Several summers ago a few friends and I started what we called “Man Night”. We met once a week through the summer. At these gatherings we would eat meat (preferably cooked over an open fire) and talk theology. It was a simple concept. But, to this day, it is one of the best things of which I have been a part. We all loved it. It was a forum to learn and enjoy what it meant to be a man.
A sort of fraternity or cohort (for my emergent friends) has grown up out those summer evening gatherings where we would eat, discuss, debate, laugh, talk video games and sports, and pray. We are scattered all across the state and the country now. But, we keep up with each other online. We gather a couple of times a year in a sort of reunion. (We are talking about a summer camping trip now.) There is a kind of lasting bond between us that is uniquely male. It challenges, encourages, and sharpens me.
G.K. Chesterton uses the term comradeship. It is a word that has fallen out of use. Yet, it describes a type of relationship between guys that is different than simply friendship. It is defined as “affording easy familiarity and sociability”. The way Chesterton uses it, the term is singularly masculine. When I read the following quotes from his essay What’s Wrong with the World I thought they summed up what Man Night was and why it worked so well.
If you choose to call every human attachment comradeship, if you include under that name the respect of a youth for a venerable prophetess, the interest of a man in a beautiful woman who baffles him, the pleasure of a philosophical old fogy in a girl who is impudent and innocent, the end of the meanest quarrel or the beginning of the most mountainous love; if you are going to call all these comradeship, you will gain nothing, you will only lose a word. Daisies are obvious and universal and open; but they are only one kind of flower. Comradeship is obvious and universal and open; but it is only one kind of affection; it has characteristics that would destroy any other kind. Anyone who has known true comradeship in a club or in a regiment, knows that it is impersonal. There is a pedantic phrase used in debating clubs which is strictly true to the masculine emotion; they call it “speaking to the question.” Women speak to each other; men speak to the subject they are speaking about. Many an honest man has sat in a ring of his five best friends under heaven and forgotten who was in the room while he explained some system. This is not peculiar to intellectual men; men are all theoretical, whether they are talking about God or about golf. Men are all impersonal; that is to say, republican. No one remembers after a really good talk who has said the good things. Every man speaks to a visionary multitude; a mystical cloud, that is called the club.
Male relationships are curious things to those who view them from the outside. You cannot judge them from the exterior. You cannot understand them unless you have known the comradery of a band of brothers. (Sorry for the cliche. I can’t think af another phrase right now.)
No one has even begun to understand comradeship who does not accept with it a certain hearty eagerness in eating, drinking, or smoking, an uproarious materialism which to many women appears only hoggish. You may call the thing an orgy or a sacrament; it is certainly an essential. It is at root a resistance to the superciliousness of the individual. Nay, its very swaggering and howling are humble. In the heart of its rowdiness there is a sort of mad modesty; a desire to melt the separate soul into the mass of unpretentious masculinity. It is a clamorous confession of the weakness of all flesh. No man must be superior to the things that are common to men. This sort of equality must be bodily and gross and comic. Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.
It is obvious that this cool and careless quality which is essential to the collective affection of males involves disadvantages and dangers. It leads to spitting; it leads to coarse speech; it must lead to these things so long as it is honorable; comradeship must be in some degree ugly. The moment beauty is mentioned in male friendship, the nostrils are stopped with the smell of abominable things. Friendship must be physically dirty if it is to be morally clean. It must be in its shirt sleeves. The chaos of habits that always goes with males when left entirely to themselves has only one honorable cure; and that is the strict discipline of a monastery. Anyone who has seen our unhappy young idealists in East End Settlements losing their collars in the wash and living on tinned salmon will fully understand why it was decided by the wisdom of St. Bernard or St. Benedict, that if men were to live without women, they must not live without rules. Something of the same sort of artificial exactitude, of course, is obtained in an army; and an army also has to be in many ways monastic; only that it has celibacy without chastity. But these things do not apply to normal married men. These have a quite sufficient restraint on their instinctive anarchy in the savage common-sense of the other sex. There is only one very timid sort of man that is not afraid of women.
If there are any locals in the Myrtle Beach area reading this. Would you be interested in some Man Nights throughout the spring and summer?
Recent Comments