for lessor identity groups and a Christian?

When a Mennonite goes missing or is harmed it is easy to understand why other Mennonites take special notice. The idea of having equal love for all of humanity, even those whom you never met, is silliness. That said, when our tribal identities mean indifference or lack of equal empathy for other people whom we encounter who are outside of our group, then we are also putting our Christian identity second. It means we have made an idol of ourselves, our own identity, and should consider the words of Jesus:

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. (Luke 6:32‭-‬34 NIV)

Tribal Expansion…

Love starts locally, it means loving our own tribes. We must learn to love our own, those close to us are sometimes the most difficult to love or hardest to hold accountable. We should love our Trump-supporting neighbors as much as we love the Congolese refugee, the Democrat party loyalist as much as we do the unborn. Christian love has a global reach, it must reach across partisan lines, and should always make us wish to expand the borders of our tribe.

I believe Jesus would weep as much for Muslim children killed by a drone strike as I did for those Amish girls. God loves the missing or exploited Filipino worker overseas, who is only known by their family, as much as the Mennonite online community hopes for the safe return of Sasha Krause. We have our favorites, but God does not.

Christian love, in purest form, turns a world full of misfits and outsiders into one family where everyone belongs and nobody is left behind.

Is Traditional Masculinity Toxic?

I’ve been extremely critical of abusive men in my blogs, taking on things like blame-shifting, patriarchal and purity cultures. Men who use their natural strengths or positions of authority to take advantage of others are reprehensible and should be called out for their abuses of power.

That all said, I’ve shied-away from using the term “toxic masculinity” to describe male abuses and my reasons for hesitation were confirmed in the past few weeks when the American Psychological Association (APA) claimed that traditional masculinity is harmful and lumped it together with murder, bullying and other toxic behaviors.

This is not an overgeneralization. No, it seems to be a part of broader misandry campaign and, at very least, is a complete misdiagnosis of the problem. It would be like pulling out crime statistics for a particular racial demographic and applying them as criticism to all within that group. That, of course, is stereotyping and unfair to the many who do not fit the broad brush of statistics.

It is true that men, as a category of gender, do dominate statistics for violent crime. However, what is not true is that all men are equally guilty and should be judged on the basis of the bad examples. The vast majority of men have not murdered, raped or otherwise act violently and would never excuse such behavior. I say this as someone who has been around men his entire life: Most men that I know aim to be protectors, not predators.

The Protector and the Predator…

A few weeks ago, before the APA taking aim at traditional masculinity (and an ill-advised Gillette ad) became a topic of conversation, I had started to write a blog to describe two distinct but related categories of male behavior—the predator vs. the protector—and what makes the difference.

The first category (and the one rightfully called toxic) is that of the predatory male. The predatory man is only concerned about his own wants or needs and will use any power he is given to exploit others for his own gain. This includes men who use religion or other means to manipulate others for their own personal gain and especially those who are coercive in pursuit of sexual gratification.

For example, the boyfriend who pressures his girlfriend into sex. I can understand, with teenage hormones raging, that waiting for sex is not easy for a passionate man and know this from personal experience. But there is simply no excuse for the young man who believes his natural urges entitle him. The young man who makes his commitment to relationship contingent on her compliance with his premarital sexual desires (ie: “If you love me, then you will…”) is a predator.

By contrast, the second category, the protective male, consists of men who use their strengths and abilities to serve others. This is not a man without desires. A protective man is tempted to serve his own needs and wants like anyone else. However, a protector is one who chooses to resist any evil or exploitative impulses and follows an example of self-sacrificial love instead. The protective man is even willing to give his own life for the good of others.

Traditional Masculinity Is Not Toxic…

As long as there have been appetites and differentials in power there have been abuses. Much of human behavior has to do with instincts, it is why we breathe, why we seek food to eat and why we desire companionship. This isn’t something that needs to be trained, we observe similar behavior in animals, and is natural.

There is no concern for morality with animals and in the natural world. When a lion, acting on predatory instincts, stalks, pursues and takes down it’s prey, this is not a cause for consternation. We understand that this and “survival of the fittest” is part of life and even how biological life thrives. If predators were removed, as they have found out in Yellowstone Park after wolves were reintroduced, everything in an ecosystem is thrown out of balance and deteriorates.

A young buck does not need any training to be overcome by hormones, to pursue a doe, fight off the competition, and do his thing whether the female consents or not. His sexual aggression is just part of his natural composition, it is not a choice, he is as controlled by his biological impulses as much as the female is subdued by his physical strength and stamina. We cannot make a moral judgment of a creature incapable of moral reasoning or choice.

However, human society works differently and notions of morality are used to push back against some of our baser instincts. Part of this push back has come in the form of tradition. In fact, our traditional morality, that arose in conjunction with religion, formed to provide protection against predatory behaviors. It is Christian religious tradition that has promoted the idea that behavior is a choice and therefore men, unlike deer, should be held accountable for what they do.

Traditional masculinity is not responsible for the toxic behavior of men who choose to act on their most vile and violent imaginations. Quite the opposite. It was the traditional men in my life who taught me to respect boundaries, to save sex for a marital commitment and to offer my life as a sacrifice to the world. It is traditional masculinity that has stood as a protector against predatory animals and opposed to toxic (or what we would traditionally call immoral) behavior.

With Every Strength There Is Weakness…

I would be remiss to claim that everything the APA says about masculinity is baseless. Men so tend towards certain and some of those behaviors are definitely harmful. However, it is one thing to say that men should not bury their emotions nor ever excuse behavior that is harmful to other people or even themselves. It is quite another thing to declare: “…traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.”

First of all, there is the question of what traditional masculinity is and if it is truly defined by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression—I would argue that it is not. Second, those characteristics also are part of a two-sided coin, one side positive and the other negative, where stoicism becomes loving restraint, competitiveness is a drive to provide, dominance is an urge to explore (pursue science, innovation, etc) and aggression is merely assertiveness.

Not just that, but those things listed are not all bad in and of themselves. In an age where we are constantly told to embrace diversity, tolerance, and inclusion, on what basis can we declare something to be “on the whole” harmful?

I mean, what is really wrong with some friendly competition, say a game of basketball or a Poker (Rook, if you’re Mennonite) tournament, where everyone gets the exercise or thrill of the experience—despite there being a winner and a loser?

It is a sad day when we can’t discern the difference between a harmless playful tussle between boys and harmful bullying behavior. It is an even sadder day when the negative expressions of masculinity are used as a basis to bash the very thing that channels natural male qualities in a socially beneficial and positive direction. It is traditional masculinity that has long urged young men to use their physical strength and competitive nature to make the world a better place for all people and we have succeeded.

The inability of the APA to see traditional masculinity in a more nuanced and balanced way will likely do more much more harm than any good it accomplishes. It is, in effect, an attempt to bully young men, through quasi-intellectual means, into compliance with their own prejudiced worldview and expectations. They fail to see the good in their focus on the bad and have done a disservice, and not only to traditionally masculine men but also to their own profession and all people.

Everyone Is Hurt When Good Men Are Destroyed…

My conservative Mennonite father, the embodiment of traditional masculinity, gave me an example of a man who didn’t use his emotions as an excuse to lash out. This ‘stoicism’ was for the benefit of not only my mother, myself and my siblings, it was also for the men who worked with him. There are many men today who do not exercise this kind of restraint, they become screaming tyrants when things do not go their way and have neglected the tradition of my father, his fathers and our Father:

My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. […] Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:19‭-‬20‭, ‬26‭-‬27 NIV)

The tragedy of this new targeting of traditional masculinity is exactly the opposite of what is needed in the world. It is the lack of traditionally masculine role models that has led to more toxic behavior in young men. It is not a coincidence that mass shooters come from fatherless homes. Indeed, fatherlessness is a more reliable predictor of future poverty than race and is linked to many negative outcomes for both male and female children.

The real crisis in this country is not traditional masculinity, the real crisis is the lack of traditional masculine role models that often leads to harmful and self-destructive behavior. The real truth is that traditional values have been under assault for a long time now and we are reaping a crop of toxic behavior as a result. But those who are responsible for this destruction, rather than admit their mistake, have decided to double-down and continue to punish the wrong people.

Traditional masculinity is to serve as a protector and provider, the man who looks after the widows and orphans, as James implores. It is the man who reads and obeys the instruction of John the Baptist to soldiers, in Luke 3:14—and doesn’t use his physical strength to extort or do violence to others. He is a man who follows after Jesus who treated women (including his mother) with absolute respect and told men to serve others rather than exploit them:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25‭-‬28 NIV)

To conflate toxic behavior with traditional masculinity is not only frustrating to the men who are least deserving of rebuke—it is also convenient cover for abusers and those truly guilty of toxic behavior. Good men do not need to become the scapegoats for predators, but rather need to be appreciated and encouraged to continue to live a healthy and traditional masculine example.

Toxic Behavior Need Not Be Coupled With Masculinity…

I had never liked the term “toxic masculinity” and long suspected that those behind the wording (not the average users of the term) were targeting masculinity itself as much as anything else. But now the cat is out of the bag, the APA and others are lumping my father in with the wolf-whistlers, womanizer’s and Weinstein’s, and I’ve had enough.

My father is not perfect, but he’s not toxic for his traditional masculinity either…

My father spending some toxically masculine time with his grandchildren…

We can and should distinguish between traditional masculinity and toxic behavior. No, that does not mean we bury our heads in the sand and pretend all problems with men started with the social upheaval of the 1960s nor should we deny the reality that extreme expressions of what could be called traditional masculinity are bad. But the extremes of anything are often unhealthy and yet we are able to delineate one from the other.

Furthermore, women can be predatory and violent too. It is true that men are statistically more likely, as a general category, to be violent, but women also can be self-centered and abusive as well. Women, however, often prey on children or other women, usually in less visible or openly violent ways—like destroying reputations through gossip, cyber-bullying or other passive-aggressive means.

And, ironically enough, while reading the sanctimonious blather about toxic masculinity another article popped up on my news feed, “Video shows group of women allegedly trying to attack food court employees…”

What?!?

Do we call that toxic feminity and blame traditional female expectations?

Sorry Gillette, APA and all others condemning what you do not truly know, but your campaign is picking the wrong target. Traditional masculinity, at least in a Christian cultural context, has Jesus Christ as the ultimate example and not Bruce Willis.

Traditional masculinity is not the problem, immoral behavior is the problem and women are not guiltless when it comes to sin. We all, male or female, need to repent of our selfish instincts and change our bad behavior to good.

So let’s target the bad behavior, not the gender!

Discipleship: One Size Fits (Not) All

Genetic research is a burgeoning field of study. It reveals the complexity of our physical form in a new way and also my own unique DME genotype.

For years medication was designed as a one size fits all solution. However, how my body responds to a medication and how your body responds to the same dosage could be vastly different. Not all people are created equal when it comes to their genetics.

One of those differences is DME genotype. DME is an abbreviation that stands for drug metabolism enzyme. Most drugs are designed to be metabolized through by a certain set of enzymes.

There are now labs that test genotype for drug compatibility. Some of us are “poor metabolizers,” others are “intermediate metabolizers,” and on the far end of the scale are the “ultra-rapid metabolizers.”

The implications are huge and there might be a day when drugs will be tailor made to suit our own unique individual body chemistry. Unfortunately, until that day, we are stuck using drugs that are like misfitting hand-me-downs.

Are people created as spiritual clones?

People are genetically diverse and different. We understand that and it is a reason to test before assigning drug prescriptions to treat people. But do we apply that same idea spiritually?

One thing I have noticed in my reading the Bible is that no two people were the same. The similarity of Biblical characters was not one of having the exact same spiritual journey or experience. Their strengths varied, as did their weaknesses, they also had a wide range of spiritual experiences, life challenges and gifts. The unifying factor of all was simply faith in God.

Take Abraham, for example, he was an old nomad wandering without an heir until God made him a promise. His transformative spiritual experience came late in life. He messed up in his attempt to reconcile the reality of his situation with what God told him and tried to do things his own way by impregnating a woman not his wife. But ultimately, despite his mistakes, he served the purpose God had designated for him and was blessed richly for it.

David was a young man, he was looked over as a leader for his age and sidelined to tend the sheep. But later he become symbolic of courageous faith to a nation for his slaying of Goliath. He went on to live a life full of missteps, he endured personal tragedy (as a result of his own corrupt deeds) and still ended up a hero of faith at the end of his story. He was described as a man after God’s own heart in the book of Acts.

Women, from prostitutes like Rehab to queens like Esther, from Deborah the warrior-judge to deaconesses to desperate widows, played their own unique roles in the Biblical faith narrative. They were all faithful in different ways, some were courageous women who shouldered tremendous tasks, some hospitable to prophets in keeping their homes and others were mothers who were favored by God.

Some of the strongest examples of faith were from those who were raised in captivity. They were exposed at a young age to the best of what a worldly king could offer and yet chose faith in God over the pleasures of princely wealth. Daniel, those three guys with long weird names who survived unscathed after being thrown in a furnace, and Moses who later led his people, are all examples of extraordinary faith.

Some of the worse cases of unbelief were found in those steeped in Biblical tradition who rejected Jesus. Their religious devotion and diligent study of Scripture did not save them. They were outwardly images of righteousness, they had all the knowledge of theology they knew to have and still missed the truth badly. Allegiance to rules and roles produced hypocrites.

What does this mean for established rules and roles?

The idea that spiritual journeys must follow a set pattern or time frame does not fit with the Biblical pattern. Yes, the Bible probably does make more mention of the exceptional characters and there were many faithful besides who were less the exception. There certainty are statistical averages of people too, but there is no average person and that is the lie of statistics.

Men, on average, are physically stronger and also born with other strengths over women. Women, on the other hand, also have their own unique strengths and abilities that make them generally superior to men in some areas. That is what makes men and women a natural pair—they are complimentary (or stronger together) because they are different rather than the same.

People of the same gender also, while having some obvious similarities, are very different. Paul alludes to this diversity often in his letters to the church. In 1 Corinthians 12 he draws a vivid analogy between the church and a human body. He compares people with different parts of the body that are reserved for unique purposes. He was illustrating that their could be unity (and strength) in our differences when we are connected together by a same love.

It reminds me of the “united we stand” attitude of post 9/11 or the “unite or die” flag of the American Revolution:

We understand nations do not survive if they are too divided. We also understand that an economy without diversity of talents and diversity of contributions is probably not going to be very strong. Thriving depends on cooperation between different parts rather than strict legalistic conformity. But is that logic applied to the church as a collection of its individual parts?

The unity of the church was supposed to be built around common love and faith, not on absolute monochromatic sameness of personality and perspectives. The church has unfortunately segregated by ethnicity, economic status, education, extremes of liberalism or conservativism, and along many other dividing lines of application. In our division we miss an opportunity to see our full potential as a body. Sadly, many seem to prefer images of themselves and doing things their own way over a commitment to love as Jesus loved.

Too often we create rules (or roles) to serve our own preferences rather than our fellows. Many complex religious rationales have been created to justify hierarchies of men in fancy array. Whole Biblical hermeneutics built around dominionism (in the model of the first Adam and Old Testament patriarchs) that serves the needs of selfish men rather than the cause of Christ.

It is an anathema, it is a horrible distortion of Scriptural narrative, when the example of Christ (the better Adam) who turned down worldly dominion (Matthew 4:8-9) and instead bent low to wash the feet of his disciples. It is tragic when the better way of Jesus is discarded for worldly dominion, it is selling a heavenly birthright for a bit of porridge.

There are spiritual constants, like love…

God’s love does not change. I believe one unifying theme of Scripture is God’s constant love for humanity. It is certainly the main message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is summed up eloquently:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

Belief is love:

“Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.“ (John 14:19-21)

“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. This is my command: Love each other.“ (John 15:12-17)

When asked what is the “greatest commandment” Jesus answered:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

Paul expounded on what Christian love means practically:

“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails…” (1 Corinthians 13:1-8)

“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.“ (Colossians 3:12-14)

“Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace… speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.” (Ephesians 4:2-3, 15)

Love is a spiritual concept, not a mere code of conduct, not a blind allegiance to doctrinal statements nor a slavery to traditional application or religious dogmas. Love is death to selfish ambition, dedication to an eternal goal and lives to serve the good of others. Love comforts, love encourages, love provides tangibly for needs and rebukes immorality.

Love disciples.

If there is anything most lacking in the church today (and world in general) it is love. Sure, many love selectively, they love their own family, their own tribe (of race, gender, cultural group, religious denomination, social class, etc) and yet that is not the love of Christian faith. The love of Jesus transcends tribal difference, it extends beyond biological offspring, and returns multiplied.

One place our love is most lacking is in commitment to true discipleship. As part of his parting words, Jesus told his followers, “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19) but it seems that is a concept often lost. Discipleship is supposed to be something personal, interactive and ongoing. But it also requires sacrifice of time, energy and our own pursuits. Discipleship takes loads of patience and it is too easily replaced by a cheap imitation or neglected entirely.

It is easy to designate the difficult task of discipleship to a few in an effort to absolve ourselves of responsibility. It is easy for tailored and flexible discipleship to be displaced by one-size-fits-all cookie cutter solutions. However, having people sign on to a book of regulations enforced rigidly (without love) is not true discipleship and not the example Jesus gave for us to follow.

Ironically, by not disciplining as we ought, we are not only shortchanging those who need an example of love and grace to follow, we are also robbing ourselves of the full experience of Christian faith. Everything worth doing requires hard work and a dedicated effort. Loving others enough to disciple them in a way tailored to their individual needs is no exception to the rule. Real love takes effort.

People are unique and “fearfully and wonderfully made” according to Psalms. Programs with simplistic algorithms are not sufficient. People do not need more generic prescriptions or clunky twelve step programs. People need genuine authentic self-sacrificial living breathing Christian love and a real investment of faith. So don’t give what is second rate if you want first rate results.

God bless.

	Preston on The Beauty Of Orthodox Fa…
	Joel on The Beauty Of Orthodox Fa…
	Joel on The Beauty Of Orthodox Fa…
	Preston on The Beauty Of Orthodox Fa…
	Joel on The Beauty Of Orthodox Fa…

Irregular Ideation

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein

gender