Joshua Benton

Sitting in the ashes with a loved one who is enduring and living with depression can be draining as well. As you sit in the ashes, take care of yourself too. Feel free to reach out to me at [email protected] if need be. 

Hi...author here. This was written on my personal blog Spiritual Musclehead (spiritualmusclehead.wordpress.com) back March. I either didn't know it was published on The Network or forgot it was. I just saw your comment tonight. I am not a representative of the CRC or office of Racial Reconciliation. I'm just me. So please don't say "shame on them" for my words. My intention wasn't on judging righteousness or unrighteousness here but on pointing out that as being part of the dominant culture, there are things we can't see. One thing I would like to point out that the CRC is getting better at is the whole "Dutch" thing. When I first came into the CRC back in the 1990's I was teased because I wasn't Dutch. It hurt, big time. Yet I stayed. I learned something about not being part of the dominant culture. If you get a chance, take a moment and try to look at things with different eyes. Oh...and check out my personal blog and feel free to make comments there too. 

Hi...author here. This post originally came from my personal blog Spiritual Musclehead (spiritualmusclehead.wordpress.com) and not from The Network. In fact, I don't remember giving permission or I forgot I did to have it posted here. I in no way represent the CRC or their stance on anything. Things are all just my own hair-brain ideas. I'm not being tongue-in-cheek here nor disingenuous by saying that I'm not "woke." I'm being honest actually. Because of my skin color and place in the dominant culture, I have privilege and blind spots. Please let me address your three statements. 

1. Believe it or not, the "working poor" who are white do have privilege. Study after study shows this. We just don't like hearing it. To let you know a little bit about me, I myself come from a working poor background and realize just how privileged I was growing up. For example, a young white male at age 15 when arrested by police is more likely going to be treated fairly than a young black male at the same age. Evidence has shown this. I've been there as well and seen it with my own eyes.  

2. Color (note the lack of the "u") is not the only standard for race but is a major one. You can be proud to be Irish, Dutch, German, French, or even Canadian. When it comes to judging people based upon their ethnicity and race then it is racism. I note the "u" because it automatically shows that you are not from the US portion of the CRC. This makes me judge you differently based upon spelling alone. That is not racism. That is tribalism. Tribalism is different. Racism is when you say things like "If you're not Dutch, you're not much." 

3. If you are white, you are part of the dominant culture. Therefore, you have racist tendencies and just don't realize it and that's okay. That's where microagressions come in. It is not being judgmental but instead trying to wrestle with a fact of the matter at hand. 

As for justice and mercy with the body of Christ, then why did Paul have to mention ethnicities when he made his lists of people who are part of the Body of Christ. This has been an issue from the very start. And is an issue today we have to deal with. When things happen that we don't like, it hits us in ways that make us want to defend ourselves. That's okay. It's part of being human. I do it too. 

Feel free to look at my personal blog and comment there. I have other things you'll probably disagree with. 

Thanks for your comment. Glad you found it encouraging.

Thank you for your comment. I think you are right that there is a lack of lament as there should be. Many white evangelical Christians struggle with what exactly is racism and how to confess it let alone lament it. I myself am still learning.

Thanks, Chad, I'll have to look up that one. A little while back I read A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God by Larry Osborne and he had some good stuff I borrowed from. I recently picked up Flunking Sainthood by Jana Riess which I heard was really good as well. 

Bill...thank you for your response. One of the reasons behind this blog post is trying to define what a man of God is. As stated in the post, there are many different views that are out there about being a man of God. Yet with these mixed messages, we leave the faith formation of men in the cold. The emphasis in this post then is how can we help men grow in the faith outside of "I'll know it when I see it"? Leaving it just to "I'll know it when it I see it" does not give direction to help men grow in the faith. The purpose of this blog post is to begin helping giving direction in faith formation in men. 

Bonnie... Thank you for your insights. As you point out, yes, there are cultural influences in how we see gender roles in the church. I agree that there has been an abuse of power over the years by men. With this being a 700 or so word blog post, there is limitation. Parts that were cut from this blog did attempt to balance some of the gender roles in our church today. Yet we have to be careful in pushing various cultural concepts of gender roles onto the church. Just as years gone by the machismo of male authority was pushed into the leading of the church, today there are struggles with pushing newer thoughts of gender roles into the church as well. We need to be careful and discerning as the pendulum swings.

I agree that in many ways Jesus did show a variety of aspects that are in need for men today. Yet focusing on just Jesus meek and mild does a disservice to men today in their faith development. I believe the role of anyone in power and privilege is to empower others as Jesus empowered his followers. God made us in His image, both male and female, yet, I believe, the pendulum has swung the other way (as Bly and many others both secular and Christian, philosophers and psychologists, since have pointed out) and placed a blueprint on masculinity that goes against how men are hardwired. Men process emotions, experiences, thoughts, and ideas different than women. And that is okay. One is not better than the other. To point to Jesus and show just one side of Him as how men ought to live their faith does a disservice to the Gospel message and the Second Person of the Trinity.

As much as Jesus is shown in the Gospels to be in touch with his emotions, He also acted out in anger such as cursing the fig tree or clearing the temple. He is depicted as a mighty warrior in Revelation. God Himself is not only depicted as a warrior in the Old Testament but refers to himself an describes Himself as such. As men are made in the image of God, we must not deny the masculinity in which men are hardwired with.

When men are not allowed to be men of faith they then are not equipped to fully empower and disciple younger men in the faith. Instead of helping form the faith of the next generation of Godly men the same roadblocks are passed along and then men become more lost. Men need to be allowed to be men in their faith for there is a masculine side to faith as there is a feminine.

I want to be clear, I am not pushing for a complimentarian view of gender roles. I am egalitarian in my view of gender. I also know that being wired differently is okay and should be accepted not forced to be what it is not. I believe that many fear taking steps backwards when discussing what masculinity means. I firmly believe that we do a disservice to men in their faith when we neglect that part of faith they are hardwired for in connection to God's ability to be a warrior, protector, fighter--as long as we fight for the right cause and empower others in doing so. To neglect this does not allow men to truly grow in their faith but instead hinders them and does not allow them to reach their full potential in which they were created for to serve with and along side women who are also made in the image of God.

Ron...Thank you for bringing up Wild at Heart. I have found that book helpful in many ways save for his stance on ADHD (being ADHD myself, I think he's totally wrong and ignorant of what it is, though the book was written when ADHD still was being debated). This blog post came about as part of my research in a doctoral class I'm taking right now on the book of Judges. I am working on a Bible Study on what it means to be a man of God (and what it doesn't). There are a plethora of books out there that struggle with what it means to be a man of God, with Wild at Heart being but one of them. I believe it is a counter argument against some thoughts in gender studies that attempt to create what Robert Bly refers to as "soft males" in Iron John. Bly is not insulting men who go this direction but he states that there has been something lost over the years. In my research, I have come to find that the majority of books written since the mid 1990's on being a man of God quotes Bly, either positively or negatively, but still they quote him. What I took away from Wild at Heart is that it is okay to be a guy.