“That’s Not How We Do Things Here”: American Men’s Ministries in an Australasian Context

Abstract

“That’s Not How We Do Things Here”: American Men’s Ministries in an Australasian Context Joseph Gelfer Christian organizations that focus on men are nothing new. For example, the Holy Name Society, founded at the Council of Lyons in 1274, and the Knights of Columbus, founded in 1882, both continue to this day (Kauffman 1982). More broadly, Christian movements that focus on men are also nothing new: Muscular Christianity as well as the Men and Religion Forward Movement gained momentum in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Allen 2002, Bederman 1989, Putney 2003). A second wave of Muscular Christianity took hold after the Second World War, with special reference to Christian sporting activities (Ladd and Mathisen 1999). A third wave of Muscular Christianity can be identified in the late 1970s, starting with the establishment by Ed Cole of the Christian Men’s Network (CMN), which saw the creation of what we now know as “men’s ministries” (Gelfer 2009). Some men’s ministries, such as the well‐known Promise Keepers (PK), are non‐denominational, while others are affiliated with specific denominations, the most numerous of which are Catholic (Gelfer 2008). Some men’s ministries have no further focus than men, while others have a tighter agenda, such as fatherhood (Gelfer 2010a). The uniting reason for men’s ministry is an anxiety about the fading of men within the church: either an anxiety about men losing power in the Church as a result of increasing feminine influence or a missiological anxiety that fewer men are being brought to Christ. The goal of men’s ministries is therefore to attract men back into churches. This is largely achieved by appealing to stereotypical masculinities based on sporting, military, and mythopoetic images (Gelfer 2009) as well as a conservative understanding of servant leadership within the home or what has worryingly been described as “soft patriarchy” (Wilcox 2004). Most men’s ministries are based in America. In recent years, when talking about men’s ministries in Australia and New Zealand, I have met a common complaint from both theologians and clergy, “that’s not how we do things here.” Their argument is twofold: First, these critics argue, I present a caricature of evangelicalism that does not bear witness to its diversity; second, I do not acknowledge that evangelicalism (and therefore evangelical men’s ministries) looks different in Australasia compared to America. Australasian men’s ministries, these critics claim, are more subtle. They are less prone to soft patriarchy, less prone to appealing to sport and military images to entice men, and consequently less prone to the problematic masculinity they promote.1 Part of this criticism is reasonable (at least according to research sympathetic to evangelical diversity). It is true that American evangelicalism—due to the assumed creep of modernity and its values—is not the conservative monolith once identified by progressive critics. There is a spectrum of positions on this issue ranging from the paradox that evangelical rhetoric remains conservative while its practice is increasingly liberal/progressive (Bartkowski 1999, Gallagher and Smith 1999, Wilcox and Bartkowski 1999) through to there being a “megashift” in the evangelical worldview (Brow 1990). It is also true that Australasian evangelicalism has its own particular flavor. For example, Brian Dickey (1994) argues that by the 1990s, the Australian evangelical domain can be seen as a “self‐contained, self‐directing phenomena whose linkages are tenuous and various, whose driving forces are largely endogamous, whose endeavors are largely independent” (240).2 However, the claim of “that’s not how we do things here” requires further unpacking. First, it must be recognized that while there may be diversity to evangelicalism in America, this does not necessarily mean that evangelical men’s ministries are similarly diverse. Indeed, the evangelical caricature is largely justified when the masculine performances in American men’s ministries are examined (Gelfer 2009). Second, it cannot be assumed that because evangelicalism in Australasia has its own particularities, men’s ministries in Australasia will also have their own particularities (especially in light of the American caricature). Canvassing men’s ministry Web sites,3 this article looks specifically at Australasian men’s ministries to see whether the claim of “that’s not...