It has been nearly two years since Dr. Placher passed away while taking a sabbatical in the woods of central Minnesota. Since then, two classes of Wabash men have graduated, and a third, the last to experience him as a teacher, will soon be leaving the College for pursuits elsewhere. The Class of 2011—my class—was the last to have personally experienced him. While to the classes who have followed us, Dr. Placher is a name mentioned in reminiscences, in tones of respect, and in the syllabus of the new Enduring Questions course for freshmen, to us he is a concrete memory. Many of the members of my class remember him sitting in his Center Hall office, preaching at Wednesday chapel services in Tuttle Chapel, or giving a chapel talk on the 175th anniversary of the founding of the College. Dr. Placher was an active and visible member of the Wabash community, and perhaps the fact that his funeral service was conducted in the Pioneer Chapel speaks to the level of that involvement in and dedication to our community.

While we students might not have realized it at the time, Dr. Placher was one of the most influential Presbyterian theologians of his time. An alumnus of Wabash College, he received his doctorate from Yale University, studying under many theological luminaries of the late 20th century, including Hans W. Frei, an Anglican scholar who was one of the primary authors of what became known as “postliberal theology.” Postliberalism (or narrative theology) placed primary emphasis on both narrative and community in interpreting scripture and theology, particularly in relation to how a community defines doctrine. Therefore, postliberals pay most attention to the narrative being communicated by the texts as opposed to a simple grammatical or historical reading of scripture. This approach was illustrated in many of Dr. Placher’s books. In Jesus the Savior, Dr. Placher used the narrative of Jesus in the gospels to present a Jesus that “can capture your heart and not let go.” In one of his more academic tomes, Narratives of a Vulnerable God: Christ, Theology, and Scripture, he again utilizes the gospel narratives, this time arguing that the suffering of God in the person of Jesus Christ—God’s vulnerability—means that God can sympathize with and understand all those who suffer. Dr. Placher’s works are all postliberal at heart, and as such their focus is centered on the scriptures.

This emphasis naturally continues in his commentary on the gospel of Mark, entitled Mark, which was published this past August by Westminster John Knox Press. His commentary is the first volume in a multi-volume commentary on the Bible entitled Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible. The volumes that will be published in this series are different than many of the commentaries that you will find in our library, and most likely quite different than ones that you might use for academic papers for Wabash religion courses. Most modern commentaries are primarily historical in nature. They emphasize the time, context, and culture of the biblical texts. The commentaries treat the scriptures as historical documents and literature, and, insofar as they are honest in doing so, they serve a noble and useful purpose. However, such commentaries do not provide the pastor, theologian, or devout layman with many tools that can be applied to Christianity.

Dr. Placher and his co-editor of the series, Dr. Amy Plantinga Pauw of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, recognize this in their Series Introduction, writing: “The writers of this series share Karl Barth’s concern that, insofar as their usefulness to pastors goes, most modern commentaries are ‘no commentary at all, but merely the first step toward a commentary.’ Historical-critical approaches to Scripture rule out some readings and commend others, but such methods only begin to help theological reflection and the preaching of the Word. By themselves, they do not convey the powerful sense of God’s merciful presence that calls Christians to repentance and praise; they do not bring the church fully forward in the life of discipleship. It is to such tasks that theologians are called.”

Dr. Placher is not interested in history for history’s sake, and this is demonstrated in his commentary. His use of the history and context in the scriptures ultimately serves as a tool to explore the gospel.

One of the central themes in this commentary is the notion that Jesus Christ should make us uncomfortable. On its face, this might seem strange. The Church teaches us that Jesus Christ is our savior, redeemer, and love incarnate. He is the Prince of Peace, Lamb of God, and the Wonderful Counselor. He is all indeed all these things—and he is God. Placher’s commentary nicely revives a traditional attitude towards God that has found itself decreasing in popularity in recent years: Christ is my loving savior, but he is also my judge. His teachings convict sin, in which we as human beings inevitably live. While many of us might hear sin being denounced from the pulpit, we often shake it off as something that pertains to that person in the other pew, but think, surely the pastor is not addressing my sin. Christ is on my side, of course, and all of my priorities are in line with his own.

However, Jesus is not our pastor, who ultimately can do little more than reprove us for our errors. Jesus is God incarnate. He carries more power than your neighborhood moralist. Dr. Placher demonstrates this in his interpretation of the story of the Gerasene demoniac, found in Mark 5:1-20. Deep in Gentile territory, Jesus commands demons (who identify themselves as “Legion”) to depart from a demon-possessed individual into a herd of pigs, who careen off a cliff to their deaths. Dr. Placher connects the story to a Roman military campaign that occurred in the region around the time when the Gospel of Mark was written. Therefore, Jews would be ecstatic for the unclean Roman “legion” to be driven from their lands—especially to their collective demise. However, there is still the character of the outsider whom the community keeps on the outskirts of the town, living in a cemetery. Dr. Placher claims that “readers who recognized themselves as oppressed victims of the Romans would also have had to come to terms with the way they isolated the outsiders of their own society.” Therefore, the story of the Gerasene demoniac should inspire one to consider one’s treatment of “undesirables” or outcasts.

However, while reading this story through a social lens, Dr. Placher does not remove the traditional emphasis on the extraordinary power of Christ demonstrated here. As Christ sends the pig herd off a cliff, he inevitably harms the local economy through his power. While we might sympathize with the farmers, especially with the current economic situation, Christ does not seem troubled by this. Christ’s priorities are, many times, different than our own, Dr. Placher argues. Therefore, “we modern readers are fooling ourselves if we think that we, by contrast, would have liked having Jesus around. We do not understand Mark’s picture of him unless we recognize that he is terrifying.” Perhaps the gospel—and Christ—are much more radical than we might assume.

An important part of any commentary on scripture is its analysis of the text itself, particularly in its original language. Dr. Placher approaches the Greek in an incredibly reader-friendly manner, and he shows its beauty and power. He does not use the Greek text for pure historical reasons or to brandish his academic credentials, but instead utilizes it to reveal the kernel of the gospel that is present there. Perhaps the most illustrative example is found in the very first verse of the gospel. In the Greek text, the word used for “gospel” is euangelion, which translates literally into “good message” or “good news.” Ever since the days of the early Church, the word “gospel” has been often used by theologians, preachers, and laity to describe the Christian message.

Inevitably, since the word is part of our common parlance, it has lost much of its inherent power as a word, being something of a cliché within the Church and the culture at large. However, Dr. Placher argues, this was not the case when the first generation of Christians was hearing the words of Mark. “We take the term for granted and lose the surprise and puzzle it might have occasioned among Mark’s first listeners/readers at the beginning of a book. ‘Gospel’ was one of Mark’s favorite words . . . and for him captured what he wanted to say—he had wonderful news to tell, news of a kind, he was signaling his readers, that no previous form of writing could appropriately convey.” As powerful and good as Christians might find the message of the gospel today, there was another level of joy in the world prior to Christian hegemony in the cultural West. The gospel in the first century was truly a blissful and surprising message. Perhaps we should try to remember that and reclaim that power.

You are the intended audience of this book, which serves as Dr. Placher’s last testimony of Jesus Christ. Christianity is a faith that is built upon the foundation of our forefathers. No matter what tradition we claim as our own, our faith experiences are directly related to those of past generations. The Church is a communion of saints past and present, as Paul teaches us, and theology is a dinner-table conversation with our brothers and sisters in Christ about the gospel. Karl Barth once wrote that “there is no past in the Church . . . ‘In him they all live.’” Remember that when you pick up Mark. There is a conversation to be had. You’re invited.

Related posts:

1. Man’s Chief End: A Reflection on Dr. William C. Placher ’70
2. Thoughts for Bill Placher
3. New Phoenix: Dr. Placher’s Mark

Started in earnest in the fall of 2005, Dr. Royalty has spent much time in libraries poring over both ancient and modern documents with a critical mind. What he is writing is “a history of rhetoric and discourse” concerning the development of a Christian orthodoxy in the early history of the faith. Dr. Royalty is not concerned with the theological differences between “orthodox” and “heretics” per se, but rather the methods by which orthodox Christianity gained the upper hand in the theological struggles. Rather than studying doctrine, Dr. Royalty is focusing on theological politics.

The book is based on the premise that early Christians were a diverse group. They came from sundry backgrounds and carried with them different suppositions about the nature of Christianity. After Christ was crucified, there was no one group that held the mantle of “true” Christianity. There were many divisions. The disunity observed was not unique to Christianity. All faiths have had their dissenters and some level of disunity. However, the way in which Christianity dealt with that disunity is fairly unique, especially in comparison to its theological ancestor, Judaism. Within the Jewish faith, disagreements on the halakha (law) were dealt with through majority rule. Dissents were noted but were not considered reasons for expulsion from the Jewish faith. However, the exact opposite occurred with Christianity, where an “orthodox” party gained control of established Christianity, tolerated little dissention, and excluded the “heretics” from the faith. In his book, Dr. Royalty seeks to answer the question: “How did this happen?”

According to Dr. Royalty, this process started early during the Apostolic Era and can be seen in the epistles of St. Paul. In some of his writings, Paul is pre-heresiological. He seeks to negotiate with some of the dissent instead of simply squashing it. This is particularly present in 1 Corinthians, where, though he admonishes the Corinthians for bad behavior and practice, he does not condemn the dissenters as Satanic. However, this shifts as time goes on. Paul later starts to more willingly write people out of the Christian faith, such as the legalistic Judaizers in Galatians.

Perhaps another tactic of the orthodox party was to draw closer to the Roman Empire. In its infancy, Christianity was very eschatological in nature. Christians, such as Paul, were looking for Christ’s Second Coming to occur in the immediate future. Therefore, there was no great need to rebel against the Roman Empire. While the Roman Empire may have been anti-Christian, Christians had an obligation to obey the laws of Rome. As Paul wrote in Romans: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities…Pay to all what is due to them – taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:1,7). Paul’s attitude was essentially to ignore Rome and politics and instead focus on spirituality. After Paul was martyred and Christianity grew, this attitude changed as it became apparent that Christ was not going to reappear as soon as previously expected. Therefore, according to Dr. Royalty, the orthodox party adopted a worldview that reasoned that “if you’re going to be in a world, it might as well be a Christian world.” Therefore, Christians began to come out of the woodwork and deal with the Roman Empire. A growing attempt to make Christianity acceptable within the Roman Empire began. This, according to Dr. Royalty, can be evidenced in the Book of Acts, which “narrates a tradition of Christianity being at home in Rome.” Indeed, Acts plays to the Roman obsession with ancient religions by connecting Christianity to Judaism, hence giving the new faith an ancient lineage and legitimacy. Dr. Royalty also suggests that this Christian flirtation with Rome was also a political ploy by the orthodox party. By being more accepting of Rome, the orthodox were claiming to be good citizens, drawing a contrast against heretics who were more anti-Roman in nature. This would bring Roman political favor upon the orthodox, while the Roman political structure would view the other Christian parties as being illegitimate and worthy of destruction. This political tactic came to fruition during the times of Constantine, the Roman emperor who converted to Christianity and legalized the faith. Hence, the orthodox were able to push the heretics out of Christianity and become of the arbiters of the faith.

Dr. Royalty is nearly complete with his work. He hopes to have the rough draft finished by the beginning of this summer and desires to have the entire project completed by the end of 2008. He has sent various excerpts of the book to church historians and other theologians, and, according to Dr. Royalty, it has been received well. Indeed, a portion of the book served as the text of a lecture that the professor gave at Oxford University last year and of a Humanities Colloquium at Wabash College which was given this past December. Certainly, The History of Heresy and the Origins of Christianity will be a welcome and pleasant addition to the published works of the Religion Department of Wabash College.

Related posts:

1. A True Foundation: On Christianity, Equality, and Tammy Bruce
2. Keeping the Faith: Religious Opportunities at Wabash
3. Meet Dr. Wilcox: An Interview with the New Religion Professor

Dr. Placher was a son of the Illinois prairies, born in Peoria, Illinois. He was raised Christian, growing up in the Presbyterian Church – a connection he maintained throughout his life. He decided to attend Wabash College, where he immersed himself in theology and philosophy and quickly gained recognition by faculty and students for his brilliance. He proceeded to attended Yale Divinity School, where he came under the influence of the Hans Frei and the theological school of postliberalism, which deemphasized the spiritual authority of the individual and placed a greater emphasis on tradition and the authority of the community. Postliberalism greatly impacted how Dr. Placher formulated and articulated his theology.

Some theologians are distinctively liberal or conservative. Dr. Placher was neither. He rejected the liberal predilection of rejecting traditional doctrines and theologies. Instead, according to Dr. David Blix, “He rejoiced in traditional, orthodox Christianity.” His approach to theology was “Let’s not chuck it, let’s meditate on it.” A prime example of this were his thoughts on predestination. Though many Calvinists try to modify one of their signature doctrines to be more easily consumable, Dr. Placher held a fairly conservative view of the doctrine, believing that “our destinies are utterly in the hands of God.” Oftentimes, Drs. Placher and Blix would get into theological conversations about this issue, and Dr. Placher would say: “If you really take the idea of God seriously, that’s where you end up.” However, he was not afraid of criticizing his tradition’s Calvinist roots, when he found it necessary. Several years ago, Dr. Placher purchased a newly published set of Calvin’s works. He worked his way through them and, according to Dr. Blix, was not unwilling to criticize the Reformer. Indeed, in his 2001 book Jesus the Savior: The Meaning of Jesus Christ for the Christian Faith, he took a direct shot at Calvin. Regarding Calvin’s statement that “nothing relevant to salvation” occurred between Christ’s birth and His death, Dr. Placher retorted: “It’s one of the stupidest things Calvin ever said.” Though certainly a man of his tradition, he was willing to criticize it when necessary.

Dr. Placher desired very much to make theology understandable to the laity of the Church. According to Dr. Blix, he was “always looking for the best way to express faith.” In the preface to Jesus the Savior, Dr. Placher wrote: “‘Theology’ is a word that scares off many people, but ‘theology’ really just means reflecting on faith, and I’m convinced many people want to do that…It’s customary to distinguish among books written for laypeople, for pastors, for college students, or for seminarians. As a layperson myself, I’m skeptical of the distinctions. If the issues and the technical terms get explained along the way, any intelligent person can follow even complicated arguments, and I’m not persuaded that clergy or academic institutions have cornered the market on intelligence. Theology that engages laypeople may well be the right theology for a seminary classroom.” When God revealed Himself, He did not simply reveal himself to the academics or the clergy. Indeed, He revealed Himself to the lowly. Therefore, there is no reason why modern theology should be sequestered within the ivory tower, starving the laity of intellectual and spiritual nutrition. Dr. Placher wrote his books with the express purpose of feeding the sheep of God and aiding them in their spiritual journeys.

While all Wabash men and many in the Crawfordsville community knew that Dr. Placher was a prominent theologian, they probably did not realize how important a theologian he truly was – particularly within the Presbyterian Church (USA). After the merger of the two mainline Presbyterian churches in 1983, it was decided that a new confession of faith would be needed to articulate the Reformed faith in the 20th century. This came to fruition in the Brief Statement of 1993. Dr. Placher was one of those on the committee and was quite influential in crafting one of the phrases, particularly the one that states: “In gratitude to God, empowered by the Spirit, we strive to serve Christ in our daily tasks and to live holy and joyful lives, even as we watch for God’s new heaven and new earth, praying, Come, Lord Jesus! With believers in every time and place, we rejoice that nothing in life or in death can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Though life on earth may seem dismal and depressing, all the saints of God’s Church must realize that nothing can separate one from God’s eternal, abiding love.

The idea of God’s love was one of the hallmarks of Dr. Placher’s faith and theology. Indeed, Jesus the Savior and The Triune God (2007) were strong testimonies of God’s devotion to His people. Though we are weak and fallen, God is strong. He wrote in Jesus the Savior: “God is, oddly, most powerful in stooping to our weakness.” God’s love is perhaps best expressed through the actions of His disciples. A regular attendant at Wabash Avenue Presbyterian Church, Dr. Placher gave of himself greatly to his church. According to his pastor, the Rev. John Van Nuys ’83, worship was an incredibly important aspect of the Christian life for him. One of the Rev. Van Nuys’ most enduring memories of Dr. Placher is how he reacted to the readings of Scripture during the service. The professor would close his eyes, attempting to absorb as much out of the readings as feasibly possible. He served as an elder at Wabash Avenue, participating in the church governance. Even in death Dr. Placher continues to serve the Church, donating his extensive theological library to a seminary in the Third World. “For him,” according to the Rev. Van Nuys, “faith wasn’t a laundry list, but a way of taking belief into one’s core and living it out.”

In the best sense of the word, Dr. Placher was truly a “catholic” theologian. In the words of the Rev. Van Nuys, “He knew the full breadth of the theology of the Church,” and “he could make them [the theologians] converse with each other.” Naturally, being a Presbyterian, Dr. Placher had a firm grasp of the theology of John Calvin. However, he did not restrict his mind and interests strictly to the Reformed tradition. Indeed, among his favorite theologians were Augustine, Hans Urs Van Balthasar (a Catholic), Hans Wilhelm Frei (a Baptist), and Wolfhart Pannenberg (a Lutheran). In his writings, he brought all views to bear. While he certainly disagreed with some of the theologians that he referenced, he always treated them respectfully and then proceeded to demonstrate where he disagreed with their points.

As important as tradition was, Scripture was central in the formation of Dr. Placher’s theology. Indeed, he was using his sabbatical at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota, to write a commentary on the Gospel of Mark and was also an editorial consultant to the Theological Commentary on the Bible, a multivolume Biblical commentary to be published by Westminster John Knox Press, the publishing arm of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In a speech that was later published in Struggling with Scripture, Dr. Placher discussed his views on Scripture: “We insist, indeed, that in believing what the Bible means and teaches, rather than in misunderstandings of it, we are most faithful to it. We vow to manifest ourselves as the people who take the Bible most seriously, who struggle hardest to be faithful to it, recognizing that faithfulness always does involve struggle and the recognition of complexity, even as we find this book shaping our lives and our faith and guiding us to the knowledge and love of God.” Dr. Placher utilized the historical-critical method of Bible study. However, he did not allow this method to rip the divine from the sacred text. Instead, he used it to probe further into Scripture and attempt to further decipher the meaning and implications of its words.

Dr. Placher certainly lived a life that strived “to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” He fell in love with Christ and never let hardship or circumstances separate him from his God. As Dr. Placher wrote in Jesus the Savior: “This Jesus can capture your heart and not let go, and he calls us to a dangerous discipleship. Yet our hearts are restless till they find their rest in God; we seek to make sense of a world that doesn’t seem to make sense on its own; we want a way of living that does not keep turning ourselves in on ourselves. When we truly encounter Jesus – incarnate and ministering among us, crucified and resurrected – our fireproof hearts catch fire, and in following him we come to that obedience to God which is perfect freedom, and we begin to find our way home.” Dr. Placher’s heart surely did catch fire with that love, and so he has found his way home.

Related posts:

1. We Are Not Our Own: A Reflection on John Calvin’s 500th Birthday
2. You’re Invited: A Review of Dr. Placher’s Mark
3. Thoughts for Bill Placher

But Tammy Bruce, despite all my disagreements with her, articulated something that rang very true. I began my research on Ms. Bruce after I attended a lecture by transsexual Wabash alumnus Andrea James, whose talk, I felt, was unnecessarily anti-religion. In my research, I found an interview with Ms. Bruce which perked my interest. When asked why she voted for President Bush, she gave this reply:

“For me as a pro-choice, lesbian feminist, I have a remarkable life in this country. And it has been given to me by people of faith, interestingly enough—by a nation that has been built on principles that are astounding, that even though we can disagree on issues, and even on some moral issues, that there is no other place on earth where I can live the remarkable life I live here. And it’s due to the faith and to the values of people like George Bush.”

Tammy Bruce is right. As she made clear repeatedly during her visit to Wabash, she does not agree with most of the moral positions that social conservatives hold, but she respects their faith, and understands their importance in our society. Too often, religious conservatives allow themselves to be labeled as “hateful” and “intolerant” for their views on homosexuality. While those words could probably be used to describe a small minority of religious conservatives, for most of them, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, without Christianity, the ideas equality and tolerance would have no true intellectual foundation.

The argument for why conservative Christians are hateful and intolerant toward homosexuals takes a couple of different paths. First, it is often argued that homosexuality is a biological trait which is very natural, and therefore by calling it sinful, Christians are hating people “for who they are.” First of all, whether or not homosexuality is “natural” is a moot point. Sin occurs quite naturally in our fallen world. It is also very “natural” for a heterosexual male to lust over an attractive woman, but Christ himself warned of the sinfulness of that. In the Christian view, everyone is equally and inescapably sinful—hence the equal need for a Savior. That Christ died for the sins of all people, Jew and Gentile, respectable citizen and despicable murder, is the very foundation of the Western idea of equality.

The issue of marriage is also used as proof that Christians are out to deny equality. But as Ms. Bruce pointed out, marriage as we know it is a religious tradition. That government is involved with it at all is the problem. The question of what constitutes marriage should not be a question of the state, but a question of the church. Now, Ms. Bruce believes that any attempt to change the Constitution should be resisted, but I would argue this: As long as government has its hands in a religious tradition, it has no business redefining that tradition to encompass behaviors that the tradition’s keepers view as sinful. As long as government is in the business of defining marriage, conservative Christians have every right to fight for a traditional definition.

Tammy Bruce may disagree with conservative Christians, but she understands and respects them. Others should follow her lead—because the path of attacking Christianity is too dangerous. Outside of Christianity, there is no real intellectual justification for equality other than “we made it up.” And that is a shaky justification indeed. Christianity is not just a positive force in our society. It is the foundation of our society. Those who seek to limit Christianity’s influence operate within that framework—not the other way around. And those who chip away at that foundation do so at their own peril.

Related posts:

1. Douglas Farrow vs. Tammy Bruce: Can Conservatives Find Common Ground on Marriage?
2. Why Did the Orthodox Win? A Wabash Professor Researches the Origins of Christianity
3. Return to the Roots: Reassessing Conservatism’s Goals

When they came for the conservative students on campus, accusing them of racism, I did not speak up. I had little sympathy for them.

When they accused the conservative magazine of being racist, I did nothing, because I never read it anyway, and wish it were not funded.

When they went after the conservative professors, I kept my peace, because I was not a conservative, and it is good for conservatives to be taken down a notch or two.

When they accused Christianity of being inherently racist, I said nothing, because I do not believe in defending my own faith, espe¬cially if it means someone might be offended. Besides, I agree that Christianity is inherently racist.

When they equated the Enlightenment and the West with racism, I said nothing, because I am a postmodernist.

When they accused the history department of being deeply com¬plicit in racism, I said nothing, because the history department is more liberal than I am.
And then they accused me of racism…and by that time there was nobody left to speak up for me.

Never Forget: Stop false accusations of racism now. It is never right to let others be accused of wrongs they did not commit, no matter how hard it is to defend those you do not like.

Related posts:

1. Around Wabash – March 2009

The movement was a collaborative project between men like Christian comic Brad Stine and Paul Coughlin, author of No More Christian Nice Guy. In an interview with TWC, Stine credits his manager with the initial push to get GodMen started. “It really started with me and my manager, Mike Smith. He had read this book Why Men Hate Going to Church and kind of resonated with a lot of its points.” From that research, the realization emerged that the modern church was failing to address the real needs of men. “I sort of felt like, instead of me just going in and performing, we could go in with a couple of guys and make it sort of an event,” said Stine, “where you’re just giving guys some space to explore
their Christian spirituality.”

The motivation for the group, said Stine, is that “church in the United States oftentimes seems to not have elements that resonate with men.” Stine and others like him feel that Christianity promotes the peaceful, “meek and mild” Jesus without presenting the other,
more aggressive side of Christ. As Stine put it, “We’re saying that there was another part of Jesus which was just as a true.” After all, Stine continues, “Jesus insulted people. He called religious people a generation of vipers. That’s an insult. He said they are fit for hell. That’s a curse. So this is not some meek, little girly Jesus.”

Nevertheless, Stine is emphatic that GodMen wasn’t created to usurp the role of the church. Rather, the group sees itself as an auxiliary to the Christian movement by providing something churches cannot. “Now, we’re not against the church either, we’re not blaming the church,” cautions Stine, “I mean it’s got a difficult situation, it has teenagers mixed in there with old people and middle aged people. It does have men in there and women. There are so many diverse demographics in there, so it’s not as if they can say, tough, we’re just making it for guys. They are trying to reach as many people as possible.”
A brazen, independent movement, GodMen is nevertheless often mentioned in relation to Promise Keepers, which was founded in 1990 by former University of Colorado head football
coach Bill McCartney. GodMen tries hard to distinguish itself as something separate from Promise Keepers. “This group targets the guys who went to Promise Keepers once and didn’t go back, the guys who believe in God, but relationships in church to them seem forced and fake,” says former pastor Nate Larkin. “There is an underserved market and I think it is a rising tide.” Eileen Finan wrote in her Newsweek article about the movement that one attendee even referred to GodMen as Promise Keepers on crack.

But Stine is quick to point out that he is not against the Promise Keepers movement.
“I love Promise Keepers. They are doing everything they do because they actually, genuinely care about men and about teaching to teaching them to be great fathers and husbands and lovers.” GodMen’s advantage is in its freshness. “Once you start something, you get branded and it’s hard to get beyond that,” said Stine, “Once you say, this is what we are, people expect you to stick with it.” So, whereas Promise Keepers has traditionally had pastors lead their sessions, GodMen has had from its start laymen who the founders felt would be able to be more real. Stine intimated that laymen better represented the everyman, and weren’t seen as so set apart from the ordinary guy like pastors are.

Similarly, the sessions themselves can deal more honestly with real issues facing men. Describing the GodMen events, Stine said, “It’s a little more raw, a little less sugar coated. We talk about lust – it’s such a big problem for men.” But whereas most Christian events would speak more abstractly about “temptations,” explains Stine, GodMen hosts a former pastor who admits to the assembled men that he picked up his first prostitute on the way to preach at a candlelight service on Christmas Eve. “It’s that rawness that you don’t see if other events,” says Stine finally. As Finan wrote in her Newsweek article, GodMen “isn’t your Daddy’s religious revival.”

But that is precisely what has attracted as many detractors as supporters. A veteran Christian comic, Stine is no stranger to controversy. In his online blog he jots down his thoughts on different contemporary issues. He concludes one entry saying, “I want to see political correctness die in my lifetime, but first…I want to watch it suffer. Anyone along for the ride?” And his latest venture, this GodMen movement, has certainly done its best to take a stab at the PC culture. The Los Angeles Times wrote an article which, according to Stine, “contrived some things to make it seem less…or not what it was. So that was interesting because I’m not used to being spun.” A number of feminist groups have objected for all sorts of reasons ranging from accusations of sexism to the reinforcement of stereotypical gender roles. “All we want to do is have is a men’s event,” sighs Stine, “And we want to say, women you’re not invited. And its not because we don’t like you, it’s because it’s ours. You can start your own event.” (Wabash men might be especially able to relate to this sentiment if they were to replace “event” for “college”.)

“In school, when a girl acts like a girl, she’s rewarded for being smart and studious,” Stine continues “When a boy acts like a boy, he’s given Ritalin because he won’t settle down.

It’s this squashing of the male spirit that we want to address. What GodMen is exposing is this attack on maleness in the United States. Look at the sitcoms, men are the idiots. Look at the commercials; we’re the punch lines of society.”

But whereas many of the complaints have come from the secular world, others
have pushed back for more religious reasons. An excellent article in First Things seems to object to the movement, not because it doesn’t toe the politically correct line, but because it’s an incomplete view of Christ. “It’s mockable—and yet all such movements are trying to react against the bad and seek the good, writes First Things Assistant Editor Mary Angelita Ruiz, “The Jesus Mean and Wild men are confronting a serious problem. Many Christians are frustrated by the Christianity presented to them: too polite, too sunny, and too nice to help them in their struggles. GodMen uses the straight-talking, guns-blazing atmosphere of its meetings to help its participants deal with sexual temptation and sin.”

This is an argument which engages the issue in a way that other detractors don’t, namely on a religious level. Ms. Ruiz seems to admit that there is a problem facing Christianity
– on any given Sunday, over 60% of the attendees are women, which according to David Murrow’s book Why Men Hate Going to Church, translates into 13 million more women attending church than men. The difference is that Ms. Ruiz sees the manly Christian movement as insufficient to bring about a solution. “The aim of meditating on Christ is to know him and love him—all of him: the judge, the spouse, the brother, the child, the friend, the king, the shepherd. The aim of imitating Christ is to become like him,” writes Ruiz, “There are no shortcuts. Slogans, self-help books, rallies, makeovers—these will not substitute for worship of Christ, not as we might like him to be, but as he is.” And yet, Stine readily admits this. “I would never, ever like to remove the merciful God, the forgiving Jesus, the guy who went in while people were in the middle of sin and gave them grace and mercy. All those parts are beautiful parts of Christianity. I mean it’s the only religion that says to love your enemy.”

The theological concern, then, is that people understand that, as with most things with Christ, he was both at once. Just as He was both fully divine and fully human, he was similarly both loving and full of compassion while being aggressive and bold. For many the realization is that only Christ can mediate this divide flawlessly. When observed through that lens, the GodMen movement becomes yet another expression
of man’s attempt to live a life modeled on Christ.

Related posts:

1. Finding Christ in College
2. Christ Against the Multiculturalists
3. Wabash Conservative Union to Host E. Christian Kopff