Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Rape Culture, Gender Violence, and Religion pp 27–51Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Men’s Ministries and Patriarchy: From Sites of Perpetuation to Sites of Resistance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 541 Accesses

Part of the book series: Religion and Radicalism ((RERA))

Abstract

In this chapter, Robert Berra discusses the patriarchal strands running through the fabric of Christian theology, history, and practice; these strands, he suggests, bear significant responsibility for creating conditions that allow men to feel entitled to control and access others’ bodies (particularly women’s bodies). Berra argues that men’s Christian ministries may play a role in perpetuating these strands, urging men to live up to the expectations of a dominant and cis-heteronormative masculinity that propagates patriarchal norms in family and civic life. As such, these ministries—intentionally or not—can sustain narratives of control over women as well as the propagation of rape myths that help to sustain rape cultures. Berra considers the appeal and theoretical underpinnings of men’s ministries, analysing their request that churches “invite men back” in order to correct what they refer to as “the feminization of the church.” Critiquing David Murrow’s bestselling book Why Men Hate Going to Church as an example of the ambient level of sexism within some men’s ministry movements, Berra then sketches the difficulties and prospects—both practical and theological—of developing a men’s ministry as a site of resistance to rape culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is considerable debate whether one should use the term “survivor” or “victim” when referring to a person who has been raped. Throughout this chapter I will use the term “victim.” There are a number of reasons I make this choice. First, the act of rape is a crime and a sin that victimizes. It is a horror-inducing affront to the body, mind, and soul of the one who is raped. Rape victimizes; rape does not create survivors. Individuals who have been raped may survive the assault, and the language an individual may choose to adopt for their life after the assault is a personal expression of how they understand their moving forward. I have no objection to the term “survivor” being adopted by those who are healing after rape. Second, it is imperative to keep the victimizing nature of the act in view since this chapter focuses on men—who make up the majority of perpetrators of rape—and ideologies that influence the prevalence of rape. Survivorship is a state of being that is best not presupposed in the context of my argument since I will address ways in which Christian theologies may minimize the harm of rape.

  2. 2.

    For closer examinations of the ways larger society and the Christian tradition continue to perpetuate rape myths, see Blyth (2010), especially Chap. 1, and Messina-Dysert (2015), especially Chap. 2 and pp. 72−74.

  3. 3.

    I am from the American South, and while I am sure this happens elsewhere, I quickly became accustomed to conversations white men will have only with other white men about the consolidation or reclaiming of power, and resentment towards others who are perceived as threatening to undermine that power. It should be said here that there is a significant difference between a place where those with power learn about their role in the oppressions of others but make mistakes, all the while working under the commitment to do better, as compared to a space in which people feel free to indulge their prejudices.

  4. 4.

    The mythopoetic movement holds that there are a number of archetypes for masculinity that are hard-wired into men, including king, warrior, prophet, and lover. The movement suggests that men’s connection to these deep-seated understandings of who men are has been lost. It is believed that through forces of modernity, such as a rise in fatherlessness and the feminization of culture, men need to be reinitiated into true manhood through a rediscovery of these ways of being. Joseph Gelfer (2009) offers a comprehensive analysis of trends within men’s ministries from 1990 to 2010. His analysis includes an examination of the connections between—and the uniqueness of—the men’s mythopoetic movement, the evangelical men’s movement, the Catholic men’s movement, and gay spiritualities.

  5. 5.

    Murrow published a revised edition of his book in 2011 which includes material found in his earlier books, articles, and other sources. One major difference between the two editions includes a broadening of audience. While he explicitly addressed the 2005 edition to laywomen, the 2011 edition envisions a more generalized audience. This is partly because he has also published follow-ups to the 2005 edition for women entitled How Women Help Men Find God (2008) and What Your Husband Isn’t Telling You: A Guided Tour of a Man’s Body, Soul, and Spirit (2012). As a result of this diffusion of material, some of the explicit calls for women to throttle back their own spiritual life to make room for men (which were more explicit in the 2005 edition of Why Men Hate Going to Church) were removed or softened in the 2011 edition. He acknowledges that the first edition was criticized for “blaming women,” but believed that he had been clear about not placing blame on women, men, or pastors. But, given how he explicitly calls women the “gatekeepers” to bringing men back to the church, it is easy to see why his ultimatum to women to allow the church to change could rightfully be seen as laying responsibility upon them; and, where there is a responsibility, it follows that blame can be assigned for failing to live up to that responsibility. There is also the matter that, in the 2011 edition, even as he claims to not assign blame in the introduction (p. xiv), he opens chapter 25 with the question “Who’s to blame for Christianity’s gender gap? Men? Women? Pastors? Musicians? Authors? Businessmen? Yes” (p. 219). Unless otherwise noted, the rest of this chapter follows the 2005 edition, as the 2011 edition shows no discernible difference in viewpoint, and it is valuable to consider Murrow’s address to women.

  6. 6.

    Indeed, Murrow notes elsewhere that his goal is “not 50−50 balance … a church that wants to grow will tip the balance slightly toward the masculine … [it] should speak with a masculine accent (2008, p. 25).” He argues that this can be done without alienating women, who are allowed to cross into masculine pursuits with their reputations intact, while men lose stature among other men more easily for acting “feminine.”

  7. 7.

    This strategy of using vocabulary familiar in social justice settings to plead with women (particularly feminists) to consider the author’s point of view is not new. Richard Rohr and Joseph Martos (1992, p. 225) advised in their first edition of The Wild Man’s Journey—and in their most recent rewrite From Wild Man to Wise Man (2005, p. 12)—“Today, God’s sons are without dignity, self-confidence, true power. We look like the oppressors, dear sisters, but have no doubt we are really the oppressed.” These statements pit men’s and women’s claims about who is oppressed against each other. Consider how Rohr and Martos’s statement would change if they had instead written “have no doubt that we are also oppressed,” thereby recognizing that patriarchy is also harmful to men (though much more harmful to those who do not fall into the category of unambiguously and conventionally male). The difference between Murrow’s and Rohr and Martos’s use of this strategy is that Murrow gives what seems to be a light-hearted, self-deprecating hand-wave to the trap within which masculinity leaves men ensnared, and talks about utilizing this for evangelistic purposes; Rohr and Martos speak of being trapped at the top of society by false promises of power by “the system” and ask what transformation would look like. This is in keeping with their respective projects. Murrow is trying to get men in the door and committed to the church, while Rohr and Martos are pointing towards processes of transformation. Still, the framing of both arguments is that there is a power struggle in which women must give way to bring about the full flourishing of men.

  8. 8.

    Gelfer (2009, p. 184) writes that “a significant amount of the conservatism in masculine spirituality is not necessarily about actively pursuing a conservative agenda, but rather having seemingly no political awareness that their project is conservative to begin with, even conservative to the extreme. It is this lack of awareness which results in the often-genuine puzzlement in the face of criticism: why are King and Warrior archetypes or servant leaders patriarchal, they seem to ask, we’re just decent guys who want to do right by our family and friends? It is this lack of awareness that enables men to engage with scenes of paramilitary fantasy [common in some men’s ministries] without asking questions about what it actually suggests beyond some natural signifier of masculinity.” Gelfer speaks of varying degrees of conservatism whereas I have here introduced “moderate” to delineate differing patriarchal aspirations.

  9. 9.

    The adage “when one is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression” has been attributed to a number of people, but there is no consensus on who first uttered it.

  10. 10.

    Some of these questions can be found in Berra (2015). Other pertinent questions include does masculinity inherently deserve to exist, no matter what its content? In denominations or churches that ordain women and LGBTQIA folk, can we affirm “masculinity” without reifying the sins of sexism and heterosexism?

  11. 11.

    For an example of a better (yet still cis-heteronormative) attempt to define manhood biblically in a Reformed/Evangelical setting without reifying hypermasculinity, see Pyle (2015). Gelfer (2009) points to some further possibilities arising out of gay spiritualities (see especially Chap. 6 and conclusion).

  12. 12.

    This practical example came from a conversation with Reverend Jordan Ware in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

  13. 13.

    I have yet to see “what if he was your brother/father/etc.” as a way of addressing the rape of men. It may be just as well, since I here argue for a universal recognition that all genders deserve protection and advocacy, but the silence also speaks volumes about how far we have to go to address the rape of men.

  14. 14.

    An example of this is the light sentence Stanford swimmer Brock Turner received after being convicted in 2015 on three felony charges of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. Prosecutors asked the judge for a sentence of six years in prison. The judge sentenced Turner to six months, and Turner was released after three months in jail. The judge said in his sentencing statement that a harsher punishment would “have a severe impact” and “adverse collateral consequences” on Turner’s life (see Levin 2016). More pointedly, Turner’s father—in defence of lighter sentencing—wrote to the court that Turner’s “life will never be the one he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.” See Miller (2016).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Robert Berra

Authors
  1. Robert Berra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Caroline Blyth

  2. Trinity Methodist Theological College, Auckland, New Zealand

    Emily Colgan

  3. Sheffield Institute of Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Katie B. Edwards

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Berra, R. (2018). Men’s Ministries and Patriarchy: From Sites of Perpetuation to Sites of Resistance. In: Blyth, C., Colgan, E., Edwards, K. (eds) Rape Culture, Gender Violence, and Religion. Religion and Radicalism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72685-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation