Internet Monk on Doug Wilson’s “Esau Christianity”
Posted: April 23, 2012 Filed under: Biblical Studies, Church, Community, Culture, Love | Tags: Christian Theology, Christianity, church, Gender Studies, Masculinity, religion, Theology 5 Comments »
A thoughtful article from the Internet Monk responds to Doug Wilson’s abysmal blog post on “effeminate worship” and coins a useful term for the old but increasingly virulent strain of churchianity that imposes funky cultural gender roles on our new humanity: “Esau Christianity.”
Just go read this excellent piece here, please.
Then go thou and do better.
Via @Brianleport
I do agree that Wilson’s post is “abysmal.” And I am still wrestling with masculinity and femininity. I think I agree with Mike’s general distaste for Wilson and Driscoll’s approach, but I also think he is seriously missing something obvious in the story of Jacob.
Mike seems to be arguing that 1) Because Jacob is effeminate and 2) because God has chosen him over the manly Esau therefore 3) it is okay for men to be effeminate.
But the whole point of the narrative is that God uses sinful, dysfunctional people and families to bring forth his promise and purpose in spite of them. God worked through Israel’s rejecting Yahweh as king to bring about the Davidic king. God worked through Israel’s crucifying the Messiah to bring about the reconciliation of the world. And God worked through Jacob who deceived his father and cheated his brother out of a blessing to bring about his promise and purpose.
That is why I think that there is serious difficulty with observing the character of Jacob, and then concluding that because God used him that therefore our worship leaders and pastors and men can use him as a role model.
I really like Piper and Driscoll, but I have been taking Harper and Pothen classes the past three years, so now I really don’t know what to think about masculinity and femininity. But after three years of listening to the issue, I have noticed that Piper and Driscoll take stances and define the terms, and Pothen, Harper, and other egalitarians tear them down. I have never in all my classes with Harper and Pothen heard them give a solid, substantial definition of masculinity and femininity. They only seem to get angry when Mark Driscoll says ridiculous things, and I’m usually with them when they do. Nevertheless, it just isn’t good reformation to only tear down without casting a clear vision of what you wish to rebuild.
Good points, Jesse. Thanks for your comment!
From Doug Wilson’s list of 11 things that make your worship effeminate: “4. The worship team gravitates toward “Jesus is my girlfriend” songs, and their facial expressions while up front are those of guys in the backseats of their cars, having just gotten to second base with their actual girlfriends;”
Lol. This made my day! Thanks so much for referencing Wilson’s post! I mean, zing! Its so true!
Then this one : 11. This list is printed out and handed around at your church, and at least three people are mortally offended.
Oh, wow. I may have to print this out and take it to church tomorrow to see who is mortally offended by it.
I do agree with iMonk that depth and shallowness might be better terms to describe what Wilson is getting at than masculine and feminine, at least in our politically correct culture. But traditionally, I think masculine has been used metaphorically to refer to depth and feminine to superficiality. So Doug Wilson is old-school in his use of language and that offends today’s radical feminists. Fine. But what he’s saying has some validity, especially point #4. Song leaders who get up and lead the sappiest song possible with the goofiest possible expression on their face tend to kill the worship.
Thanks for commenting, reyjacobs. We’re certainly all entitled to our opinions. In mine, though, Wilson’s list is not only arrogant and rude, it’s (as iMonk points out) exegetically troubling.
I appreciate your observation that Wilson is likely referring to a (flawed) cultural assumption linking masculinity to “depth”, femininity to “superficiality.” You’re also right that such terminology offends “radical feminists.” It offends far more than just them though. In my view, it ought to offend thoughtful believers, and Jesus himself.