140 replies to this topic

[Buckeye Jones]

The only manly thing I need in my church is songs with baritone parts. Unfortunately, its all tenor all the time. I croak my praise. Better than a rock, I guess.

SDG--I introduced the Europe trip, recalling that you were over the pond recently.

[Nick Alexander]

Greg P, on 20 July 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

Man Church is no men's or women's prayer group. It's a church that's distinctly marketed to appeal to people wavering about their masculinity and in that sense it comes off as extremely gay, verging on high satire. The language used on their website is flamboyantly homosexual in nature. The desperate talk of firmly buttressing their manhood with lots of manly things in the company of only men, ring suspiciously like an outreach of Exodus International. To be blunt Nick, I don't know any straight men who need their masculinity affirmed by church.

To be blunt, Greg, it's not straight men who needs their masculinity affirmed, but teenagers on the cusp of adulthood.

From the site:

Quote

The topics of discussion will have a definite manly focus - being the best possible husband, father, employee, leader - being a real man.

Quote

Our vision is equipping men to walk with Christ, be like Christ and to be the men God designed.

About "Becoming A Man", which is from the MEN's FRATERNITY program I mentioned earlier:

Quote

This six week series is designed to be viewed by a group of fathers together with their high school age sons.

Quote

Do you honestly know men who are so insecure about their masculine identities that they would benefit from attending this?

It's not about insecurity, nor is it about homosexuality. It's about growing in Christlike character, tailor made to those men whom are attracted to these traits, ultimately affecting the relationships with their wives, children, coworkers and friends.

I did a word-search on "buttress" throughout the site. I couldn't find the page you were referencing. Or perhaps you were turned off by the steel-plated font?

Nick

[Thom Wade]

Nick Alexander, on 20 July 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

Do you call Women's ministries and women's Bible conventions to be lesbian affairs? Just asking.

One might if they were calling it "Woman's Church".

[SDG]

Nezpop, on 20 July 2010 - 01:09 PM, said:

Nick Alexander, on 20 July 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

Do you call Women's ministries and women's Bible conventions to be lesbian affairs? Just asking.

One might if they were calling it "Woman's Church".

If I heard of something called "Woman Church," I would immediately assume it was at least a radical feminist thing. That's independent of (but not unrelated to) the fact that WomanChurch is indeed the title of a book by radical feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Reuther.

[SDG]

Andy Whitman, on 20 July 2010 - 12:14 PM, said:

Except for the rather sensational, offputting name, I suspect it could be conveniently viewed as "Men's Ministry."

FWIW, I have only ever been concerned here with the "rather sensational, offputting name."

[SDG]

Nick Alexander, on 20 July 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

When you said "In my country we say 'Yeah, I don't see it,'", directly after my truce to agree to disagree--noting that I didn't see a cultural/temporal feminine perception on church equanimous to the permanent feminine perception on purses or cupcakes--were you saying "I" as in me, or in you? Because it can be read as a snide put-down.

Can I just say it wasn't a snide put-down and let it go at that?

Quote

If you have a penchant to sound reasoning, one's gonna have to do a whole lot better than font size, font type, and branding.

One can't engage in "sound reasoning" about font size, font type and branding?

Quote

I simply am not going to be quick to judge the merits of a program like this.

I'm not even going to be slow about it. I have no interest in judging the merits of a program at all.

[Thom Wade]

e2c, on 20 July 2010 - 01:34 PM, said:

Nezpop, on 20 July 2010 - 01:09 PM, said:

Nick Alexander, on 20 July 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

Do you call Women's ministries and women's Bible conventions to be lesbian affairs? Just asking.

One might if they were calling it "Woman's Church".

I think it would be "Wymyn church," or something like that, but I think the so-called "wisecracks" about unattractive women (etc.) are just... not cricket. I wish you guys would just let it drop.

Hey, I made no such cracks.

[SDG]

Is this the part where Nick tells us that some of those Greenwich Village people he knows who have succumbed to same-sex attraction are in fact totally hot women?

[Nick Alexander]

SDG, on 20 July 2010 - 01:35 PM, said:

Can I just say it wasn't a snide put-down and let it go at that?

Poof. It's gone. Forgive me for overreacting.

Quote

Quote

If you have a penchant to sound reasoning, one's gonna have to do a whole lot better than font size, font type, and branding.

One can't engage in "sound reasoning" about font size, font type and branding?

I can't see how externals can be debated soundly. If people want to act on their gut reactions, that's their right, but the fact is neither of us live in that interdenominational church's vicinity, nor do I know the people in that community. And yet, if such a program was a successful outreach, I would suppose that the font size, font type and branding makes more sense to them than to me.

Quote

Quote

I simply am not going to be quick to judge the merits of a program like this.

I'm not even going to be slow about it. I have no interest in judging the merits of a program at all.

From a comic I read today: "No, I didn't see the movie or read the book, but I saw the DVD cover art, and I thought it was excellent."

SDG, on 20 July 2010 - 02:07 PM, said:

Is this the part where Nick tells us that some of those Greenwich Village people he knows who have succumbed to same-sex attraction are in fact totally hot women?

Edited by Nick Alexander, 20 July 2010 - 02:12 PM.

[SDG]

Nick Alexander, on 20 July 2010 - 02:08 PM, said:

Poof. It's gone. Forgive me for overreacting.

Who you calling a poof?

No, kidding. Poof, yourself!

Quote

From a comic I read today: "No, I didn't see the movie or read the book, but I saw the DVD cover art, and I thought it was excellent."

See, and as a graphic artist I am totally into judging DVD cover art as well as fonts and such. It's a totally different thing from critiquing a movie.

Nick Alexander, on 20 July 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

SDG, on 20 July 2010 - 02:07 PM, said:

Is this the part where Nick tells us that some of those Greenwich Village people he knows who have succumbed to same-sex attraction are in fact totally hot women?

I was really hoping to get that smilie!

[Nick Alexander]

SDG, on 20 July 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

Quote

From a comic I read today: "No, I didn't see the movie or read the book, but I saw the DVD cover art, and I thought it was excellent."

See, and as a graphic artist I am totally into judging DVD cover art as well as fonts and such. It's a totally different thing from critiquing a movie.

One request: you've got to add "cover art" to your critical assessments. Rate it from the Mona Lisa (highest praise) to a stick figure (lowest). Just don't involve the "Man Church" steel-plated logo and brand...

[Peter T Chattaway]

SDG wrote:
: "Men's Fraternity" = no branding problem.

Well I, for one, find the redundancy of that brand name rather off-putting. Like, duh, what OTHER kind of fraternity would it be?

[Nick Alexander]

Peter T Chattaway, on 20 July 2010 - 02:18 PM, said:

SDG wrote:
: "Men's Fraternity" = no branding problem.

Well I, for one, find the redundancy of that brand name rather off-putting. Like, duh, what OTHER kind of fraternity would it be?

Don't you think that this title distinguishes it from, say, collegiate fraternities, allowing for men of all ages to participate? That's how I've read it...

[Andy Whitman]

Nick Alexander, on 20 July 2010 - 02:21 PM, said:

Peter T Chattaway, on 20 July 2010 - 02:18 PM, said:

SDG wrote:
: "Men's Fraternity" = no branding problem.

Well I, for one, find the redundancy of that brand name rather off-putting. Like, duh, what OTHER kind of fraternity would it be?

Don't you think that this title distinguishes it from, say, collegiate fraternities, allowing for men of all ages to participate? That's how I've read it...

Yes, and it probably discourages the "chug, chug, chug" crowd during communion.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Nick Alexander wrote:
: Don't you think that this title distinguishes it from, say, collegiate fraternities, allowing for men of all ages to participate?

But don't colleges already HAVE men of all ages among their students etc.? Does a Phi Beta Kappa man ever cease to be a Phi Beta Kappa man? Isn't the whole POINT of being a fraternity -- well, one of them, anyway -- that you make contacts for life and that you put yourself in contact with elders who have gone before you?

[SDG]

FWIW, I did notice the redundancy Peter highlights, and yes, I would recommend against such a redundancy. I wouldn't consider it to present an actual image problem, though; that's what I meant by "no branding problem."

[Nick Alexander]

Peter T Chattaway, on 20 July 2010 - 02:26 PM, said:

Nick Alexander wrote:
: Don't you think that this title distinguishes it from, say, collegiate fraternities, allowing for men of all ages to participate?

But don't colleges already HAVE men of all ages among their students etc.? Does a Phi Beta Kappa man ever cease to be a Phi Beta Kappa man? Isn't the whole POINT of being a fraternity -- well, one of them, anyway -- that you make contacts for life and that you put yourself in contact with elders who have gone before you?

Certainly this ministry, in its ideal state, would accomplish much the same tasks, but under the auspices of that local hosting church congregation? And since many men is a college graduates, it's not like they can sign up for pledge week if they missed it first time around...

[Greg P]

Nick Alexander, on 20 July 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:

To be blunt, Greg, it's not straight men who needs their masculinity affirmed, but teenagers on the cusp of adulthood.

Absurd. In any case, Man Church is clearly not marketed to teens, but to middle age, working dudes.

[Nick Alexander]

Greg P, on 20 July 2010 - 02:33 PM, said:

Nick Alexander, on 20 July 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:

To be blunt, Greg, it's not straight men who needs their masculinity affirmed, but teenagers on the cusp of adulthood.

Absurd. In any case, Man Church is clearly not marketed to teens, but to middle age, working dudes.

Not at all. Many teenage boys look for affirmation as growing into Christian men of character and influence, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. The site clearly is marketed across the board, and lists the ministry "Becoming a Man" for fathers and teenage sons. Makes sense to me.

[Thom Wade]

SDG, on 20 July 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

FWIW, I did notice the redundancy Peter highlights, and yes, I would recommend against such a redundancy. I wouldn't consider it to present an actual image problem, though; that's what I meant by "no branding problem."

FRAT CHURCH! or CHURCH FRAT!