More Men's Fraternity

OK, I've once again spent part of Friday morning at a Men's Fraternity (MF) meeting at my brother's church. I previously discussed this group in an earlier post.

As I've seen more of the group I'm getting a better handle on what I don't like about it. The material is being presented as a finished product, well thought out and comprehensive. But in fact, the material is incomplete and at times even inaccurate, IMHO.

I've already discussed the four faces that the program's creator, Robert Lewis, presented as the four aspects of manhood: The King, The Warrior, The Lover, and The Friend. The clear intention is that using these four aspects of a man someone can better understand who they are and how they can improve themselves. I pointed out some of the inaccuracies in what was said about these aspects in the other post. What I didn't mention then is the fact that there are aspects of a person's life (I'm sorry, it is hard to think in the way they talk), that is, of a man's manhood which I don't believe are addressed by these four faces. Where is the student face? Shouldn't we always be learning? Or is that a part of a person that is not a part of manhood? Personally, I think that a man who thinks that he doesn't need to learn any more is not a well balanced person. What about The Artist? It used to be that it was expected that any man of character would be a poet, musician, and/or in some other way a creaative person. Isn't that what is meant by a Renaissance Man, someone who is able to demonstrate a wide variety of abilities? Why isn't this one of the faces Lewis discusses? I'm sure that there should be other faces (The Child, The Healer, etc.), but I think this illustrates my point that his presentations don't include a wide enough array of options when he is discussing what it means to have authentic manhood.

This week, Lewis started out by summarizing why men struggle to find their manhood today. Not surprisingly he spent a good deal of this summary talking about the gender revolution. He talked about how the genders have become reversed which he illustrated by talking about a TV commercial he'd seen. A couple pulls into a gas station and the woman was driving! Not only that, the man got out to fill up the tank. While he is standing by the side of the car the woman adjusts her mirror so that she has a better view of the man's rear. Once the tank is full that silly man was so incompetent that he didn't have any money to pay for it so the woman gave him a credit card to pay the bill. He concluded this anecdote with the question "And this is supposed to be funny?" Well, yes, it is funny because of the role reversal which he derides. Showing the man as incompetent and a sexual object is unexpected, therefore funny, because we are used to women being shown as the one who is incompetent and a sexual object. It is also funny because it shines a spotlight on the fact that women are treated this way in society which helps to make it clear that it is as inappropriate to treat women this way as it is to treat men this way. I guess he can't see that because he is too busy being offended by the idea of a woman being more competent and in control than the man she is with. Of course, it doesn't help the humor much to point this out, because if you have to explain the joke then that sort of ruins it, but perhaps there is still a possibility of someone (though not Lewis) learning from this, even if they don't find it funny.

The bulk of the presentation centered on discussing the three critical issues around which authentic manhood revolves . He defines the issues as unfinished business of a person's (rats!), of a man's past, establishing a clear and compelling vision, and creating a high impact, workable plan for life. The majority of this discussion focused on the unfinished business part. This unfinished business is described as wounds which he defines as "any unresolved issue where lack of closure adversely impacts and shapes the direction and dynamics of a man's life now" (I guess women don't have wounds, or maybe some other word is used for women as in the old saw about how men sweat, but women glow).

Lewis describes five wounds men must deal with, at least that's what the written material says. In presenting it he says "the five wounds" indicating that this is the complete list, but then he qualifies it by saying "most men," so at least he's not insisting that these apply to all men. These five wounds are:

1. the absent father wound
2. the overly bonded with mother wound
3. the all alone wound
4. the lack of a manhood vision wound
5. the heart wound (this one he says every man has, or did he say "everyone"? I wrote "everyone" but that is so contrary to the way he generally speaks I wonder if that's what he really said.)

Apparently there are not any wounds due to absent mothers, absent siblings, too many siblings, abusive situations, etc. I am ready to allow that these five things can affect a man's life (or his manhood, as Lewis continually says), but once he has deliniated these wounds he doesn't seem to consider that his list is incomplete. He spent some time talking about the first three wounds, spent less time talking about the vision of manhood that a man should have, and deferred discussion of the heart wound all together. Clearly he is leading up to this heart wound being the lack of God in our lives.

Beyond the fact that I find his presentations to be incomplete and inaccurate, I'm also bothered by the structure of the meetings. When I think about a presentation I've seen some of the things I consider are whether it was well done, what I think of the material which was presented, and perhaps how it applies to or affects me. Each of these meetings start with a pep talk about how terrific this material is, so that makes it difficult to discuss whether it is well done. The DVD of Lewis' presentation is then shown, and of course there is no opportunity to question him about what he says since he is not there. Then we break into small groups and discuss questions which are given in the handout material so that we jump right into how it applies to or affects us. This lack of opportunity for some of the the discussions I'd like to have (such as the points I've mentioned here) leaves me feeling frustrated.

At the end of the meeting I talked briefly to my brother and shared some of these thoughts with him. He acknowledged that some of my points were valid and admitted that I am helping him to see the materials in a different light. He surprised me a little bit by saying "if only he'd say 'person' occasionally instead of always saying 'man'!" I can certainly agree with that. I think that if I do continue to go to these meetings it will be so that I can continue to help him see beyond the ideas which are being handed to us on a platter for ingestion without full consideration.

Posted by JoKeR at September 30, 2005 09:28 AM | TrackBack