in defense of Bromance

(Ladies, I apologize in advance: I will address men directly in this post, but I neglect to address you directly. So..I decided to give you all this special note at the top of my post. Thanks for reading. I do appreciate it. Let me know what you think about masculinity and bromance.)

I'm editing a new video blog about getting glasses. I want to get it posted before I leave for Europe (on Friday!), but I just finished an article that deserves a blog response. The New York Times did a piece on Paul Rudd and his new movie I Love You, Man. It's a movie about guys being close friends--which popular media has dubbed "bromance" and academics call homosocial intimacy. I am passionate about bromance.

Just a note: I have not seen the movie, but will. So rather than blogging about the movie, I'll be blogging about bromance.

The article praises Paul Rudd--fashioning him as a model of twenty-first century masculinity. That's true, in part. Paul has taken roles where he plays liberal artsy guys trying to figure out life in their twenties and thirties. As a liberal artsy guy in my twenties, I can relate, so he is a representative of my kind of masculinity. But it's a stretch to compare Paul to masculine icons like Marlon Brando or Clint Eastwood.

Paul plays characters who are in touch with their feminine side: they enjoy art, carry on good conversations, and have (at least a few) liberal political leanings. I Love You, Man portends to be a great movie because it examines a major difficulty in the life of the twenty-first century liberal artsy dude: the problem of male-to-male friendship or bromance.

Paul plays a guy who is great with the ladies and has finally pinned down the one that he wants to marry. But as the wedding planning begins, he realizes that he has no close guy friends--no one that he could ask to be his best man. The movie documents his awkward quest to make friends with other guys and to find that one special guy who can be his best man.

I love that this movie addresses the issue of male friendship. It has often been overlooked or ignored, but I believe that guy friendships and guy community are essential to male development. Sadly, many of us don't know how to have close friendships with other men.

A sad bi product of the gay rights movement and the subsequent homophobic backlash has been increased fear among men of close same-sex friendships. We are afraid that if we are in a close friendship with another guy, then it means that we have romantic feelings for him. For the record, this is not true.

I first noticed this fear a few years ago while discussing The Lord of the Rings movies with other guys. More than once guys suggested that Frodo and Sam were homosexual. They were joking, like guys do, but the suggestion frustrated me--in part because these guys did not appreciate Tolkien's art for developing characters and relationships, and in part because I realized that we have no paradigm for close male friendship. We saw Frodo and Sam as Tolkien intended: intimate, loving, and reliant upon each other. But because close male friendship is little represented in modern culture and media (I can't think of many examples, can you?), my friends viewed the relationship through the only lens that worked: homosexuality.

We (American men) do not have a paradigm through which we can understand intimate male relationships. And we need one. The idea of bromance can, in a strange way, made male friendship accessible by making it funny. I hope I Love You, Man can contribute to a cultural shift away from the fear of the male friendship and toward real intimacy and improved male community. Certainly this shift will require more than a Paul Rudd movie, but it seems like a great start.

When men need to chill out sometimes...

I love that I am male. It just makes me happy. I like that my body is strong (well, kind of), and my mind can push away emotional problems and needs in order to pursue something important. I like that I am visually stimulated, that I think spatially, and that I have strong problem solving capabilities. And I'm so grateful to be the complement to women--who are much more attraction and merciful than I am.

Okay, don't freak out, but I'm talking about gender differences. I confess, I believe in them, and I think it's okay to believe that women and men are made differently. In fact, I think gender differences are laws of the universe...ask most married people.

Three quick notes to cover my ass: Gender differences do not mean that women were made to cook and clean and men were made to bring home the bacon. Gender differences do not mean that men should make all the decisions. Gender differences do not mean that women should not lead in churches.

I also like being a Christian male. God knows how I am, because he made me. And being a Christian gives me a profound purpose and difficult challenges. How do I love my enemies? What does it mean to lose my life in order to gain life? Doesn't it bother me that Jesus and his disciples were so willing to die for what they believed in that all of them were executed or murdered? This is an awesome heritage.

Heck yes, What a challenge!

But...I think that this Christian male business can get a little out of hand. See this article referenced to me by a friend from last week's LA times. Take a minute to read it before going on. It's called "Manliness is next to godliness."

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-godmen7dec07,1,6460310.story

I must admit that the reporter is probably not a sympathetic ear to "the Christian Men's Movement," but the substance of this article still strikes me as a little absurd, and a little off the mark.

I don't so much have a problem with the cussing. I tend to indulge in foul language myself, at times. "That sucks" just doesn't compare to "That's bullshi*" when you're pissed off about something, especially something serious. And the guy Brad Stine seems to have a strong prophetic voice for the church, though I don't agree with his politics (see www.bradstine.com).

My problem has to do more with the movement’s complaints about how church is done and the proposed solution. David Murrow is quoted in the article as complaining about the feminine decor or most churches...the article suggests alternatives such as playing NFL bloopers before a worship/meeting/man-time or going painting balling or camping or doing some kind of extreme sport. Great! Be relevant to people! (though I would be turned off by all of the above except camping...) But having a male-friendly venue is not what needs to change.

Don't get me wrong. I think extreme sports can do amazing things for men in a time when the rush of being a soldier or running your own farm/business exists only on a limited and controlled scale. The other day I suggested to a friend of mine that was making some bad decisions that he take up extreme sports to get the masculine angst out. (I could say a lot more about this...but back to the topic at hand)

I think we need to stop worrying about the structures and the frilly stuff, and start changing what it means to be a Christian Man.

I think the Bible is manly and exciting enough as it is. But we are an over-churched nation that doesn't think this book is revolutionary or exciting. Christian stuff is part of the culture, so in order to make it exciting we have to go paintballing before or after studying the Bible. And then we just remember how much fun we had paintballing.

But God is even more exciting than the Bible. Just think about it for a second. (If you're a Christian, pretend you're not for a moment.) There is a profound being out there who has much more power and wisdom than anyone you've ever met. This guy understands Einstein's theories on levels about which the great scientist never dreamed. He has affected the world more significantly than any of those guys on the most influential people of the millennium. Here's the best part: he knows more about you and your life than your parents or your pastors or your friends. And he can see where you're going. And he can change things in your life. Not in a predictable or programmatic way--not in a way that any preacher or psychologist can lay out for you--but in his own awesome (though frequently rocky for us) way.

And history has shown that if you really follow God, people will think you’re crazy and you will do really risky things. Sometimes, the church is the harshest critic of people who have honestly heard from God and acted on it. But we have to follow Him. No one else knows the way out of this messed up place. No one else can give us an exciting and meaningful life in an otherwise programmatic and superficial world.

Relating to God is manly enough for me. I don't need paintball.