First, my bona fides.
I’m a former Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps. I’ve spent fifteen years in the Corps and fifteen seconds (cumulatively) riding bulls. I’ve spent my summers in 100 degree weather baling hay, shoeing horses, castrating hogs, and running laps for sadistic football coaches. I’ve fixed pump jacks in Texas oil fields and made auto parts in a Missouri factory. I’ve changed engines on F-18s, tires on Humvees, and a carburetor on a '76 Gremlin.
I’ve hunted snipe and fished for shark. I’ve eaten rattlesnake, alligator, and the pork pattie from an MRE. I’ve lived through tornados, typhoons, and a divorce.
I own a .40 caliber Glock. My hero is John Wayne.
In other words, there is some evidence that I am—or at least once was—a fairly “manly man.” I’m also a devout Bible-believing Christian. But for the life of me, I can’t discern how the two are connected, much less why one is necessary for the other. Yet that is the impression I often get when I read about the “feminization of the church” and the move to provide young Christian men with “masculine” role models.
At the risk of taking his light-hearted remarks too seriously, I have to say that I find pastor Mark Driscoll, founder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, to be particularly caught up in this type of thinking. For example, in a recent post he gave a “Manly Missionary Award (MMA)” to Dog the Bounty Hunter:
Jesus was a carpenter who walked a lot of miles and was therefore a fit, blue-collar type of guy who would never drive a Cabriolet, rock out to Mariah Carey, or wear lemon-yellow. Fortunately, as Dog becomes more popular among non-Christians who watch his television show, a more biblical view of Christian masculinity is getting out, for which I say, “WWJD – We Welcome Jesus’ Dog.”
I agree that Dog does seems to be a dedicated (though perhaps immature) believer and is worthy of commendation. But I fail to see how he presents a “biblical view of Christian masculinity.”
In fact, the type of men that Driscoll seems to admire most – wrestlers, “ultimate fighters” – are the very antithesis of Biblical masculinity. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praised the “meek” a word that in the Greek is used in reference to a “tame” wild animal. The lion, for instance, is able to lay down with the lamb precisely because he is not given over to his hyper-aggressive nature.
Indeed, when Jesus talks about his followers he often refers to them as “sheep” – creatures that aren’t known for their ferocity. And when he gave the nickname “Sons of Thunder” to two of his disciplies, it wasn’t exactly high praise for their obnoxious brand of masculinity. It is difficult to square the Jesus of the Gospels with the hyper-masculine ideal that Driscoll and many others seem to hold. It takes an incredible leap of logic to conclude that since Jesus was a carpenter he would have enjoyed 'Rassling.*
(Perhaps a case could be made that the church has become overly feminized, causing young men to turn away. The criticisms, for example, of “Jesus is my boyfriend” style worships songs may have some merit. But then what do such critics think of Christ referring to the church as his “Bride”?)
During the early ‘90s, “wildman” retreats were all the rage as a way for men to get in touch with their mannishness. Men would head to the wilderness take off their shirts, beat on West African drums, and bond with each other. While we may laugh at such goofy behavior, this neo-testosterone movement within Christian circles isn’t all that different. We’ve simply replaced the mythopoetic “Iron John” with a mythic “Iron Jesus.” But young men don’t need a Jesus who strolls like the Duke, squints like Eastwood, and snarls like Rumsfeld. They don't need Jesus the wrestler or Jesus the warrior. They just need Jesus the Savior.
*In a culture that assumes close male relationships are evidence of repressed homosexuality, it’s not surprising that so many Christian men are infatuated by displays of simulated male violence. In ancient Israel David and Jonathan were able to express their love for each other without anyone assuming they were “gay.” Today, give a guy a hug and you’re considered to be “acting queer.” Don spandex and wrap your arms around another male, though, and they’ll call it “wrestling” -- and think it's completely hetero behavior.
It's a reaction to the "Feminization of the Church" that preceded it, where Church was seen as wimpy, weak, and effeminite. Doug Giles described it Here.
Fortunately ive no experience with what you are talking about.
Ive always been taught that Christ had a quiet strength about Him. That it wasn't his dominating physical form that attracted people to Him (He was probably quiet small or regular sized) but rather because He spoke with power and authority.
So while your criticism is probably an accurate one of those who would behave in such a strange way, its not happening in all quarters of Christiandom.
To be clear reading
Yet that is the impression I often get when I read about the “feminization of the church” and the move to provide young Christian men with “masculine” role models.
Is the first time ive ever heard anything like that. I must be poorly read in Christian circles.
Is the link to Mark Driscoll the only example you have of this?
This is part of a larger trend where society no longer knows what it means to be 'masculine' or 'feminine,' and is therefore looking for answers... usually in the wrong places.
As a parent of three boys, I'm paying close attention to the fact they will eventually ask "what does it mean to be a man?" Not only do I pray that God will let me model a biblical answer to that question, but I pray the 'answer' they arrive at will have nothing to do with WWF, GQ, or (sorry Joe) USMC. Instead, I hope they realize it has everything to do with discipline -- power under control -- and a willingness to say to God "not as I will, but as you will."
Bravo! I've yet to figure out what being a "manly man" has to do with being a Christian. Christian virtues don't come color-coded with pink for girls and blue for boys. ALL of us are meant to demonstrate love, joy, peace, and the rest. ALL of us are supposed to cultivate the mind of Christ, and ALL of us are commanded to love and submit to one another. The sooner we figure that out, the sooner we can work on what is really turning men off from church. And PS: a lot of women are turned off, too!
I'm encouraged by the question you ask and your honest approach to trying to arrive at some kind of authentic position for a modern follower of Jesus.
I used to be a Christian, but not any more. There's a long story there. In a nutshell, after many years in ministry, I became convinced that christians -- at least the ones I knew here in the US were no different from everyone else. Certainly not to the degree where they could credibly claim to be spiritually alive while non-believers were spiritually dead.
All of our silly prayers for guidance -- when we weren't really interested in doing what was plainly laid out in Jesus' teaching -- and looking for "miracles" in simple coincidences, convinced me that it was all a game.
As the years have passed and I've taken time to reflect on the teaching of Jesus, I've become convinced that I know of maybe one or two real followers of Jesus -- total. All the rest I know of are pretenders.
So, as I said, as popular as WWJD is, I'm encouraged and surprised to see someone who seems to be honestly looking to follow J's example. Very unusual.
So now the hard question: More than anything else, Jesus told his followers not to seek or save money. Do you have a savings account?
Joe:
The best thing I've read about what a Christian man should look like (apart from the Bible) is a non-Christian book by Sam Keen entitled Fire in the Belly. He does an excellent job of dismissing "feminine" and "masculine" categories, claiming them all to be simply "human" (or, as we might say, reflections of the image of God within us). Keen's brief discussion of Jesus is particularly interesting: while he stops short of a biblical picture of Christ, he nevertheless nails some things perfectly.
Admittedly he (like Warren Farrell in The Myth of Male Power) comes to a poor conclusion - androgeny - but it is still a valuable book. If we can simply recognize our basic similarities and equality of essence, then accepting our differing roles is not so difficult.
I was 19 when the feminist revolution started on a bridge in Chicago and I wandered through the confusion of the last several decades as women were deified and men demonized. When I finished Keen's book for the first time, I suddenly felt a release from a neurotic, culturally-imposed sense of shame and guilt for feeling and acting like a male of the species.
For whatever reason you might seize upon, God gave men at least 30 times more testosterone than He gave to women. It wasn't a mistake; it was and is a good thing.
If you haven't read Keen, it's worth a read - or two.
BTW, a "tame" wild animal is an oxymoron. It's why wolves, tigers, bears, and rattlesnakes make bad pets. Jesus' use of the word for meek has more to do with a horse like Secretariat being responsive to his rider. Secretariat was an amazing, powerful, explosive animal, but one that had (literally) been harnessed for a purpose. Was he "tame"? Well, that depended on who tried to ride him, didn't it? Was he "wild"? Until the day of his death, his "wildness" - i.e., his God-given essence to run free - remained intact.
If I were looking for biblical role models of masculinity, I'd consider Samuel, David, Jonathan, Jephthah, Samson, and - of course - Jesus. But be careful to do two things: first, with each (except Christ), separate the chaff from the wheat; second, examine the entirety of the man's life, not just parts that support what we want to believe.
Although i do agree that over-masculine-izing (word?) Jesus is something we should not do, we, as the church should also not over-feminize Him as well. The church should teach about the Jesus who looked over Jerusalem and wept over His people and would gather them as a mother hen. But do not forget our Jesus who also made a whip of cords and in righteous anger cleared a temple whipping people across their back-sides and over turning tables.
I myself am tired of Jesus being portrayed as some sort of fairy-man that has no masculine attributes at all. He was a carpenter and a stone mason... ever wonder what type of physical physique he must have had to survive 40 days without food? To survive His torture before being pinned to the cross? I'm not talking body builder huge because he wasn't, but he wasn't a squishy, over-fed rabbi either.
Jesus, the God-man was the perfect man for us to follow. A strong man that glorified His Father in heaven. A gentle man that wept over His friends and His people. Personally, I have not had many 'men' in my life that have taught me how to be a man. I cannot look to society, schooling or upbringing for a model man... these places just want me to shut up and be a woman... ok, that's a bit harsh and a place for another conversation but I feel its true. But I can look to Jesus for the model of being a strong man in my convictions. To be gentle with my children in love, but firm in discipline. To love my wife as Jesus loves His people.
To make a short story long... I have to God's Word for Jesus' attributes, not what I am told, not as an artist portrays Him. The Bible is about Jesus and that is enough to find out who He really is. And that is what is what turns people on for God. Teach the WHOLE Word of God and, and God will touch the hearts of men AND women and draw them to Himself.
Joe, this is a really great post! Thanks.
Paul
Dr. Mike,
You say: "For whatever reason you might seize upon, God gave men at least 30 times more testosterone than He gave to women. It wasn't a mistake; it was and is a good thing."
You must keep in mind that we live in a world ruined by the Fall. We bear a hereditary taint of original sin, and thus to simply cite some fact about our present physical constitution and assume that it is the way we ought to be is risky. I have what I believe is an innate tendency to angry outburts (as I believe do many other men). But I think it wrong to say that I was made that way by God. Rather I think it the mark of original sin upon me.
Perhaps high testosterone levels are the same. (Perhaps they are not, but in a post-Fall world one cannot simply assume that they are not.)
Christians often talk as if the world as it is now is the world as it was designed to be. It is not. We live in a ruined world, and our one hope that all will be put right is in Christ.
Joe, I appreciate your blog entry very much. I blogged about what I believe is behind this trend of insult ("feminized") several days ago. People may or may not agree with my premise (that there is a definite historical bias that considers the male/masculine superior to the female/feminine, which shows up in the language we use), but the practice of insulting both men and women with the "feminized" epithet IS undeniably common in certain Christian circles. It also stinks of more cultural bias than a country club.
If we'd all work at being more authentically human--Christ is our ultimate model in this--we'd be far better off. Like all men, Jesus was masculine by virtue of being a man, not because he adhered to certain culturally expected behaviors. Every single definition or rule list for "masculine" and "feminine" "roles" that I've ever seen come out, is so based on cultural stereotypes that it's laughable. You end up with even the fruit of the Spirit and the Beatitudes being mostly "feminine," while those who would be "manly" are stuck with "Wild at Heart" and the Marlboro Man--totally secular archetypes--as their "role" models. Enough already! Whether we're male or female, we're first and foremost human beings. And if we're Christians, we're *supposed* to maturing into the image of Jesus Christ...who was fully human and fully God, as well as masculine. If we do that, we're going to be a part of making the church what it should be, not expecting the church to make US comfortable with our biases.
As for the "masculinity" rhetoric, I'll start believing the "manly man" codes are valid once those who write them have proved their spiritual mettle by spending forty days and nights in the desert without provisions. THAT is a "real man's" wilderness adventure, eh? ;)
there is some evidence that I am—or at least once was—a fairly “manly man.”
As I recall, that evidence is somewhat misleading.
In ancient Israel David and Jonathan were able to express their love for each other without anyone assuming they were “gay.”
Um . . . no, they weren't.
Good call on the wrestling, though.
As I recall, that evidence is somewhat misleading.
What, are you implying that being gay is incompatible with being a "manly man?"
You homophobe. ; )
Having known my share of "real men", biblically and otherwise, I can tell you that they are defined by a quiet unassuming self-confidence. They are men because they know who they are, and don't feel the need to prove it with vainglorious boasting or actions.
I agree that there has been somewhat of an overreaction, but one cannot deny that biblical roles have been confused somewhat in the last century. Robert Lewis has written some good, practical stuff in "Quest for Authentic Manhood" on this subject.
I like Dog but a while ago they showed the pilot episode and its style was very different. Dog was toned down, wore normal clothes and there was more emphasis on the business of bail bondsmen and bounty hunting. Dog was, though, clearly the softie offering to write bails for no charge for people with hard luck stories while his wife played the hardie keeping her eyes on the books and worrying that too many freebies would drive the business into bankruptcy.
Clearly the producers had a little talk with them after the pilot and told them that they needed to spice the show up. So now the episodes follow a pattern where Dog and his crew act like professional wrestlers telling us how dangerous this horrible person is and how important it is to get them (which begs the question, if they are so bad and evil why did you bail them out to begin with?).
When they grab the person they almost always end up being some poor schmuck who seem to suffer from being more dumb than evil. Dog then goes into 'caring' mode where he seems to get the person excited and happy about the prospect of going to jail. In fact one episode even had the suspects little daughter come up and give Dog's wife a hug for 'helping' her mom.
AS for the actual topic of this thread, yin and yang. You need a bit of both and if you have veered too far in one direction often the response is to veer too far in the other direction. I'm sure when I post this others will have come forth with examples of 'macho Jesus' from the Bible (whipping money lenders, taking on the powers that be, defying authority and taking punishment in stoic silence)
Rick, something I always come up with a "whole lotta nuttin" about when asking "role" advocates, is an answer to "What precisely are these biblical 'roles,' and what are the chaper/verse references to them." If you could shed some light on this for me, I'd appreciate it. So far, it's merely everyone defining "what's right in their own eyes." For them to be called biblical, that's WAY not good enough for me. Thanks.
Franklin:
If you want to believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with men - increased testosterone - that is not wrong with women, then go right ahead. But, as long as you're eisogeting, you might consider that the Fall resulted in a decrease of testosterone in women rather than an increase in men.
Personally, I like being male and feel no compulsion to malign my gender. I'm busy enough dealing with the ubiquity of my sin nature without adding abiblical notions.
I, for one, do not believe that the differences between men and women - to a great extent facilitated by the differences in testosterone - are a result of the Fall. If what you say is true, then the feminists are right: God made a mistake when He created man (with all that nasty testosterone) and corrected it by creating woman.
Sorry, but I won't buy that for a minute.
And, if you were even the least bit familiar with any of my writings, you would know that I am a strong proponent of personal responsibility and eschew any efforts to excuse sinful behavior due to appeals to nature or nurture. "That's just the way God made me" is an irresponsible statement, to which I frequently reply, "No, that's how sin has made you and the question is whether or not you're going to take responsibility for it and allow God to conform you to the image of Christ."
You might want to be more knowledgeable prior to criticizing someone. I would suggest reading Roger Nicole's article about this.
Joe,
Have you read the book "Wild at Heart" by Eldredge?
http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Heart-Discovering-Secret-Mans/dp/0785268839
He seemed too concerned with the macho Jesus, and being considered a warrior, like Braveheart.
At the same time, though, my opinion is that a lot of Christian men have not taken a strong enough leadership role within their own families. (I include myself in this, I confess.) This has nothing to do with macho, but rather being a leader.
Joe:
I'm convinced that from time to time, you decide to post these reasonable, rational posts just to confuse me. :)
And I still say you suffer from a bit of a Jim Nabors problem. :)
Joe, I've been reading your blog for a while now. This is one of the best posts you have written in my opinion because it seeks to portray a Biblical view of Jesus over a cultural one. Many people reject the gospel not because of Jesus, but because of cultural trappings that well-intended preachers wrap Him in. The issue to me is not so much about masculinity and femininity. It is about challenging our presumptions and letting the gospels tell us who Jesus is, not our testosterone crazed culture. Having said that, Jesus is portrayed as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. So I have no problem saying that Jesus is a manly man. But let's not keep Him in a box. He has this funny habit of breaking out of the boxes that we put Him in.
I think you're mistaken about characterizing ultimate fighters as out of control. They tend to be very controlled and disciplined, at least the ones that actually win, those that aren't controlled and disciplined (at least in regards to their craft) end up not having a craft due to a losing record.
And that I think is the line we walk. On the one side is out of control, abusive (and sinful) "manliness", on the other side is weak kneed wussiness that can't make hard decisions, or even effectively lead. Too far off the line into either of these directions is disasterous.
Jesus ... would never drive a Cabriolet, rock out to Mariah Carey, or wear lemon-yellow.
Hmmmm. But would Jesus wear a mullet? And would he really prefer Fight Club to The Notebook?
I've heard Marc Driscoll a few times. He has some good things to say, but I think he also gets a charge out of being "edgy." It's also pretty clear that he thinks he knows exactly what's wrong with evangelical Christianity and how to fix it.
I have enough trouble just trying to do a good job at leading a church, loving my wife, raising four kids, and being a good neighbor and citizen.
There is a definite "Iron Jesus" sub-culture, lead by guys like Driscoll and Eldredge. Jesus was indeed strong -- physically, morally, emotionally. But even if Driscoll and Eldredge have a point, how exactly do Dog Chapman and Wild at Heart represent a "more biblical" view of masculinity?
And would Jesus refuse to ride in my Camry wagon?
Marc Driscoll's claim that Jesus will be tormenting some pastors of "tolerant" denominations in hell is outrageously false. And yes, he made exactly that claim. If that's what his "manly jesus" does, he's preaching a different christ. Not acceptable.
Joe wrote;
Yet that is the impression I often get when I read about the “feminization of the church” and the move to provide young Christian men with “masculine” role models.
Is this a strawman? Why no more evidence of this movement except a link to one blogger? If its a movement certainly there is more evidence of it.
Also, we should be providing men with masculine role models. Just as we should be providing women with feminine role models.
I guess the supposed disagreement, if there is one and this isn't just a straw man, is what constitutes a masculine role model, right? And not over whether boys/men should have them.
Jay wrote;
Jesus told his followers not to seek or save money
Where did he do that?
Joe-
Your post sounds suspiciously like people not meeting what your standards are of what a Christian is so you quit.
No one is even going to come close the Savior's standard. Isn't that in the Bible somewhere.
We are always going to be fighting against our fleshly nature. Jesus does not want us to give up fighting. But you gave up. Why?
I've got to fight harder than heck to keep my faith. Sometimes its two steps forward and fourteen back, but I've got to keep fighting.
Have you read the book "Wild at Heart" by Eldredge?
Interestingly, John Eldredge has become so obsesessed with the idea of "manly" Christians that he has allowed his theology to become squishy, seeming to teach, among other things, sinless perfection.
Psalmist,
Your statement - "And if we're Christians, we're *supposed* to maturing into the image of Jesus Christ...who was fully human and fully God, as well as masculine." - is unscriptural. Jesus was NOT God, nor was he regarded as such by the New Testament writers.
Franklin Mason,
Your statement - "You must keep in mind that we live in a world ruined by the Fall. We bear a hereditary taint of original sin..." - is also unscriptural. We bear no 'hereditary' taint. As followers of Jesus we belong to the New Creation and sin "no more has dominion over us".
Besides, if there were ever such a thing as 'original sin' it ceased with the 'last Adam'.
As to the topic of this post, nowhere in the New Testament is there a description of Jesus' personality. We can infer, however, that a man who would 'lay down his life for his friends' owns a great strength of character, a fixed set of principles, a determined will, and a broad long-term world-view. These qualities are universal - they are 'neither male nor female, bond or free'.
A few weeks ago I read about some evangelical Christian churches eliminating the part of the service where congregants exchanged handshakes and hugs because it was thought to be off-putting to some of the male members.
Eric Is this a strawman? Why no more evidence of this movement except a link to one blogger? If its a movement certainly there is more evidence of it.
Dricoll isn’t just a blogger, he’s one of the most influential young pastors in America. Even if he was the only one espousing this view it would be significant. But he, of course, is not the only one. Many people have already pointed out Elderidge. I’d also add the Christian wrestling groups (Christian Wrestling Federation http://www.christianwrestling.com/; Ulitimate Christian Wrestling http://www.ultimatechristianwrestling.com/; Christian Wrestling Alliance, etc), the Power Team (http://www.glennpark.com/powerteam.html), and “muscular Christianity” (http://www.churchformen.com/leadstory.php).
vynette Jesus was NOT God, nor was he regarded as such by the New Testament writers.
Then how do you explain passages such as John 20:28-31?
I’m not doubting that you have an interpretation that has alluded Christians for 2,000+ years. I’m just curious to hear what it is. ; )Wow...well said! Here are my rather lengthly thought on the subject.
http://pastoretteponderings.blogspot.com/2005/08/feminization-of-church.html
Vynette, my statement is absolutely scriptural and within even the broadest definitions of Christian orthodoxy. I'm afraid you are quite mistaken concerning the Christian and scriptural understanding of Jesus' divinity. As Joe demonstrated, John the Evangelist most definitely understood Jesus as God ("In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God...")--straight from the Prologue (and yes, in those first 18 verses of the fourth Gospel, Jesus is quite clearly shown to be the Word/Logos of God). Both Paul and the writer of Hebrews, as well as John of Patmos (Revelation), wrote at length concerning the divinity of Jesus. A Jesus who is not fully God (as well as fully human), is not the Jesus of either the Bible or the Christian faith.
I don't know what tradition you're coming from that would have convinced you Jesus is not God, but the Bible and the historic Christian faith say otherwise.
Joe,
Yes, astounding as it may seem, the churches have deluded Christians for nearly 2000 years. The 'Jesus Christ' of the churches is a product of the gentile church fathers, not of the New Testament.
The true gospel then -
Of Jesus the apostles taught:
That he was God's 'anointed' who would one day sit on the throne of David and rule over the Kingdom of God on earth.
That he was 'anointed' with full power and authority to speak and act in the name of the Father and to perform the specific tasks spoken of by Isaiah the prophet (Is.61).
That he was the 'son' of God by human parentage (John 1:34, 45, 49) though not the son of Joseph as commonly supposed at the time (Matt. 1:25).
That he was a 'god' in the sense in which he used it himself, that is, a man "unto whom the word of God came." (John 10:34) On his reasoning, Moses and the prophets were also 'gods'.
That he was the 'only-begotten' of God because he was the only-resurrected, not because he was born to a virgin.
That his 'sonship' of God refers to a purely 'ethical' relationship.
Jesus made the formal announcement of his 'anointing' in Luke 4:18-19...
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."
As part of his 'job description', so to speak, it was necessary that Jesus be empowered. But, at all times, the actual power came from God. Jesus was careful to make this distinction between himself and the Father on many occasions.
To claim that Jesus was anything other than a normal man because he performed miracles, raised the dead, and forgave sins, is to overlook the fact that the Bible ascribes these feats to others as well as he.
The 'gentile' fathers' failure to understand Hebrew ideas about their God and their 'messiah' gave rise to the 'trinity' and the various 'divinity' teachings.
Eternal life is to be found in spirit, not doctrines. Jesus' true message, unfettered by doctrines, brings hope and a sense of human dignity to the despised and rejected of the Earth.The New Testament writers enumerate principles to follow in order that Christians living many centuries later may become one with Jesus. Where John preached the gospel of love, Paul announced redemption by a inner and spiritual identification with Jesus, with a self-imposed crucifixion and resurrection.
The church doctrines of 'trinity','virgin birth' and 'divinity' can deliver no such message. If Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth today, he would be unidentifiable in these terms.
And that he WILL walk the earth one day is definitely 'scriptural'.
Psalmist,
Aside from the long-standing scholarly debates about whether the text should read 'the Word was God' or 'the Word was divine', to use John 1:1 as a proof of the 'divinity' of Jesus is to overlook the similar words in 1 John 1:1 where the 'Word' is identified as the Word of Eternal Life. The implications are self-evident. Jesus is the personification of God's 'Word of Eternal Life', existing from the beginning, just as Solomon was the personification of God's 'Wisdom', existing from the beginning. (Proverbs 8)
vynette,
I hope you understand that we Christians do not agree with you. As for myself, I worship Jesus the Christ as my God. You've run away from this conversation before when folks like Gordon pointed out to you where you erred and you failed to answer his questions then just as you failed to answer Joe's question now. Why didn't Jesus correct Thomas but instead affirm what he said?
Joe writes;
Dricoll isn’t just a blogger, he’s one of the most influential young pastors in America.
That makes me sad.
As for the Christian Wrestling groups, i'll have to read through those websites to see what they say. Don't have the time right now but i'm going to hope that they are simply people who enjoy wrestling and also happen to be Christian, which I don't have a problem with.
Eric and Lisa
It matters not whether people agree with me. My responsibility is to spread the truth of the gospel and challenge unscriptural statements wherever they may be promoted. What people do with the information is entirely their affair.
As to not answering questions previously, I'm afraid you are laboring under a misapprehension. Perhaps you just did not understand my answers then, so I will spell them out more clearly now.
I've already answered Joe's question in my previous comment:
Joe asked - "Then how do you explain passages such as John 20:28-31?
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
Jesus did not correct Thomas because there was nothing to correct. My answer was: "That he was a 'god' in the sense in which he used it himself, that is, a man "unto whom the word of God came." (John 10:34) On his reasoning, Moses and the prophets were also 'gods'."
And - "To claim that Jesus was anything other than a normal man because he performed miracles, raised the dead, and forgave sins, is to overlook the fact that the Bible ascribes these feats to others as well as he."
What part of the question remains to be answered?
I am in basic agreement with Joe's argument that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is not a macho man. In fact, I would go further and argue that the Jesus depicted is, for all practical purposes, asexual. One of the defining characteristics of most men, both hetero and homo, is a powerful sex drive. Jesus shows no sign of attraction or sexual interest in either sex.
Further, I find no evidence that any of his behavior was more manly than womanly.
1. Carpenter - Jesus never claimed he was a carpenter. There is a single reference where someone jeering at Jesus says "Isn't this the carpenter?" The parallel passage reads "Isn't this the son of a carpenter?" Neither Jesus nor any of his companions make a reference to him doing physical labor.
2. Fasting for 40 days - I would guess that far more women than men fast. The notion that Jesus went 40 days without water is absurd. Most people die without water in 3-4 days. The rest are dead within a week. Assuming one has water, there are cases of people living as long as 90 days.
3. Using a whip in the temple - Why couldn't a woman do this?
4. Undergoing the trauma of beatings and the crucifixion - Many tens of thousands of people, both male and female, underwent the same experience. What is a bit unusual about Jesus is how quickly he died. Victims of crucifixion usually lasted longer than the few hours that Jesus is said to have endured on the cross.
Most of what our society defines as manly or womanly behavior is cultural, not biological or innate.
Dr. Mike,
Please to read my post again. I chose my words carefully. Read them as if I did.
I did not say that high testosterone is a result of the fall. Instead I asked that we be careful when, upon an examination of how matters stand in this post-fall world, we assume that how we find them is how they were intended to be. In many cases, what we find runs contrary to the initial order of things established by God. This is the result of the fall. Is this the case with testosterone level? I have no idea, but I still council caution.
You say: "If what you say is true, then the feminists are right: God made a mistake when He created man (with all that nasty testosterone) and corrected it by creating woman."
I take you to mean that I said that high testosterone is a result of the Fall. I did not. Moreover, you seem to infer from what you took to
have said that God made a mistake when he made man. This simply does not follow. Indeed it is a gross non-sequitur. If high testosterone were a result of the Fall, it would not be in accordance with God's original intent for man and thus it would not be a mistake.
Last, you take me to claim that the possibility of disorder introduced into our very bodies by the Fall somehow makes us less responsible for the sins we commit. I did not say this. I do not believe this. It does not follow from what I said. The disorder in our beings - what Augustine called original sin - is a tendency to act in a certain way. It does not make sin inevitable. We are still free.
Do not think that this is a doctrine you are free to reject. It lies at the very heart of the Christian world-view. It was defended by the Church fathers and by the Protestant reformers. Augustine gave us the doctrine of original sin and Calvin the doctrine of total depravity.
Be careful when you declare that you are proud of what you now are. We are ruined creatures. The pride you take might be pride in a ruined form.
Well said, ex. I had wondered whether anyone here would make the point that much of what we now believe is manly is a cultural product.
Today we believe that manly men don't share emotions with other men. We believe that they don't touch other men to show affection. This is a relatively recent cultural product, even here in the states. In the early and mid 19th century, men quite openly showed affection for one another. Matters changed in the late 19th and early 20th century. Much came to be written about 'normal' behaviors of the sexes and about sexual perversion. The belief arose than in puberty boys 'naturally' turned the affection they showed for other boys when younger to women, and that those who did not were unnatural and effeminate.
We today live with the fall-out of this, and I think our lives are much poorer for it. Men should know that they can feel, and show, affection for one another and this have no sexual implication. All sex should involve deep affection, but not all shows of affection need be sexual.
How many preachers have I heard say that men by nature are guarded about their emotions? They think a contingent cultural artifact that is of recent vintage is applicable to all men at all times. Current evangelical Christianity seems to me much too ahistorical.
"If we'd all work at being more authentically human--Christ is our ultimate model in this--we'd be far better off. Like all men, Jesus was masculine by virtue of being a man, not because he adhered to certain culturally expected behaviors. Every single definition or rule list for "masculine" and "feminine" "roles" that I've ever seen come out, is so based on cultural stereotypes that it's laughable."
Early on in the comments, I made this observation, Franklin. I agree with you concerning how much "biblical manhood and womanhood" is actually cultural stereotypes being imposed onto scriptural passages that address something different entirely.
Hi Gunny Joe and others,
I understand the criticism of Mark Driscoll. However, most of the comments to this piece lead me to believe many church people, both men and women, are in denial of what is happening in the modern Church. The feminization of the Christian Church is a big problem that needs to be addressed by Christian leaders. Almost all Churches have more women in attendance than men. Many of the men who do attend Church nod off during the service. The social time is chit-chat female time. The word "relationship" is usually used 100 or more times during the service.
Men are different than women. Men have different gifts to offer and different needs to meet. The Church is good at using the gifts of women and meeting the needs of women, but not very good at involving men in real ministry. Most men form relationships while involved in meaningful projects. Most women form projects to develop relationships.
The trend in Church is going in the direction of more women and less men. Christian leaders have let men down. Something needs to change to get men back.
Here is a good site that explains the problem and offers some solutions.
http://www.churchformen.com/index.php
I especially like the part for women.
The disorder in our beings - what Augustine called original sin - is a tendency to act in a certain way. It does not make sin inevitable. We are still free.
Correct up till that last past. Augustine said that, as fallen sinners, we are not capable of not sinning. We are not free to choose the things of God. That is why Luther wrote "Bondage of the Will."
Roughly (and from memory, so forgive any boo-boos), Augustine formulated it this way:
As for vynette, she preaches a variation of Jehova's Witnesses theology (whether or not she is a JW), so it's easily dismissed based on poor and dishonest translations of Scripture.
tom,
Truth needs no justification whatever - it is not so easy to dismiss.
Just what 'poor and dishonest translations of scripture' are you referring to?
vynette
Primarily The New World Translation. Your take on John 1 is straight out of it.
psalmist said,
"Rick, something I always come up with a "whole lotta nuttin" about when asking "role" advocates, is an answer to "What precisely are these biblical 'roles,' and what are the chaper/verse references to them." If you could shed some light on this for me, I'd appreciate it. So far, it's merely everyone defining "what's right in their own eyes." For them to be called biblical, that's WAY not good enough for me. Thanks."
Is it your belief that the Bible makes no distinction of male and female roles? For instance, Adam came before Eve, Adam named Eve, Adam was held accountable for Eve's sin. Not that Adam was better than Eve, but that he seems to have a different "role".
Does all of this speak of roles to you or is it "a whole lotta nuttin" as you say?
I am not trying to be facetious, just wandering how you read it.
What about the part where Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple? He was a tough guy then.
Vynette wrote;
Jesus did not correct Thomas because there was nothing to correct. My answer was: "That he was a 'god' in the sense in which he used it himself, that is, a man "unto whom the word of God came." (John 10:34) On his reasoning, Moses and the prophets were also 'gods'."
I guess I missed your answer because it makes no sense.
When Joe points out to you scripture that demonstrates that Christ is God, you simply redefine the words to mean what fits your beliefs. If a person did not hold your belief a priori, then they would have no reason via scripture to understand things the way you do.
Yes, astounding as it may seem, the churches have deluded Christians for nearly 2000 years.
Except that ive got a copy of the Bible, several actually, so ive no excuse for being deluded, neither do you. We don't have to follow what a particular congregation says that God says but what God says himself through scripture.
So this excuse doesn't hold any water for us. Unless your beliefs extend to a conspiracy to mistranslate the Bible.
In which case, really, do we have anymore to say to one another? If we cannot begin at the premise that the Bible is the accurate word of God then we have no foundation from which to begin a discussion.
So do you hold to the view that the Bible (Current versions like New American Standard, etc) is the accurate message of God to us?
Tom, my 'take' as you put it is not based on the NWT at all. I interpret scripture by scripture only. Besides, arguments raged over John 1-1 long before the JW's were ever thought of. Here are some relatively recent translations:
"and the Word was a god."--THE NEW TESTAMENT IN AN IMPROVED VERSION (1808)
"The Word was a God."--THE NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK AND ENGLISH by Abner Kneeland (1822)
"as a god the Command was."--A LITERAL TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by Herman Heinfetter (1863)
"And (a) God was the word"--THE COPTIC VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by George William Homer (1911)
"the Word was a God"-- THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS ANOINTED by James L. Tomanec (1958)
"and a god was the Logos"--DAS EVANGELIUM NACH JOHANNES By Jurgen Becker (1979)
I reproduce my previous comment. It remains true:
"Aside from the long-standing scholarly debates about whether the text should read 'the Word was God' or 'the Word was divine', to use John 1:1 as a proof of the 'divinity' of Jesus is to overlook the similar words in 1 John 1:1 where the 'Word' is identified as the Word of Eternal Life. The implications are self-evident. Jesus is the personification of God's 'Word of Eternal Life', existing from the beginning, just as Solomon was the personification of God's 'Wisdom', existing from the beginning. (Proverbs 8)"
Franklin:
Straightening out this misunderstanding is not worth the time or effort. Your attribution to me of positions and accusations of my rejection of doctrines is ludicrous, as anyone who has read my blog, followed my comments, or is familiar with my ministries or testimony could tell you.
You seized upon something I said as an aside and transformed it into a major issue. It's a waste of time, as far as I'm concerned. I know what I believe, I know that you do not know what I believe, and I'm not going to engage is some futile debate to disprove your mistaken notions and/or accusatioins.
So let it go, eh? It was a minor point and you're attempting to construct a straw man of my theological positions based on one remark. Whether or not you want to get a life is entirely up to you, but I have better things to do.
Eric,
"So do you hold to the view that the Bible (Current versions like New American Standard, etc) is the accurate message of God to us?"
YES.
Could the difficulty in understanding be that what I say is DIFFERENT to anything you may have heard before? As far as I know, I am one of the few people who claim that the New Testament DOES NOT SAY what the churches claim it says.
Hey Joe,
What do you think of Driscoll in general? I know that he draws mixed reactions amongst evangelicals.
Aside from his macho ranting, which he does only once in a while (unlike Eldridge), would you say that what is happening at Mars Hill in Seattle is right on?
He is reformed, conservative, hangs out with guys like Piper, and is considered pretty much the only island of sound doctrine in the sea of emergent.
Have you read much by him or listened to his sermons?
Vynette wrote;
Could the difficulty in understanding be that what I say is DIFFERENT to anything you may have heard before? As far as I know, I am one of the few people who claim that the New Testament DOES NOT SAY what the churches claim it says.
You keep bringing up this church boogeyman. I'm here to tell you that you can stop now. The Bible was translated long ago into languages we can all understand.
There are over a billion Muslims in the world who all claim the same thing you claim, that Jesus is not God. There are lot's of Jews, Mormon's, Jehovah's witnesses, etc, all who make the same claim that you make. Your claim about my God is neither new nor unique. It is as old as Christ.
"You keep bringing up this church boogeyman. I'm here to tell you that you can stop now..."
I will continue to proclaim the gospel till my last breath.
"There are over a billion Muslims in the world who all claim the same thing you claim, that Jesus is not God. There are lot's of Jews, Mormon's, Jehovah's witnesses, etc, all who make the same claim that you make. Your claim about my God is neither new nor unique. It is as old as Christ."
We are discussing the New Testament. Your reference to Jews and Muslims is therefore irrelevant and mystifying.
Only Christians use the New Testament. Not a single denomination makes the same claim as I do, namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was a normal man, born in a normal fashion. I claim that all teaching to the contrary is unscriptural.
Rick wrote:
"Is it your belief that the Bible makes no distinction of male and female roles? For instance, Adam came before Eve, Adam named Eve, Adam was held accountable for Eve's sin. Not that Adam was better than Eve, but that he seems to have a different 'role'.
"Does all of this speak of roles to you or is it "a whole lotta nuttin" as you say?"
Rick, Here's what you're reading into the actual words of Genesis 3, but is not there:
1. That being created first confers automatic authority over that which is created later. It does not, and nothing in all of Scripture says that it does. Take note of how many time's God's choice goes directly against the human convention of primogeniture.
2. Nothing in the man's calling his wife "Hava/Eve" ("life") gives him inherent authority over her.
3. God does not hold the man accountable for the woman's sin. They were together when they both sinned. God addressed both of them individually, as is crystal clear in the narrative.
4. Both the man and the woman were given the role of subduing/tending/managing the earth. That is the task given to them. Any other assignment of "roles" from the Genesis narrative has to be eisegeted.
The Bible describes a lot of things that it never prescribes, Rick. And there are certain things in life, such as giving birth and nursing infants, that only women can do. If you prefer to call such things as impregnation, gestation, giving birth, and lactation "roles," then I'm in total agreement. But when it comes to how God chooses to endow human beings with certain gifts and how God chooses to call them to use those gifts, that does not divide down "male-female" lines. As for Scripture commanding such a dividion of gift/call/"role," there is indeed a "whole lotta nuttin'." There's a whole lotta otherwise being claimed in some Christian circles, but again, it has been eisegeted into what the Bible actually commands.
Well then, Vynette, I'm afraid you stand squarely outside orthodox Christian teaching. I found it interesting that you had to appeal to single-translators (all but one) to support your contention. Even if we were to disregard the Prologue to the fourth Gospel, we have the numerous other scriptural references to Jesus' divinity. But it's pointless to argue with you, clearly. Your mind is made up. I suggest, however, that you are wasting your effort to try to convince Christians that Jesus is not God. Both the received faith and the Scriptures themselves say otherwise.
Psalmist,
It is not my role to convince anyone. I am a provider of information. What a person does with that information is entirely their affair. If a person's set of values convinces them that what I say is true, then they will take heed.
Vynette,
Only Christians use the New Testament. Not a single denomination makes the same claim as I do, namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was a normal man, born in a normal fashion. I claim that all teaching to the contrary is unscriptural.
We know your claim, it is the same claim that Muslim's, Jews, Mormon's, etc make. Just like them, you are not a Christian.
Only Christians use the New Testament.
You are incorrect. Lot's of non-Christians use the New Testament. Like you for example.
Christians are people who worship Christ as their God. Since you do not do that then you are something other than a Christian.
Is it any wonder...
Not a single denomination makes the same claim as I do, namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was a normal man, born in a normal fashion.
The reason being is because we call those "denominations" Jewish Temples, or Muslim Mosques, etc. At least they have enough respect for Christians not to try and hijack our faith and pretend they are something they are not.
I think you would do well to read Dave Murrow's "Why Men HATE going to Church". It makes a compelling argument about a trans-denominational concern in the modern church and synagogue.
See also:
churchformen.org
No, no, no! What Jesus said was "Blessed are the meek," a term that's sometimes rendered "fortunate." And they're certainly not fortunate because they're meek. In our nasty world, the meek usually get stomped on. Pretending otherwise is to talk nonsense.
Look at the passage. Jesus was no more commanding or praising meekness than he was commanding being "poor in spirit," which in modern language might be rendered being depressed. Nor was he commanding mourning, i.e walking around looking like misery personified even when things are going well. The same for gentleness. That's not what someone who took a whip to money changers and infuriated almost everyone of importance in Israel would do. And so on.
The heading in my Bible gets it right. He's giving a picture of kingdom life in the here and now, a place where people are flawed, some being too meek to deal with the world's bullies, others being too gentle to fight like they should, or too troubled with problems such as depression. Jesus isn't telling them that they should try harder to be miserable, spineless doormats. Far from it. He's simply telling people who can probably do no more than they're doing now, that things can be better in the same sense that someone who has collapsed from thirst can, with help, get the water they need.
Keep in mind that last blessed is the controlling one. We live in a world where people are treated badly, with those who're meek suffering particularly badly. The meek are "blessed" NOT because there's any spiritual virtue in being a doormat, much less in trying harder and harder to be stomped on. (Oh how I hate that sort of fake spirituality.) Some people are simply ill-suited for life in this sinful world. They lack the strength to stand up for themselves (or their wife or kids). But they are, or at least ought to be, blessed in the here and now kingdom because OTHERS who are stronger, braver and wiser stand up for them and get persecution in return.
And that is, far and above the number one failing of the Evangelical church. God wants brave, capable, wise adult sons who will stand up for the meek. All too often, the evangelical church is creating bleating sheep out of men that were, in some very important sense, more godly as non-believers than after they've been domesticated by our feminized church. That's the attitude Mark Driscoll is opposing. Men as limp-wristed wimps in pink leotards is the sort of expression he might use.
I'll summarize. Jesus is NOT commanding meekness. If he were, he'd also be telling us to seek persecution and the two commands (which aren't commands) would in total conflict. He's talking about a kingdom that mirrors in a small way the heavenly kingdom, where those who're meek aren't stomped on (hence are blessed ) because strong believers stand up for them and protect them. The latter gets persecuted for their efforts (think of politics and the abortion dispute), and their blessings aren't in the here and now because "great is their reward in heaven." In short, the meek are blessed now with protection. Their protectors, who may suffer all sorts of pains in the here and now that no sane person would call a blessing, get their blessing in heaven.
Jesus is recognizing that believers are of all sorts. We who are strong should be looking out for those who're weak, meek, overly gentle, inclined to get depressed at the slightest misfortune etc. He's NOT telling the strong, articulate, capable to begin to bleat like helpless sheep. He's telling them to be shepherds, to look after those who are meek, weak and depressed, and to fight (not simply try to 'bring to Jesus') the wolves who would harm them. Notice in the gospels how little effort Jesus makes pander to the feelings of Pharisees, Saducees and lawyers. They're the wolves--the celebrities and important people--that all too many Evangelical pastors pander to.
And for what it's worth, I attend Mark Driscoll's Mars Hill, and personally I think he sometimes confuses being macho with being a man. Being a man has nothing to do with drinking beer, getting tattoed, liking loud music, cursing like a sailor, much less with strutting about like a rooster in a hen house. It has everything to do with setting aside your own comforts/professional accolades and looking out for those weaker, even though they say nasty things about you in the paper or online. But he's having to deal with Seattle blue-collar guys who do think that being a man has something to do with beer, pickup trucks, and hot babes. Dealing with guys who're that confused, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.
And I might add that his problem isn't just with Mars Hill rednecks. I'm a writer. Several years ago, to publish a book I'd written, I fought, successfully in federal court, the second richest literary estate in the English-speaking world, defending myself "pro se" for most of the dispute. My opponents in a Manhattan IP firm did their pitiful best to bully me into conceeding. With most people, they'd have succeeded. Not with me. I'm not troubled with meekness and feel no inclination to become so. Pride is a sin, lack of meekness on matters of right and wrong isn't. I'm a bit like my (white) great-great-great grandfather who stood up to the Klan in 1870s Alabama.
One lesson I learned was that, in these sorts of nasty disputes, most Evangelical lawyers are about as useful as warm spit. They're so obsessed with niceness, they're worthless against nasty folks. My best legal advice came from a Jewish ACLU lawyer who's probably an atheist, but someone who doesn't like to see others stomped on. My best encouragement came from a Catholic lawyer.
The absolute worst legal advice I got came from a lawyer who's one of the elders at Mars Hill. When I discuss my case with lawyers, I'd usually bring up the bullying tactics that had been used against me and how unfair that was when the victims weren't as tough as I am. Every other lawyer I brought the topic up with admitted that law had a problem in that area. But this Mars Hill elder/lawyer, to my amazement, defended all the bullying. Internalized wimpdom I guess.
Gutless, that's what Evangelicalism does to its men. It makes them gutless. Abusing the Beatitudes, making them into weird commands is but one example. What Mark Driscoll is doing it at least a step in the right direction. He's telling men to be different from what Evangelicalism has in the past been telling them. He just needs to get over this Beer, Babes and Big trucks hangup.
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
Mike, maybe the problem is bigger than just what the church is supposedly doing to men. It's been doing that to women for centuries, and unfortunately people like Driscoll argue long-windedly that the church must continue to silence and subjugate them. The church's problem is that its leaders want to replace the Holy Spirit and the will of God for its members. They find a narrow little vision of what they want the church to be, declare everyone who disagrees to be non-Christian, and then write the rules everybody else has to live by. Those rules bear little resemblance to the Bible from which they take a snippet here and there to "baptize" their take on the faith. Instead of a powerful church, the body of Christ in the world, there's merely an ideological shell of worldly attitudes and practices masquerading as Christian. Whatever makes our ears itch, there's a church that will scratch them. Hate women? There's a church that idolizes Dog the Bounty Hunter. Hate men? There are churches out there that will sympathize. Hate people in general? Take your pick; that's most churches! Want to sit on your butt and do nothing and still call yourself a Christian? Ditto. Meanwhile, there's the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ, for which the world is starved, going unpreached and unlived.
This whole "feminized church" allegation and the tradition of patriarchy is a sham. As long as that's the focus, the enemy is delighted because we'll accomplish nothing for God. It's time we tried a novel approach: being the church of Jesus Christ with our Head truly in charge. Driscoll et al aren't Jesus, never will be, and they're sure not cutting it as the ones in charge.
Psalmist and others,
Why is Christian Church attendance about 20% more women than men?
For the same complex reasons, I suppose, that the church is even more statistically skewed toward retirement-age adults. No one easy answer, though a significant factor may well be women's statistically greater longevity.
There's no valid reason to project onto the church a misogynistic judgment of "feminized" when all kinds of more benign possibilities exist. I've heard plenty of women as well as men say that they gave up on the church for two reasons: 1) It bored them; and 2) Church members do not live what they claim to believe; there's a huge credibility gap to them. Valid or not, these are common complaints.
I wonder why for some Christians the concern seems to be only for why men opt out of church, when so many women also do so. Men's needs, while important, are no more important than women's needs. And I refer to actual needs (primarily, for the genuine gospel of Jesus Christ to presented credibly and graciously), not to wants such as adventure, social interaction, validation of pet prejudices, and so forth. Could it be that the church is doing a fairly lousy job of meeting HUMAN BEINGS' needs, and perhaps a small but significantly greater percentage of women than men are willing to settle for the mediocrity?
Vynette:
If Christ is not God, then God killed an normal, innocent man for our sins. How is that just?
If Christ is a normal man who became "a god" or "like God", then why cannot we do the same?
David M. Smith asks, "Why is Christian Church attendance about 20% more women than men?"
That is a fascinating question and one that sociology researchers are trying to answer. It's not just church attendance. Women in Western cultures are far more likely than men to report a wide variety of religious behavior besides church attendance including prayer, Bible study, and belief in providence. Women are also more likely to believe in horoscopes, haunted houses, demon possession, telepathy, and predictive dreams. Men are more likely to believe in UFOs.
And here's another odd twist. Women are only more prevalent than men in black churches (by a huge 2-1 margin), evangelical churches and mainline churches. But men are more likely than women to claim a religious affiliation in Catholic churches, Jewish synagogues, mosques and other non-Christian religions.
There's a brand new study out today from Baylor University's Institute for Religious Studies that has the data if anyone's interested.
"and unfortunately people like Driscoll argue long-windedly that the church must continue to silence and subjugate them."
I have been reading Mark's books and listening to his sermons for a few years now and I have never seen any evidence that this is what he is advocating. Do you have evidence for this outrageous claim?
Mars Hill simply takes a complementarian approach to relations between men and women. That is not about silencing and subjugating women, except to the kind of people who think murdering children in the womb is a "right".
I dont always agree with him (I'm not a Calvinist) but I have found Marks teaching generally Biblical and extremely helpful in my personal life.
nedbrek
God didn't kill Jesus, Roman soldiers did.
You have hit the nail right on the head with this question: If Christ is a normal man who became "a god" or "like God", then why cannot we do the same?
The answer is, WE CAN. That is the whole point of the New Testament - it exhorts us to be like him, to emulate his character in action. Only then can the Kingdom of God on earth become a reality.
This is why the 'divinity' teachings are so pernicious. They totally destroy Jesus of Nazareth by negating everything he lived and died for. After all, who can be expected to emulate a God-man, a person of the trinity, one born of a virgin? Everyone has an excuse.
To be a 'Christian' requires more, much more than a passive belief that he is the 'Christ'.
vynette has now gone from teaching Jehova's Witness theology to full-blown Pelagiansim.
With all gentleness and respect, vynette, I ask you to study some church history and see how you are repeating many errors of the past.
RE: Driscoll's attempts to silence and subjugate women. No, Shawn, he doesn't limit the above attempts to those who would advocate abortion rights. I've read numerous entries in his blog on Resurgence.
For one thing, he admits that his view of gender roles in home, church, and culture was shaped by "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." This book absolutely advocates subjugation of women and severely restricting the spheres in which they may speak and be heard. At best, a church that embraces this historical but unbiblical model of "gender roles" has muzzled any women through whom God would choose to speak. Those who for various reasons consent to this kind of disobedience do so, and those who will not choose the world's tradition over God's will have gone elsewhere. Either way, the men are "protected" from ever hearing from God publicly through women in "their" church. So any woman whom God charges to preach, teach, and/or prophesy to that congregation, will find that their doctrinal statement concerning "the Ministry and Spiritual Gifts" really applies fully only to the men of the congregation.
For another thing, with the exception of his wife and a half-condemnation/half-commendation of an ex-stripper ministry, every woman he even mentions in his blog is blasted six ways from Sunday as a feminist (which is completely an epithet for Driscoll) and a non-believer, regardless of what she actually believes or says. Even--especially--those in church leadership. Again, he advocates that women be subjugated to his spin of "biblical" roles in which they do not lead in the church and are limited to the home and family as to where they may serve.
Finally, Driscoll consistently uses "female" and "feminized" as insults for men and institutions he declares do not meet his preferred standards for masculinity. He shows his disdain for women quite clearly by using descriptions of women as insults for men. He's far from alone in this; it is a traditional means of insult to assasinate women's character directly, but to do so indirectly to men by painting them as feminine. A worldly practice proscribed by the Bible and the example of Jesus Christ, but common nonetheless. Driscoll is simply one of the more publicly vocal Christians who practices it.
Yes, I'm well aware that my charge was a serious one. It's serious sin that Driscoll is committing, and he's proud of it and calling it good. He's a public teacher and would-be judge of American society. He sets himself up for scrutiny by continuing to raise the macho image to the level of godliness, while insulting and denigrating women. In the meantime, he publishes absolute lies about what other (non-conservative and/or non-Calvinist) denominations believe. It's all well and good to think that Mars Hill is the be-all, end-all of solid Christian doctrine, but even a casual investigation shows that its pastor is more interested in self-promotion and marginalizing the women of the church than in embracing a truly biblical vision of what it means to be faithful disciples of Jesus Christ today. I write this with sadness. So many churches are going the way of Driscoll and Mars Hill, and Jesus very little in evidence down that path...and it's a warped, macho-ized, hangin'-with-the-boys Jesus when he is.
This is running long, if you would like to move to the EO Forum or email, I understand...
vynette:
"God didn't kill Jesus, Roman soldiers did."
How then do you interpet 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."?
"You have hit the nail right on the head with this question: If Christ is a normal man who became "a god" or "like God", then why cannot we do the same?
The answer is, WE CAN. That is the whole point of the New Testament - it exhorts us to be like him, to emulate his character in action. Only then can the Kingdom of God on earth become a reality."
No, we cannot. Matthew 19:25-26 "Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
"This is why the 'divinity' teachings are so pernicious. They totally destroy Jesus of Nazareth by negating everything he lived and died for. After all, who can be expected to emulate a God-man, a person of the trinity, one born of a virgin? Everyone has an excuse."
We cannot "emulate" Christ. We must die to ourselves, and allow God to live through us. We must be utterly dependent on Him, and accept Him as the Lord of our lives. We cannot do good on our own. We cannot understand. We cannot increase in knowledge. There is only grace.
Psalmist,
I have also read 'Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womenhood' and I disagree that it advocates subjugation. Also, as a refugee from a liberal mainline denomination, the Episcopal "Church", I can testify that Mark is very much right in his concerns about liberal churches. I have seen much worse than what he talks about. His take on the new leader of the US Episcoplians is accurate and fair. Want to know what happens when men do not excersise Biblical authority in a church? One Episcopal church I know of had a weekly womens circles that involved using a "withches" cauldron on the altar and the invocation of various godesses from different religions, including Kali. And that is not an isolated example.
The feminisation of the church, especially in liberal churches, is real and a serious problem. Now by feminisation I do not mean genuine womenhood, but a false perversion of it. I have experianced it myself. The hatred aimed towards men in general by feminists in liberal churches is shocking but real.
Driscoll is not the first to talk about this. Many other Christian men from across the spectrum have been concerned that the church tends to offer and promote forms of spirituality that just turn many men off, or that have adopted liberal perversions of the Gospel that demonise men and traditional family life.
I think Dricoll and Eldredge, as well as organisations like Promise Keepers, which I have been involved with for a few years now, are trying to recover and embody a form of masculinity that is Biblical and relevant to men turned off by the sensitive new age man image as well as the absent and/or violent abusive fathers many grew up with. We want to be both strong and caring, assertive without being violent. In my years in PK and many men's groups I have never heard any man turn up and say "I'm here to learn how to subjugate and silence my wife". Such a man would be seriously challenged with an attitute like that. So I dont think your charge is serious at all, its a false straw man.
So you disagree with me, Shawn. Fine, but you asked for substantiation and I gave it. I don't doubt that "RBMW" appealed to you. There's no escaping the extrabiblical legalistic subjugation of women it espouses, though. Plenty of Christians and church members believe those extrabiblical tenets ARE biblical and parade them as such, and Driscoll is clearly one of them. That's between him, God, and the people who allow him to lead them in the way Driscoll desires to go. But some of us recognize that Driscoll's way is not especially biblical, particularly when it comes to his misogynistic views on women. Your opinion has done nothing to mitigate or excuse, for me, what I've read in his own words. Your bad experience in a specific congregation does not define all women, all Episcopal churches and Episcopalians, and/or all mainline Prostestant churches and Christians.
Of course no man with an ounce of intelligence is going to come right out and say he wants to subjugate or silence his wife. Besides, he doesn't have to. There are plenty of churches he can, as the self-proclaimed patriarch, insist that they attend that will teach subjugation and silencing are "biblical," and even provide religiously popular buzz words that are more palatable than "subjugation" and "silence." (Try "patriarchy," "complementarian," "gender roles," and "equal but different.") The husband can wimp out and appeal to the "authority" the church/leader says the Bible "gives" him if his wife (rightly) objects to the ungodly practice. Pro-patriarchy churches are great at that.
The vast majority of Christian women never demonize men or hate them, despite the anecdotal evidence that some offer to the contrary. What troubles me is the systematic disregard for women espoused by people, including Driscoll, who wrongly claim that the Bible prescribes patriarchal rule for churches and families. If a parallel bias against men were systemic in the church, then more men might finally understand what's so inherently misogynistic about patriarchy and those who promote it. The worst that people have come up with is the occasional lack of a comfortable fit for the most macho of men. Stack that up against nearly two millenia of men falsely claiming that women are not fully human, not created in God's image, limited in purpose and calling to being wives and mothers, being told that any other pursuit of God is not allowed, being denied education and a means of livelihood because they were women, being worth less than men, and many other highly unbiblical, degrading things--many of which are to a certain degree being advocated even today as "godly" among some pro-patriarchalists in the church. The "feminized" church (which I still say is a strawman in many cases) is a matter of comfort zone, of some men having to deal with the fact that not everyone is going to be the outdoorsy, adventure-seeking sort that they've chosen to claim is sufficiently masculine to suit them. Patriarchy, by contrast, strikes at the heart of women's God-given identity as fellow children and bearers of the image of God, and at their responsiblity as adult disciples of Jesus Christ to discern the will of God and to do it.
"Your bad experience in a specific congregation does not define all women, all Episcopal churches and Episcopalians, and/or all mainline Prostestant churches and Christians."
Its not one experience but many in several congregations over more than ten years, not to mention the evidence coming from such churches themselves in terms of statements on various issues.
"The vast majority of Christian women never demonize men or hate them"
I'm not talking about the vast majority of Christian women but the extreme feminist wing of the liberal churches.
"Of course no man with an ounce of intelligence is going to come right out and say he wants to subjugate or silence his wife."
I have worked with these men for several years in groups. I have never met one that intended it in any way whatsoever, so I repeat that your charge that the intent of groups and people you disagree with is "subjugaqtion and silence" is a false straw man, a lie in fact.
As to "extra-Biblical", the word patriarchy is not found in the Bible, but headship clearly is. I contend that your feminist interpretation of Biblical teaching as patriarchy is itself extra-Biblical and seemingly motivated by political concerns rather than faithfulness to Scripture.
"who wrongly claim that the Bible prescribes patriarchal rule for churches and families. "
It does teach headship and clearly so. If you dont like that, take it up with the Bible's Author.
And its not simply that I disagree with you, I object to you bearing false witness against your neighbour by claiming in a public forum that people you choose to disagree with are motivated by a desire to oppress rather than a desire to be faithful to Scripture. If you want to disagree with them fine, but do so by challenging the actual content of the argument rather than hiding behind infantile and un-Christian character assasination.
I never said that pro-patriarchal Christians are motivated by a desire to oppress. I'll even concede that some may indeed think that they are being faithful to Scripture. Again, as for Driscoll's (and others') position on the subjugation and silencing of women, that's what patriarchy is all about. No escaping it, no matter how much you wish it to be a lie. It's not. The text of the book in question is unequivocal.
As for "taking it up with the Author of Scripture," I have. I have read, prayed over, studied, and pondered the words of the Author of Scripture, which is how I was forced to conclude that patriarchy has never been and never will be God's way. God has graciously blessed human beings throughout history in spite of the worldly practice of patriarchy (just like a myriad other sins), but God never commanded or commended it. Just because pro-patriarchy Christians read patriarchy into Scripture cannot make it a valid Christian practice. The "headship" doctrine so cherished by some Christians also has to be read into Scripture. A husband--HUSBAND--is likened to the head--HEAD--of a body, as HIS WIFE is likened to the body, of the marriage. People like to read "authority figure" into that head+body metaphor, then construct a prooftexted doctrine of "headship" out of that, but it's extrabiblical. It's a metaphor of unity, not of authority. Sorry, Shawn, but that's the truth. If that's not to your liking, perhaps taking it up with the Author of Scripture may be in order? For the record, though I refuse to bow to the idol of patriarchy, I have no problem with bowing to the Author of Scripture...and joyfully obeying what is actually written there. Patriarchy is not, Driscoll's (and many others') stated preferences to the contrary.
I'm glad to see you have narrowed your character assassination to only SOME "liberal feminists." As for me, I have substantiated my objections to Driscoll's public statements that show quite clearly his attitude about women, upon your request. There's nothing infantile or unchristian about what I've written and I stand by all of it. Your false claims about me and apparent misunderstandings about what patriarchy entails do not change the truth or worry me.
I think this is the risk that someone like Joe runs with a blog like this. He leads someone like Psalmist and myself to think that Joe agrees more with Psalmist than he does with Shawn. And Joe tends to abandon these threads after so many comments without making his position clear.
It's a shame really, because while Joe may think that what Driscoll wrote is a problem with the church, I think a far worse problem with Christ's Church today is Psalmists position about giving women more authority than the Lord proscribes to them through the Bible.
If that isn't clear I mean to say that the Bible teaches that women are to remain silent when it comes to teaching the congregation. That men are meant to be the authority in the home after God. If we were to build a pyramid, Christ would be at the top, then the man/husband/father, then the woman/wife/mother, then the children.
Reading Psalmists words i'd think that he finds that interpretation of scripture to be hogwash and it seems like Joe would agree with him.
That's a real shame.
Your opinion, Eric-or-Lisa. I've seen firsthand the terrible harm that hard-line patriarchalists are doing to the church of Jesus Christ. I've worked with people who get shoved aside because they're not "manly" enough or "feminine" enough or married enough or conservative enough or whatever else to suit the macho-idolators who rewrite Scripture to suit their religiously popular preferences. I've worked with Christians who were lied to flat-out concerning what God was calling them to do, because it didn't fit the one-size fits all mold that people like Driscoll try to force people into.
You're certainly free to keep right on ignoring all the biblical examples of why your rules for subjugation and silence of women are wrong. Ignore all the women who did speak and lead in the early church...they're in there, any time you decide to let Scripture take precedence over your own preferences. (A hint: a woman can't very well prophesy silently, or be an apostle or a traveling prostatis/deacon without leading, or pray in public silently...) They're the witnesses, straight from the holy pages, who convinced me that the religiously popular lies I'd been taught weren't at all scriptural. The real shame is in denying that Scripture, unlike certain churches, tells us all to discern the calling of God and obey it, even when those who redefine what it means to be masculine and feminine say we can't. I'll take obeying God over obeying mere human beings any day of the week...and through all eternity, for that matter.
And yes, if you're buying the lie that there's some sort of pyramid that puts the father/husband OVER the mother/wife, then yes...by all means, I invite you to try washing some poor pig with it. Dividing the one-flesh of marriage like that is absolutely NOT prescribed in scripture. Religiously popular, yes,