If you’ve seen the breathtaking and profound 1986 film The Mission, you know of the musical talents of the native people encountered by the colonizers and missionaries who came to South and Central America in the 1600s and 1700s.

NPR has an amazing story on the revival of baroque music in Bolivia, which I heard this morning on the way to work. As soon as the story started, I recognized a familiar tune from The Mission. Sure enough, the story revealed that this piece was one of many that have been restored from 17th-century manuscripts from Jesuit missions in Bolivia.

The Mission is a story of the tragic clash between the peaceful Guaraní natives, Portuguese colonizers, and Spanish Jesuit missionaries. The musical abilities of the Guaraní are pointed out as evidence that they are, in fact, human and worthy of respect.

Few situations in human history are as complex and conflicted as the situation between colonials and the people they colonized (both militarily and religiously). The Mission is a must-see for feeling the tensions and the beauty in this situation, and this NPR story is a great way to convince yourself to see it. The music is beautiful.

Edit - fixed Youtube link.

Wow. This guy is really impressive. Check out this Washington Post article. Snippets:

…[Masoud] said imams who outlawed art and music were misinterpreting their faith. He talked about love and relationships, the need to be compassionate toward homosexuals and tolerant of non-Muslims.

…

Television preaching in the Middle East was once largely limited to elderly scholars in white robes reading holy texts from behind a desk, emphasizing the afterlife over this life, and sometimes inciting violence against nonbelievers. But as TV has evolved from one or two heavily controlled state channels to hundreds of diverse, private satellite offerings, Masoud and perhaps a dozen other young men — plus a few women — have emerged as increasingly popular alternatives. Masoud and others promote “a sweet orthodoxy, which stresses the humane and compassionate” as an alternative to “unthinking rage”

…

As fundamental teachings, Masoud advocates adherence to prayer five times a day, peace toward all and abstinence from alcohol, sex outside of marriage and violence. Beyond those principles, he said, Islam is suffering from a “crisis of interpretation.”
“I’m sure Osama bin Laden knows a lot of the Koran,” he said. “But when a Muslim celebrates when the Twin Towers collapse, you have a big problem.”

This Youtube is also fantastic (minus the cheesy Braveheart music). He appears to have a website, but a lot of the links, including the “English” one, are broken. Also found this - looks like he spoke at a conference in 2005 called “The Radical Middle Way” (Vineyard anyone?).

Conservatives have been calling for more moderate Muslims - hopefully they will give support and encouragement to these emerging voices.

Our church has decided to stop meeting on Sundays, as I mentioned a few days ago. In the past week or so, I’ve been surprised at how there is a general sense among members that this also means the church is ceasing to exist, or that we have now failed in our efforts to plant a church.

We are continuing Film & Spirituality as well as our mid-week book discussion groups, which are currently focusing on How (Not) To Speak of God and The Great Divorce. So SMC is far from gone, and I consider it far from a failure.

However, I did underestimate how much it would feel like a failure to stop having our Sunday “service,” a term I despise because, well, I’m not a big fan of the idea of a weekly worship service. I never assumed we’d have a Sunday service for the long term, yet somehow we ended up with one.

Worship services are not easy for a small, leaderless group to pull off. For a long time, we didn’t really worry too much about the format, since we’re just a fairly small and informal group. A few months ago, though, when we had more people, we developed a liturgy to lend some consistency to our weekly gatherings.

More recently, without enough people to fill all the spots on the liturgy, it became difficult to sustain or see the value in this format, so we decided to stop doing it. While this has been deeply disturbing to our group, I think that’s a good thing, because it’s shaken us up and is forcing us to consider what it really means to be Christians in community. Here are some of my initial thoughts.

First, it’s time to stop doing things just because we always have. There’s no scriptural mandate to have a worship service, and if we’re bad at running it and not getting anything out of it, it’s time to find other ways to spend our time.

Second, it’s time to get beyond the idea of a church, a congregation, as a valid and discrete entity. There is only the church and groups that subdivide it. For too long, we’ve been subdivided but not connected to the other parts of the church in our area. We’ve taken Paul’s metaphor of the church as the body of Christ and shrunken it down so each congregation or gathering is the body, and everything outside that body is either a potential invader or an organ that’s been removed from the body.

If we’re to use Paul’s body metaphor correctly, we need to see the entire church as the body. Jesus’ messages to the seven churches in Revelation address the entire city as if it were one church, not many churches. I don’t know the congregational status of the Christians in these cities, but I’m guessing they didn’t all meet all at once, nor consider themselves separate, isolated congregations.

Third, we need to start seeing the church as a network of Christians in community and in relationship with each other. For the past five years, we’ve done very little networking or connecting with other Christians in our city. This past weekend at Off The Map Live, I got to see and catch up with several church planter friends, many of whom have left the church-planting business. As I spoke with people, I got the sense that, as Dwight Friesen said in a slightly different context, our best days are ahead of us. We’ve got a lot more thinking to do, and that thinking must include further development of trans-congregational ecclesiology.

As I said a few months back, it’s been a long while since I thought seriously about ecclesiology, probably because we’ve been spinning our wheels as a church and were getting to the point where we needed a shakeup. That shakeup as come, and now the thinking is coming fast and furious.

This past Sunday we had the pleasure of visiting The Ohana Project, a church started by some great people several years ago in a manner fairly similar to SMC. They meet in a community center and seem to be growing nicely, though they have observed that many people are not interested in coming every Sunday. Membership is much more fluid, and I think this reflects the network nature of the church as it is developing in Seattle.

I am eager to continue to think about these issues, visit with other Christians, and develop new ways for Seattle Metro Church to serve in our area. I also look forward to the ways we as a faith community and a group of friends can continue to enrich each other’s lives and faith.

The best is yet to come. Love to all.

Right now I have a network of blogs that look good, have good domain names, and could really become something. It’s doing pretty well, but I could probably invest more time in the network and see better results. If I worked on it full time, I definitely would. I see better-organized networks making lots of money, but they also spend lots of money, and thereby incurring the risk of unprofitability and massive loss. My attitude has been that if you go slow and grow sustainably, you’ll end up with a healthier organization and face a lower risk of burnout or crash-and-burn.

But this is hardly ever how successful companies form in America. You take out a loan, you suffer for a while under growing pains, and hopefully have a thriving business after a while. 80% of the time, this doesn’t work and the business fails, which often leaves you in debt. I’m still paying off debt from my hosting business that I tried to grow too quickly. I should have started out in consulting, which is very successful and sustainable, rather than try to build a business that would get too big for me.

Slow-Grow Organic vs. Doin’ It Big

Is there a place for organic, slow-grow organizations that don’t take on a lot of risk but still make progress and get things accomplished? Our church has always believed that there is. We’ve said that we’d rather find a different way to be a church than do an expensive church plant and risk massive failure.

The downside of this organic method is that, all too often, nothing happens. When something doesn’t have your full attention, when you don’t have anything really big at risk, when your survival does not depend on your organization’s success, you don’t try as hard. I’d like to think it doesn’t have to be that way, but I don’t think I can believe that any more. Sometimes you have to take real risks to get yourself invested in something. Or, you can join an organization that’s already become successful, with fewer rewards, but with a good deal less risk and more stability.

If you’re at that point where you must admit that your organization is barely limping along, what do you do? Do you go pro and start investing and spending, hoping that it will pay off? Do you throw in the towel, taking the better odds that you’ll fail over the slim odds that you’ll succeed? Or do you plod on, maintaining your faith in the organization’s potential for success if it is slowly nurtured over time? How do you ensure that you’re putting in enough to keep it alive?

These are important questions for our church, because ideology comes into play. My ecclesiology says smaller is better, organic is the way it should be, less money is more authentic. However, when you run up against the reality of not actually succeeding in plodding along, it gets discouraging. When our attendance takes a dip - even when we know it’s because people are out of town or at another planned event - it’s deeply discouraging. It makes me wonder if perhaps my faith would be nurtured more if I invested my time and effort with a church that’s clearly already successful by traditional measures.

What about those measures of success, though? What if our church is not really limping along, but is actually working as it should? What if this is the way things are supposed to be, with a few people sharing a meal in a living room, living life together?

There’s nothing wrong with that picture of church. I am reaching a point, though, where I’m ready for a more professionalized form of church. I don’t know if this is because I am personally becoming more specialized in my profession, or because I’ve had a number of experiences that reinforce for me the importance of expertise.

Expertise Matters

On Saturday, a wire under the driver’s seat in our car broke. This wire connected the seat-moving lever to the clamp that locks the seat in place; there’s also another clamp attached directly to the lever. With the wire broken, the clamp on the opposite side doesn’t get released, so you can’t move the seat.

I spent about an hour on Monday night fixing this. I tried picture wire, but it was too stretchy. I eventually gave up and just broke off the spring that holds the clamp in place. It was really a 5-minute job, but that kind of work is not my cup of tea. My father-in-law, who is a professional mechanic, could have done it in 30 seconds.

Another experience was touring a house with David and Lukas. They had a home inspector, which was a good thing because she found lots of problems with the house, many related to amateur construction or repair work. I told myself on that day that I’d never go beyond my capabilities again when working on my house. Paint? No problem. But no plumbing, electrical, carpentry, or masonry. No way. It’s worth every penny to hire an expert.

Right now, I’m feeling that I need an expert when it comes to spiritual formation through a church body. I feel like I’ve given what I can give, and I need some expert teaching from someone who has more training than I do.

Right now, I’m leaning toward visiting Quest on Sunday. I have a lot of respect for Eugene, who was one of the first church leaders we talked to about church planting when we moved here.

The Implications

I shared my desire to do something else on Sundays with the rest of our church last Sunday, and we decided that there was not enough momentum or desire to continue meeting on Sundays. Our Sunday gathering hasn’t been problematic, but it hasn’t been as fruitful as it could either. Some people will find other churches to attend on Sundays; others will not, and will find other ways to connect with God and each other.

We will continue holding our other events such as Film & Spirituality and our very exciting book clubs, which are currently focusing on How (Not) to Speak of God and C.S. Lewis. The book clubs have been a significant source of renewal and insight for me personally, and I’m wondering if this is because of the influx of outside ideas and expertise.

That’s big news, but it’s not an announcement that Seattle Metro Church has failed or is disbanding. Far from it. We discussed the fact that it’s not a bad thing for us to have to invite each other over for us to see one another weekly; if church has put us on autopilot as friends, perhaps it’s time to shake things up.

We will continue to look for ways to be there for each other, grow our faith, and make a difference in our world. Ideas appreciated.

I posted rather gloatingly a few months ago that Left Behind Video Games, publisher of the horrid Left Behind: Eternal Forces PC game, is not doing too well. Their stock is currently at about the same point - 10 to 20 cents per share - and they’ve lost $26,000,000 this year. I think the premise of the game and the company is deeply flawed, so I’m not shedding any tears over its poor performance, though I’m sure there are many good-hearted people who lost money on what they considered a faith-based investment, and that’s a shame.

That’s not the reason for this post, though. It appears that the company’s founders are still around and are keeping themselves busy not with publishing more video games, but with sicking their lawyer on people they don’t like. Today, I became one of those people.

I received two separate letters via certified mail telling me to remove this post and this post, as well as their comments. I’m not sure whether they found this post, in which I post Lyndon’s own words correcting some of the mischaracterizations that appeared in early reviews, which my post was based on. At any rate, they’re not happy I still have anti-Left Behind: Eternal Forces stuff on my site, and they sent me a nasty letter telling me to take it down.

It reads, in its entirety:

The Law Offices of Gordon D. Katz
452 Brookhurst Ave.
Narberth, PA 19144
PH: (610) 275-9000, Fax: (610) 672-9789

September 20, 2007

radicalcongruency.com
2907 S Byron St
Seattle, WA 98144

RE: False information posted on your site about the video game LEFT BEHIND: Eternal Forces

To whom this may concern:

I represent Left Behind Games Inc., the developer and publisher of the LEFT BEHIND series of video games. Your organization hosts a website that has information posted about this game. Unfortunately, there are many statements on your website which appear to be false and misleading. This type of misinformation may cause significant and irreparable harm to Left Behind Video Games Inc. and must be removed.

Left Behind Games Inc. generally supports free speech in the media and understands how important it is to have various opinions presented for public consumption. It will not, however, tolerate the publication of information regarding its products that is false or misleading.

Left Behind Games Inc. is demanding that you immediately remove any and all information contained on your site about the above stated game that is false and/or misleading, including any such statements or commentary and the responses thereto. This includes posted comments made by others in the context of reading the incorrect or misleading statements.

If you do not comply immediately, the company will be forced to pursue additional legal action which will include claims for damages, costs of suit and attorney’s fees. This may subject you and your organization to significant legal and financial damages.

If you need to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact my Administrator on this matter, Robilyn Lyndon at (951) 816-0901.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Gordon D. Katz, Esq.

I’m no lawyer, but I can play one on TV as well as the next guy, and I can tell this letter is nothing more than sore-loser bullying.

First off, I understand that LBG is not too happy their game got bad initial reviews, and they tried admirably to recover after the demo was released. Jeffrey Frichner, the company’s president, even left some comments here in his company’s defense. I listened carefully to what he and the newer reviews said, and responded at length here.

But you simply can’t go around suing people who say things about your product that you don’t like. All of the initial misinformation I posted on this site was corrected with follow-up information, which is easy to find by searching for Left Behind: Eternal Forces using the box at the top of the page.

What’s more, I made it very clear that I was speculating in much of what I said in my post, and I gave links to the sources I was using. There was no playable demo at the time, and when one became available, I posted my new findings. I did not, and will not, delete the original posts and comments, even if they don’t shed a good light on Left Behind: Eternal Forces.

Second, Mr. Katz, Left Behind Games does not publish a “series of video games.” There’s just one game, plus the expansion pack. I think you need more than one title, or at least a few games with the same name plus a roman numeral, to call it a series.

Third, Mr. Katz, you know very well that if we took this to court, your client would be the one to pay my legal fees, not vice-versa. If ever there was a frivolous lawsuit, this is it. The posts on this site are not slander, and not libel, and I have taken great pains to be fair as more information became available in this matter. If you can tell me exactly what basis you have for suing me, perhaps I will further consider your request.

Otherwise, stop bullying people with your fancy letterhead and get a client with a real case.

Evangelism is icky…or at least that’s what I keep hearing. I’m not convinced.

You may have heard that the Pope was criticized recently for reintroducing the Latin mass, which includes a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. This has many Jews upset, and other groups are upset at Benedict’s recent statements that salvation only comes through the Catholic Church.

I’m not really sure why people react this way these days. Part of it is the rise of a Good Thing - tolerance - but I don’t think that is a sufficient explanation for why we’re so offended that other people think they’re right and that we should live as they live.

To some extent, I agree that we should live and let live. I have a Krups, you have a Mr. Coffee. I go to Old Navy, you go to Banana Republic (yeah, you, Aaron). Some differences in personal choice aren’t worth even mentioning, because they don’t matter.

But other issues do matter, and if you have thought about your way of understanding the universe and your role within it, and your relationship (if any) to a higher power (if one exists), I’d think you’d want to tell me about it and at least have a friendly argument. I’d hope you don’t think that something as important as how and why humans and the universe exist, and how we should live, are in the “true for me but not for you” category.

I don’t think we should go on from there to be jerks about these matters and hate or harm each other because of our differences. But how far can we go in saying that I have my religion, and you have yours, and we’re all fine here? These are things in which we really cannot all be right, and depending on which set of beliefs you hold, there may be big consequences to those beliefs (though, of course, it’s a common belief that there are no other-worldly consequences to what you believe).

I’m inclined to ask, then, isn’t it rather imperialistic and judgmental to be offended that other people think you’re unsaved or believe wrongly? Don’t most people in the world think that they are right and others are wrong, and isn’t that an OK thing to believe? Isn’t it a rather novel, elitist view that we’re all OK and shouldn’t worry about what other people believe?

I personally tend not to make assumptions about who’s OK with God and who’s not. God will do what he will. On the other hand, I respect the right of others to think I’m wrong.

When we speak out against any kind of religious judgment of others or claim to exclusivity (e.g. claiming that my tribe is the only one that will be saved, or whatever), we’re introducing another kind of exclusivity - the kind that says no one can be wrong or say someone else is wrong.

Now, I won’t go a step farther and say that it is then justifiable to commit acts of oppression or violence against people who believe differently. Certainly not. But I think the fear of such harm is what’s behind all the shock and distress over being judged as unfaithful by others. Maybe we need to work harder to separate the two.

I would much rather know that someone disagrees with what I believe and still treats me respectfully than I would like to hear that they think I’m fine even though my beliefs are diametrically opposed to theirs. I don’t find it helpful to pretend our massive worldview differences don’t exist. Unless we’ve lost them, they’re the perpetual, proverbial elephant in the room.

But I think we can live with the elephant. I think we can live and work together, comfortable in the knowledge that we believe different things. I think we can even want others to come around to our perspective, whether we’re talking politics, religion, or sports franchises.

At stake is nothing less than the survival of discourse itself. Humanity has been immeasurably enriched by our natural tendency to discuss our ideas, to debate, to disagree and argue and consider each other’s positions. We had a lot to learn about being nicer to one another, but I don’t think the rise of civility must be accompanied by a decline in discourse. The opposite should be true - as we become more able to treat each other respectfully, we should have more discourse and care even more about our beliefs.

This all comes to a head when we consider evangelism. It’s almost a dirty word, because it implies - gasp! - that we want other people to believe and live as we do. There is, I must admit, a certain amount of hubris and hypocrisy inherent in the evangelistic drive. If you want to convince others to believe as you do, you must believe that you’re at least mostly right and that your way of life is at least somewhat superior to the alternatives, even if you don’t live in complete congruence with your beliefs.

Perhaps what we’re talking about is a quest for truth, or enlightenment, or wisdom, or peace, or whatever you’d like to call it. Here’s what it will take for the evangelistic drive to thrive in a world where we’re actually decent to one another:

• We cannot use coercion of any type.
• We cannot use evangelism to serve our own interests. By definition, it is undertaken for the benefit of the other.
• We must remain open to learning and changing our own beliefs, if we are to expect this of others.
• We must continually address our own hypocrisy in failing to live by our own standards.
• We must listen as much or more than we expect others to listen to us.

If I’m OK, you’re OK, and evangelism is not OK, we have a problem, because that means no one cares about what they believe. In a world with no healthy discourse, we become so afraid of offending someone that we cease to believe anything or discuss our beliefs.

Discuss. Don’t just say that my opinion is fine for me to have if you disagree :).

Ever since Jesus Camp came out (and well before then too, to a lesser degree), there’s been a lot of criticism of churches and Christian movements that use religious or warfare metaphors. Rare C of C pacifist (and college buddy of mine) Greg Kendall-Ball has quite a few posts that deal with this topic, including this one.

I personally consider it unwise for Christians to use military metaphors and language when talking about their faith, given the current state of world affairs. However, I don’t consider it creepy or wrong.

One reason I consider such terminology unwise, though, is that people will misunderstand it, or at least use it to badmouth Christians. Two examples come to mind - Jesus Camp, the 2006 documentary on a pentecostal children’s camp, and this Rolling Stone article on Ron Luce’s Battlecry youth movement.

In Jesus Camp, the emphasis is on training kids to be “warriors for the Lord,” which is language I think most people from an evangelical background are familiar with (Daniel first mentioned the film here). The filmmakers take pains to portray the woman who runs the summer camp as some sort of dangerous freak hellbent on brainwashing children - not exactly a balanced portrayal. I found nothing in the film even mildly disturbing - hokey, perhaps (e.g. the kids in camouflage pledging allegiance to the Christian flag as well as the US flag), but not at all worrisome.

I wasn’t familiar with BattleCry until reading “Teenage Holy War,” an article by Jeff Sharlet in this month’s Rolling Stone. The subtitle of the article reads:

Jesus is really, really pissed — at Hollywood, at the media, even at most Christians. But BattleCry, the nation’s largest and most radical youth crusade, is recruiting a new generation of Christian soldiers to fight back. link

Battlecry leader Ron Luce says the military language is intentional, to call young people to bring about change in our culture. Nightline has a pretty good story on BattleCry, which you can currently watch on YouTube (8 minutes). If Luce’s use of military language is intentional, Sharlet’s is doubly so - he clearly intends to portray this movement as dangerous and disturbing, and to associate it with the literal jihad occurring around the globe.

Sharlet selectively quotes Luce:

“This is a real war,” Luce preaches. When he talks like that, he growls. “This is not a metaphor!” In Cleveland, he intercuts his sermons with videos of suicide bombers and marching Christian teens. link

Uh, those aren’t Christian suicide bombers, and the marching Christian teens aren’t exactly carrying guns. Yes, to Luce it is a real war, but not one fought with violence. Far from it.

Is the war on AIDS creepy? The war on poverty? Let’s recognize when we’re in a serious struggle to overcome something terrible, and let’s recognize that these struggles are worth engaging in. We must recognize when the term “war” is used metaphorically, and never confuse it with real wars that are happening around the globe.

But for people like Rolling Stone’s Sharlet, it’s not the language that poses a threat; it’s the power. These youth movements are influential and growing - Luce has preached to more than 12 million teens in his career. And he is leading teens to oppose things that Sharlet doubtless values. It’s a culture war, and Luce has a powerful war machine at the moment (though Rolling Stone is quite a war machine itself in this regard).

In this vein, a commenter at Rolling Stone says (sorry, no direct permalink):

How do you feel about separation of church and state? I don’t think that most militant christians present a threat of violence. The religion has evolved beyond that stage (I hope). The threat they represent is a kind of majority opinion that represses other views. Their antagonism towards others who don’t share their views is well documented. The problem is that when you think you have a direct line to God, you are willing to take on anything–science, the justice system, public policy–to ensure that your perception of God’s will is carried out. These outfits purposely train and This with no historical context, no understanding is a recipe for oppression. We live in a secular society. If you want it to be a theocracy, go found your own country. Don’t ruin ours.

The RS article does not specifically accuse Luce’s movement of trying to make America into a Christian theocracy, which I would find far more troubling. Luce is simply trying to get teens to be a force for good, and I can’t agree with the commenter that the alternative to having a religious nation is having a secular nation. We clearly live in a pluralistic nation and society, with many religions, subsets of religions, and anti-religious people, and that’s the way we all want it. But I bet it’s scary to see tens of thousands of teens weeping and raising their hands in worship and knowing they’re going to vote against you when they grow up.

Finally, you can’t blog about Christian military metaphors without mentioning Onward Christians Soldiers:

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.

Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine, one in charity.

What the saints established that I hold for true.
What the saints believèd, that I believe too.
Long as earth endureth, men the faith will hold,
Kingdoms, nations, empires, in destruction rolled.

Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
But the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.

Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud and honor unto Christ the King,
This through countless ages men and angels sing.

What do you think? Is military language, even when used symbolically and with clear opposition to actual violence, inappropriate for religious use?

You can read the whole Rolling Stone article in this Flickrset (the links above are to an excerpt).

Greg linked to an Abiline church event featuring material by Wild at Heart author John Eldredge via his Ransomed Heart Ministries. What’s unusual about this distinctly male, distinctly Texas event is the door prizes:

Door prizes including shotguns, iPods, swords, gift certificates, and more! link

I think it’s pretty funny, and I wonder if there is even a law about whether you can give a shotgun away as a prize. Considering the “gun show loophole,” I’d guess it’s legal, at least in Texas. Legal, but clearly ridiculous.

Such attempts to appeal to men do appear to be necessary, though. Consider the footer image on this same church’s website:

See any guys in there? Nope. Is this just a coincidence, or an indication of a larger problem in the way church is gendered or de-gendered?

The comments on Greg’s post range from incredulous to outraged. The general consensus among Greg’s readers (with a few pro-Eldredge exceptions) is that gender is an outmoded concept.

It seems to me that we’re pretty quick to throw out gender archetypes (not to be confused with stereotypes) that have been a part of our species for thousands of years. There is nothing wrong with their being such a thing as masculinity or masculine traits, nor anything wrong with there being such a thing as femininity or feminine traits.

I don’t think we can or should expect males to have all the masculine traits and none of the feminine traits, or females to have all the feminine traits and none of the masculine traits. That would be ridiculous.

But the concept of gender and gender-aligned traits is central to what it means to be human. Certainly, people will inevitably be gender-non-conforming in various ways, but this is the exception that proves the rule. We lose something by obliterating all gender distinctions.

Gender should not be something we use to exclude people (except from restrooms), to say that you can’t do something because it is not aligned with our gender stereotypes. Gender should, however, be something we can call people to as a way of illustrating important values (such as bravery or compassion). And while these traits are not exclusively the property of one gender or another, I think it’s valid to appeal to their varying resonance with people, as Eldredge does in Wild at Heart and Captivating.

Nonetheless, if you advertise that you’re giving out swords and shotguns as door prizes, you fully deserve to be mocked.