Have you heard about the Promise Keepers? Although its been a while since the Syracuse Dome was filled with 37 thousand of them, this is a group it would be wise to learn more about. Personally, the more I learn, the more disturbing this group appears to be.

What is tricky about PK is that they sound so good. They recognize that men are not very active in church. And while they denounce the violence, irresponsibility, and unfaithfulness many men exhibit with their wives and families, they do it in a way which is not filled with the man bashing tone of many feminist organizations. Further, their message is a positive call for men to return to their place of leadership in the home, to develop supportive relationships with other men, and to become more godly by keeping their sacred commitments. Finally, their message is presented in a way in which men can relate, assembling in sports stadia, and being lead by a college football coach.

How could anyone be opposed or even cautious about a group such as this??

Let me fill in some other things you may not know about PK. PK was founded by Bill McCartney, a fundamentalist who interprets the Bible literally. It has been vicious in its opposition to feminism, and gay and lesbian rights. Tony Evans, one of PK's central writers says in No More Excuses , that "feminism is an un Godly response to men's abdication" of their "God given place of authority in the home." Indeed in addition to calling for men to take back their role as leaders, Bill McCartney, tells women to "give back" their "ill gained advances." Elsewhere McCartney has said publicly that homosexuals are "an abomination against almighty God" and that they are "stark raving mad."

Although they deny having a political agenda, Fred Clarkson, a journalist and expert on ultra right wing religious activities, has documented PK's and especially PK's leadership as having been involved in the heinous ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon which sought to deny civil liberties to gays and lesbians. Further PK, like other right wing groups such as the Focus on Family, The Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, James Kennedy's Renew America and various Pat Robertson projects seek to elect stealth representatives to local school boards to get rid of the teaching of sex education, evolution and diversity education.

Also it is important to know that in its own right PK has over 310 full time employees and a budget of in excess of 65 million dollars! This group is not a naive, tent revival meeting whose goal is simply to inspire the hearts of men. It is indeed a sophisticated, high tech organization which carefully follows up on the people who attend the large conferences with well trained, small group, accountability cadres. PK is putting together a militia of men, under the Trojan horse banner of "family values," to turn back the cultural clock and return America to patriarchy.

Let me be clear however, my objection to PK is not simply sociological or psychological. My primary objection is theological. Although PK has puts it finger on the nerve of a serious American (perhaps global) problem, and although that PK has made challenges to men which sound good, a closer examination of their underlying theology and world view reveals that PK wants to turn back the clock on all of the progress women have made with respect to equality, power, authority and social and economic opportunities in all areas of their life including the church. I don't know about you but I do not believe that the progress we have made with respect to slavery, women's rights, multi cultural sensitivity, and soon hopefully gay and lesbian rights is a sign of our devolution or departing from the love of God.

When PK proposes, in detail, how its vision and outlook would come to pass and of how they see men becoming more loving and responsible is where I begin to feel very uncomfortable. Specifically, the call for men "to take back their natural and God given role as the leaders of the home and family," and when passages from Paul about women to submit to men are used over and over, one realizes that PK lives in a supernatural world where in the literal flow of command proceeds from God to men to women in descending order. We are not talking about the absence of inclusive language, we are talking about a mind set which does not understand the meaning of coequal partnership. Further, with its heavy emphasis on obedience and purity, PK sounds more like Pharisaic Judaism than a faith exhibited by Jesus.

The world of PK is monolithic, absolute, fixed and without innovation. Its notion of faith is one which is based on returning to an absolute notion of law and social order rather than being open to the new and creative in bursting of the Holy Spirit. Its world is exclusive and intolerant. This is worst of all for me, for it is a vision which is based on absolute certainty in which iconoclasm and doubt, questioning and criticism is missing. Rather than being humble in its knowledge or interpretation of God's law, it overlooks the ambiguity of Biblical scholarship and scoffs at those who pose serious questions. There is only one way for everything. Funny, though, that way is the white, western, middle class heterosexual, male way. Jesus would hardly fit in.

While there is much more that could be said, but I would close by saying that PK is not the only hope for men seeking to renew themselves and their spiritual life. Many, less well funded, and less well known groups gather in local churches and retreat places to talk over what it means to be live as responsible Christian men in our times. Most importantly, these groups are affirming and renewing their masculinity without demanding that they must be in charge, excluding women or persecuting homosexuals. Documents like the UCC's Silver Lake Challenge articulate and express a vision of Christianity which is inclusive and open to the Holy Spirit as well as embracing the future with an understanding of power, authority, and decision making which arises from the communal and partnership experiences of coequal negotiation and not from male fiat.

Finally, I ask, what image is more fitting to deal with the complex problems faced by men with respect to their role in society, the church, their families, or marriage ... patriarchy or partnership. The former places its hope in returning to norms which applied to other cultures in other times. The latter is confident and open to the future, trusting that God will continue to speak to our time and need in ways that are relevant and fitting?