The Need to Renew Masculine Spirituality
by James Akin
Awhile back Mark P. Shea wrote a piece for This Rock in which he posed an interesting speculation:
"Imagine yourself turning on some Catholic program and hearing an ad with language like this (spoken with a distinct Southern accent): 'Support John Paul II Ministries — marching out in the power of the Spirit to claim victory over the powers of hell. Anointed! Dynamic! Making an impact on this generation for Jesus Christ!'
"Now let's try another thought experiment. You flip on your TV to the 700 Club or TBN, and you see an ad with a woman with an English accent who intones, 'Read The Inner Way of Silence, and allow God to invite you to enter more deeply the path of contemplation. Experience sanctity as a fruit of dialogue with the Holy Spirit. Practice the presence of God, and open yourself to the gentle prompting of the Spirit by saying, as Mary did, "I am the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word." Allow the Spirit to breathe into your quiet reflection on the work of God in Scripture and creation. Let God breathe forth in you, as in Mary's womb, the Christ who comes to us in prayer and mystery"' ("Masculine and Feminine, Evangelical and Catholic," March 2002).
It would be pretty strange if these things happened, no? They would be a role reversal of what you would expect.
The point Shea makes is that Evangelical and Catholic spiritualities are different. Contemporary Evangelical spirituality tends to be masculine, whereas contemporary Catholic spirituality is more feminine. The former tends to be mission-oriented; the latter is oriented toward union with God. One is directed outward and active; the other is directed inward and meditative. While both spiritualities are and should be found in both sexes, they can be given different emphases.
Spiritually, all of us are "feminine" in pursuing union with God (that is, he must take the initiative of grace with regard to us) but "masculine" in our pursuit of apostolate toward others (that is, we take the initiative regarding bringing the message of Christ to them). Shea went on to point out that there is nothing unbiblical or contrary to Christian spirituality in either one of these approaches. The differences between Catholics and Evangelicals in this regard are cultural. They are not irreconcilable theological matters.
But while one can frame the difference in terms of masculine or feminine spiritualities or active and meditative spiritualities or something else, the difference is a real one, and lack of balance results in significant problems.
The Natural Level
God made mankind to exist in balance. One of the most obvious balances is between male and female. Even on the natural level, if this balance isn't maintained, problems result. The normal birthrate ensures that approximately equal numbers of males and females are born in our species, but if war or disease or a cultural practice upsets the balance, problems ensue. Even the survival of the population can be threatened.
What is true on the social level is also true on the individual level. Men and women do better together than they do apart. Both sexes have gifts that they bring to a relationship that promote the well-being of the family.
According to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, "Contrary to earlier and widely publicized reports, recent research finds men and women to benefit about equally from marriage, although in different ways. Both men and women live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives when they are married" (David Popenoe, "The Top Ten Myths of Marriage" [marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubmyths%20of%20marriage.htm]).
Some might sacrifice the goods of the married life in order to pursue a spiritual calling that involves celibacy, but this does not change the fact that the sexes do need each other on the natural level.
The same need for both male and female is found in parenting. Contrary to many attempts in the last few decades to argue that a parent of either sex (or two "parents" of the same sex) can do the job of childrearing just as well as a traditional father-mother couple, children in fact do best when they have both a father and a mother. One reason is that, generally speaking, the two sexes have different and complementary parenting styles, both of which help the children to grow up to be well-rounded individuals.
Studies show that mothers are quicker to intervene when a child is showing signs of distress. They are more nurturing and comforting to the child. Fathers are more likely to intervene less quickly and let the child "stand on his own two feet." They are more likely to encourage the child to take risks and test boundaries. (Of course, both parents adopt both strategies at different times, but we are speaking of statistical tendencies.)
An article by Glenn Stanton illustrates this: "Go to any playground and listen to the parents. Who is encouraging their kids to swing or climb just a little higher, ride their bike just a little faster, throw just a little harder? Who is yelling, 'Slow down, not so high, not so hard!'? Of course, fathers encourage children to take chances and push limits, and mothers protect and are more cautious. And this difference can cause disagreement between mom and dad on what is best for the child.
"But the difference is essential for children. Either of these parenting styles by themselves can be unhealthy. One can tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. The other tends to avoid risk, which can fail to build independence, confidence, and progress. Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence" (Glenn T. Stanton, "Why Children Need Father-Love and Mother-Love" [www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/a0027554.cfm]).
If this is how things are on the natural level, what does it tell us about how God wants things to work on the spiritual level?
One Step Up
Knowledge of how God designed the natural level to work should put us on our guard against an exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" focus in spirituality. If God designed mankind to work best with a balance of the sexes, then an overly masculine or overly feminine spirituality is likely to cause problems as well.
As a former Evangelical, I note from firsthand experience that Evangelical spirituality is often overly masculine and mission-oriented. In the minds of many Evangelicals, there is little awareness of the meditative style of spirituality, and this is to Evangelicalism's detriment.
It is beyond my present purpose to detail the ways in which this has harmed Evangelicalism, but I do want to look at how an overly feminine spirituality can be harmful to Catholics. Taking one step up from the natural level, then, what are some of the problems that can result?
An obvious one is the way in which we as individuals might be led to look at the character of God. If our understanding of spirituality is meditative to the point of excluding active spirituality, then we may view God himself in feminine terms. In conservative Catholic circles today, there are many people talking about God being "a loving Father," but one sometimes gets the impression that he is being read on an emotional level as a loving Mother who is quick to intervene and comfort the children.
Life seems to teach otherwise.
Human existence is full of misfortunes: the death of a loved one, a divorce despite one's best efforts, the loss of a job, a horrible disease, a bout of depression, a time of spiritual dryness, a crisis of faith, injustice, or brutality at the hands of another. When these things happen to us, we ask ourselves: Where is God in all of this?
If our spirituality has taught us to think of our relationship with God primarily as one of loving, nurturing union and to think of God as one who, like a mother, is quick to intervene and comfort his distressed children, then we are likely to be surprised and disappointed. Too often it seems that in the midst of crisis we get only flashes of relief, and then it is back to the long, hard slog of rebuilding our lives — or facing their end.
God, in these situations, does not seem to be a nurturing comforter — at least not the type we would expect on the model of a mother.
But if we recognize that God has revealed himself to us not as Mother but as Father, and if we recognize what fatherhood actually involves, it makes times of crisis much more comprehensible. God is not quick to swoop us up, comfort us, and make it all better, because that is not what fathers tend to do.
To be sure, fathers will intervene if their children get into situations that are truly over their heads, but they are much more likely to let the child "sweat it out" a bit, learn to "stand on his own two feet," and even "burn his fingers" in order to learn his lesson. This is much more how God seems to treat us in times of crisis: We get the help we need to get through the situation, but we don't usually get waves of comfort and consolation and miracles to smooth our path.
Understanding God truly as Father helps us to understand why he treats us the way he often does. Why do earthly fathers allow their children to experience hardship? So that they will learn to deal with it, to grow emotionally, and — to put it in the vernacular of an earlier time — to cultivate virtue. God wants his children to develop virtue before they graduate to heaven, and the way that tends to happen is by facing hardship.
When we deal with crises, then, God is a Father whose presence there tells us: "Don't worry. I'm here if you get in too deep. But you can deal with this. Keep trying. You'll make it."
This is the attitude taken by Scripture: "Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (Jas. 1:2-4).
Or, for that matter: "It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Heb. 12:7-11).
Two Steps Up
Many commentators in recent years have noted a widespread "feminization" of the Church and its clergy, parallel to a similar movement in secular society to do the same with men and boys. For the last few decades there have been efforts to "sensitize" males to the feelings of others, resulting in school and workplace efforts at "sensitivity training," television shows extolling the virtues of the sensitive male, and so forth.
Sensitivity, in men as well as women, is a good thing. Men should not be brutes who are unconcerned with the feelings of others. But the emphasis on sensitivity in our culture has become excessive. One result is political correctness, which involves a refusal to speak or act upon the truth for fear of offending the feelings of particular groups.
Political correctness is the endpoint of our culture's overemphasis on sensitivity, and its ecclesiastical equivalent can be found in our seminaries and dioceses: priests and religious who refuse to teach doctrine for fear of "excluding" people or being "intolerant of differences."
The problem is larger than just the American ecclesiastical situation, though, and it has deeper roots. As far as I can determine, its genesis goes back centuries.
In early Christianity there was more of a balance between the active and meditative spiritualities. Early Christianity possessed zeal to spread the faith, to take the message of Christ to the unwashed masses in desperate need of it.
But then a series of events happened. In broad-brush, oversimplified terms: Much of Christianity's territory was lost to Muslim conquest, and most Christians were bottled up in Europe; Christianity triumphed in Europe, with the result that there was no one left to evangelize; the medieval Church became infected with corruption and mismanagement, allowing the Protestant Reformation to begin and prosper; the wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics convulsed European civilization, leading people to decide that religion must be made a private matter to avoid the horrors of such warfare; the discovery of the New World led to renewed and effective evangelization but only until the New World was as thoroughly Christian as Europe; the twentieth century brought unprecedented change and social upheaval, including two World Wars and the Cold War, which placed a premium on the search for peace through diplomatic means.
At the end of this chain of events, we are left with a Church that spends much of its energy on international peace and diplomacy (beyond the realm of its mandate by Christ), has largely run out of people who are easy to evangelize (much of the rest of the world being either indifferent to the Christian message or committed to other thus far resilient belief systems), and has placed an emphasis on trying to reunite Christians through the diplomacy of ecumenism.
The effect of these consequences has been the suppression of the historically masculine elements in the Church's spirituality in favor of a feminine emphasis.
As the Church has become less and less relevant to daily life, particularly in its European homeland, ecclesiastics have not been unaware of the problem. They simply seem at a loss as to what to do about it.
Currently one of the most bruited solutions is for the Church to experience a recovery of holiness that will reinvigorate it and draw the masses back to Mass. The problem is that the renewal of holiness is being conceived of in feminine terms, placing a greater emphasis on meditative spirituality and "contemplating the face of Christ."
This seems to me to be, if not the opposite of what is needed, only a single component of what is needed. What is more pressing is a recovery of not only holiness-through-meditation but holiness-through-action.
I'm sure that you've heard ad nauseum the homilist's joke about the guy who is hanging from a cliff (or trapped on a roof by a flood). He prays to God for deliverance and encounters several people who offer to help. Yet the man refuses help and continues to pray to God, who finally responds: "I sent you three people to help! Why didn't you take it?"
Something analogous is going on here. Instead of praying and turning inward, the Church needs to be praying and turning outward — evangelistically. We need less emphasis on social projects and more focus on preaching Jesus and teaching his word.
We need to start hearing more language in ecclesiastical circles like that in the imaginary masculine ad quoted at the beginning of this article. We need to hear more talk of people's need for Jesus and of our duty to preach him to them. The solution is not an ever more feminine spirituality; it is a recovery of the masculine and a re-masculinization of the Church and its clergy.
It is true that the goal of evangelization and of ecclesiastical activity is union with God, but the primary modality of the average Christian life and of the Church's mandate in this world is evangelistic action rather than meditation or distraction with social projects.
The Great Commission is not a commission to meditate on the face of Christ. It is a mandate to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:19-20).
In short, we need to get busy with evangelization, and we need Church leaders who internalize this vision and tell us to get busy.
Jimmy Akin is the director of apologetics and evangelization at Catholic Answers. His books include Mass Confusions and The Salvation Controversy.
© Catholic Answers, Inc.
This item 6371 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
