LINKS!

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

“Can traditional religion survive a wired world?”

Christianity can – the article makes it sound like Christianity works like everything else in this world … but alas, the writer has forgotten about the Holy Spirit and the fact that the Gates of the Internet will not prevail over the word of God.

There is not a person roaming the earth today who is not a Christian because of the internet.

( |o )====::: says:

“fissiparous echo chambers”

my lexicon is rapturously enriched

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Re reading some of these articles about the impact of the internet on the church and the ‘going to hell in a hand basket scenarios remind me of the days when Rock n Roll music was going to be the downfall of the church.

j2theperson says:

Read the Mark Driscoll posts. The guy not only hates women, he hates men as well. Basically, he hates everybody. He did say something about a church of non “pussified” men being able to fit in a phone booth, which suggests to me that the only person he thinks has things right is himself.

( |o )====::: says:

anytime a guy uses a term like “pussified”, its a sure bet he’s threatened in his masculinity

Jim says:

G,

The compensation line is old and erroneous. No guys really like trucks, muscle cars, or guns, they’re all making up for inadequacies, right?

It’s like saying that you and I play guitar because we failed piano.

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Jean,
“MLD, would any of these fit in your Bible Study’

No it would not, but probably for a reason other than what you think. When do we get authority to preach the Christian instead of the Christ. When you teach about me and how I could live better etc, you have removed Christ from the discussion.

If people would just teach / preach Christ and him crucified, our churches would be in much better shape. Teaching in church how to be a better husband, a better parent, how to handle your money are all from satan to distract and misdirect away from Jesus.

Perhaps you can teach that stuff at the church picnic.

BrianD says:

Wenatchee the Hatchet put those up a few days ago…he’s done perhaps the most amount of footwork in chronicling the mess with Driscoll and Mars Hill and deserves the credit.

However, he took them off his page (they’re still available in my Feedly app)

( |o )====::: says:

Jim,
Some guys really like trucks, but I really need to understand the value of an urban assault vehicle jacked up as high as a semi with rubberized fake t*sticles hanging off the trailer hitch. At least they’re not real, tanned leather, a trophy from a bar fight.

Some guys really like muscle cars, but tell me why they insist on such horsepower, obnoxiously loud engines that guzzle gasoline, and mods that clearly display their need to impress someone? Is it purely a masculine version of cosmetic surgery?

Some guys really like guns, but the insistence of wearing a clearly visible firearm on a holster IN PUBLIC or bringing in their open carry weaponry to Target is purely small p*nis syndrome.

I play both piano and guitar to impress absolutely no one, never have, never will 😉

Jean says:

MLD #13,

Last year, a pastor (not at my church) asked me to review some bible study options and provide feedback for use with a large men’s group. The materials were like the ones I listed in #8. The first thing that characterizes these types of studies is that they utilize military and/or sports themes to appeal to men. The next thing you realize is that because they use military and/or sports themes, they use bible material primarily out of the OT (e.g., David vs. Goliath, Sampson, etc.). There’s very little from the Gospels and very little about Jesus.

Well, I was initially shocked to learn that these types of “Christian” studies even exist, and I told the pastor that I thought the emphasis should be on Jesus, because, after all, we’re His disciples and we’re to follow Him. Here’s the response I got: My concern was valid, however, focusing a study on Christ wouldn’t hold the men’s attention; we wouldn’t get the regular attendance the pastor wanted. Therefore, he wanted a Bible Study which would draw people in using cultural symbols and self-improvement themes.

I don’t agree with that pastor’s approach, but I’m fairly confident he’s not an outlier in his outreach approach.

Jean says:

#20, So true 🙁

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

If you ask people what they want in a church and you give it to them, they will come in droves.

That is what Rick Warren did to begin his church – he went door to door and asked people why they didn’t go to church … and he gave them the church of their dream. None of that stuff that pricks you spiritual conscience.

The First Church of You.

Xenia says:

Sometimes I wish Christian men would be more manly. A few years ago a Christian man in the neighborhood took in a homeless person. He made his wife do all the work (clean up his diarrhea, etc.). He had me drive the guy somewhere he could get some help and in the car, this guy tried to sexually assault me. He didn’t succeed but he gave it his best effort. So I turn the car around and take him back to the sponsoring neighbor (should have taken him straight to the police.) Neighbor hid behind his newspaper and said “Oh, how awful.” Kept the guy in his house with his wife and me and my exquisitely beautiful daughter next door. No males in my family could bring themselves to set their newspapers down, either. “Oh, that’s awful!”

So we have this pervert living next door with my best friend cleaning up his diarrhea and no male in the neighborhood wants to do anything except bury their heads in the sports section and say “Oh my!”

Neighbor at my insistence finally called the cops a few days later but the creep had already sneaked away.

So yeah, sometimes I wish there were some more manly Christian men.

Jim says:

“Some guys really like guns, but the insistence of wearing a clearly visible firearm on a holster IN PUBLIC”

“Oh my!”

( |o )====::: says:

Jim,
Strength is being oneself without displaying aggression, being peacable, pretty much how we see Jesus acting in the gospels

Derek Thornton says:

The IRS needs to keep its nose out of many things. The least of which is the pulpit.
The IRS has been proven this last year to be a hack organization that pretty much tries to scare people and to neuter organizations with certain political views.
The less power they have the better.

Derek Thornton says:

Really this is not just a Christian publishing issue. The whole world of publishing is in flux right now.

Jim says:

Michael,

I see his 2000 era nonsense as schtick. I was defending an idea, not a man or his style, or even the totality of his message on this issue.

He is correct that modern men are wimps.

Jim says:

And wimps have always hidden in the church, where the ladies amen their “oh my!s”. This bothers me, as I feel the church is where we should find the men who will stand for something.

Mark’s early 2000’s “he’s a nice boy. He should be a pastor” rap resonates with me.

j2theperson says:

I would like to have a better understanding of what constitutes a “wimp” and what constitutes a “manly” man.

Jim says:

j2,

Some random thoughts…

I don’t use the term “manly man”, and I don’t think masculinity equals any kind of machismo. I was playing off of G’s tired old rhetoric regarding trucks and guns. I know plenty of weak guys with trucks and guns.

I think that men provide and protect, whether they weigh 120 or 200 pounds. God told Adam that he would work hard, and that it wouldn’t be fun. We don’t whine, we suck it up and do what needs to be done.

I prefer strong/servant vs weak/selfish in regards to defining terms. A man may be physically weak, yet exhibit strength by standing up and continuing to put one foot in front of the other, even when their feet hurt.

The weak run away or curl up and cry for mommy.

I blame America’s lack of marriage and divorce rate on selfish, weak men, who somehow came to believe that life is supposed to be easy and don’t have the strength to commit to anything but their personal comfort.

Muff Potter says:

I think Xenia’s comment @ #12 is right on the money.

j2theperson says:

It just seems ridiculous to me to excoriate men for being wimps when there seems to be no consensus or clear definition of what constitutes true godly manliness. Driscoll certainly isn’t clear about what he thinks a godly “nonpussified” man; for him appearance and the way in which someone presents himself on a surface level certainly does seem to be part of his definition of what makes a man manly and godly.

Even your thoughts Jim don’t seem to be particularly specific. I don’t think that putting one foot in front of another and curling up and crying for mommy are mutually exclusive. People who are faced with a lot have moments of despair and at times, at least temporarily, give up and beg for help. They might get up after doing so and continue going forward, but it’s not an all or nothing thing.

And needing to be able to provide and protect pretty much means that any man who is disabled will never be able to be a real man (or whatever term it is you want to use). As someone who is married to a disabled person, that seems wrong to me. My husband is not physically able to suck it up and do what needs to be done–to provide for us in the way he would desire to, in the way he ideally would be able to–but that doesn’t mean he’s not a man or not godly or whatever. He’s committed to me and to our daughter and he interacts with us and has a relationship with us and adds to our lives immeasurably even though he can’t provide the amount of financial support that a husband generally should be able to.

Jim says:

j2,

You’re correct that I’m not being particularly specific. I’m not playing games, I’m just tired and mushy headed. I think in the case of those with physical infirmities, it’s more a a case of, what would he do if he could.

I’ll bet that you have a way of defining strength, and that those qualities reside in your husband.

Not sure if it was your intention, but you got me good. I in no way meant to offend you, and I’m very sorry.

covered says:

Thank you Jim for being man enough to back down. You have represented yourself well tonight and I respect you. We don’t all have to agree but admitting a mistake is not only manly but more importantly it’s godly. The word that I believe best describes a manly man is meekness. The best definition I ever heard on this word is, inner strength. I know you don’t like the term manly man but I couldn’t think of a better term.

Steve Wright says:

Ixtlan,

Out here you are far more likely to see some goof walking around with a $200 Dr. Dre Beats around his neck as an accessory….I saw TWO such “men” at the DMV just last week.

I’ve heard far more conversations in my life of two ,guys comparing their new guitars or amps than comparing their trucks…

Just another example of the ease in dissing a part of the country of which one is not a part…..

Ixtlan says:

Steve,
“Just another example of the ease in dissing a part of the country of which one is not a part…..”

Yep.

“$200 Dr. Dre Beats”. What are those?

WenatcheeTheHatchet says:

update, the posts that went up Sunday are back online with a few other things.

j2theperson says:

***Not sure if it was your intention, but you got me good. I in no way meant to offend you, and I’m very sorry.***

I’m not offended, Jim. Not at all. Just pointing out a problem as I see it with your definition.

j2theperson says:

***I wonder if the conversation would be the same if we tried to describe a lady vs a shrew (the woman type … not the mouse)?***

Hah. I’d be way more pissed off than I am talking about this, that’s for sure. 😉

Basically, I do agree it’s as ridiculous to categorize men as manly and wussy as it is to categorize women as ladylike and bossy. There’s so much variation in personality, interests, and general type that people can’t really be grouped so narrowly.

I guess the Bible suggests that a good christian will demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit. Those aren’t masculine or feminine. They don’t cause you to be a better man or woman; they cause you to be a better person period.

When I read Xenia’s account of the creepo neighbor who took in a dangerous homeless pervert and didn’t take any sort of responsibility for doing so, I didn’t think he was less of a man, I thought he was less of a person. I also don’t understand why the men in the neighborhood (outside of the guy who took the homeless man in) had a greater responsibility to report the situation to the police than the women did. They were all adults, and if you, Xenia, who were actually almost sexually assaulted by this man and had seen first hand how dangerous he was was unwilling to report him to the police yourself then why would the men who had not seen or experienced what happened be willing to report him?

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Because men are to be the protectors.
1.) it’s the reason us men gobble our food, so we can then keep an eye out for danger while the women and kids eat.
2.) it’s the reason that men walk next to the street and women walk on the inside – to take the hit from runaway cars
3.) it’s the reason men SHOULD protect the women from creeps in the neighborhood.

It’s the reason men used to go off to war – I am never comfortable that we now send our women off to war … I know, it all makes me sound like a knuckle dragger.

Steve Wright says:

My take would be similar to the infamous statement by a judge some time ago – he could not define p*rn*graphy, but knew it when he saw it.

I could agree with Jim’s comment about providing, without even thinking about exceptions for those unable to do so – so rather than a straight definition, on a case by case basis one “knows it when one sees it” – and unfortunately I “sees it” far too often.

If I said a person serious about their relationship with God will read the Bible regularly, I do not intend to exclude blind or illiterate people from ever being considered serious about their relationship with God.

And that is one of dozens (hundreds?) of examples as to what men should do (or not do depending). Again, one knows it when one sees it.

I do see the distinction MLD mentions, while admitting to J2’s point about some things being right whether one is a woman or man.

I still believe in women and children first, and I know a whole lot of men in this country would just run to save their own behind first….

j2theperson says:

I think women should be protectors too. Whether male or female, if you are an adult, you have a responsibility to look out for those who are weaker or more vulnerable than you–definitely your family members but then, at least to some degree, people outside your family and strangers as well. This may not mean physically intervening, but, at least being willing to respond in some way, be it calling the police, or offering assistance, or verbally responding or whatever.

Jean says:

Here is Tom Wright’s take on gender identity from a biblical perspective. Sorry for the lengthy quote. I thought about trimming it, but I couldn’t find any fat.

“At the start of the twenty-first century, it has been remarked that it is harder than ever to be a boy.

Today, in the supposedly civilized and sophisticated countries of the world, there is growing up a whole generation of young men who feel themselves discriminated against simply for being male. They have energy and drive—often turning into aggression and violence—with nobody to help them direct or channel it. Often they grow up in broken homes where their natural father has gone for good and a succession of other men come and go. Few, if any, care much for them. Still less do they provide appropriate role models.

The teachers at the schools they are supposed to attend—though they often play truant—are mostly female. Often the message they pick up is: it would be much better to be like girls, to think and feel like girls. Girls are better. Boys—and men—are part of the problem in the world. Only by radical change can they be part of the solution.

The results are well known. Many boys end up in gangs. They use drugs; they become violent. They end up in jail. Many die young.

Of course, there are many boys who don’t go this route. Often, though, they are the fortunate ones, who come from good homes, or who have been able to develop their minds and bodies by good education. But the point to note, which influences the way we approach a passage like this in Paul, is that the Western world has for an entire generation now reversed what used to be the assumed stereotype. Since Aristotle at least, men have regarded women as an inferior species, and many women have agreed with the assessment. In the last few decades this has been reversed in popular consciousness. Now it’s the men who have to apologize for being male. The word ‘testosterone’—which refers to the hormone that produces and sustains secondary male characteristics—is used dismissively or abusively, to indicate that some young male is displaying an unfortunate tendency to be, well, male.

In this climate of thought, for Paul to tell wives to be subject to husbands looks to many like an unfortunate social or cultural gaffe. People who cheerfully ignore traditional morality, and believe in freedom of expression, suddenly become heavily moralistic and say that passages like this are wicked and shouldn’t even be read out aloud. But—as so often when reading the Bible—there’s a lot to be said for checking our natural, and (let’s admit it) sometimes aggressive attitude to passages that strike us as objectionable, and for thinking through why we react like this, and whether we have really understood the passage or not.

The fascinating thing here is that Paul has a quite different way of going about addressing the problem of gender roles. He insists that the husband should take as his role model, not the typical bossy or bullying male of the modern, or indeed the ancient, stereotype, but Jesus himself. But, you say, Jesus wasn’t married. No; but throughout this letter Paul has spoken of the church as the body of the Messiah, and now he produces a new twist from within this theme. The church is the bride of the Messiah, the wife of the king.

The church became the Messiah’s bride, not by being dragged off unwillingly by force, but because he gave himself totally and utterly for her. There was nothing that love could do for the Messiah’s people that he did not do. Although the crucifixion plays a central role in Paul’s thought in almost every topic, nowhere else outside this passage is it so lyrically described as an act of complete, self-abandoning love.

Paul, of course, lived in a world where women were not only regarded as lesser beings but, as often as not, as impure. Their regular bodily functions were deemed to make them dangerous for a man who wanted to maintain his own purity. Paul sees the action of Jesus—and, by the parallel he has set up, the action of the husband—as taking the responsibility to bring the wife into full purity. Instead of rejecting the wife at times of technical ‘impurity’, the husband is to cherish and take care of her, to look after her and let her know at all times that she is loved and valued. If husbands—not least Christian husbands!—had even attempted to live up to this wonderful ideal, there would be a lot less grumbling about bossy or bullying men in the world today.

Paul assumes, as do most cultures, that there are significant differences between men and women, differences that go far beyond mere biological and reproductive function. Their relations and roles must therefore be mutually complementary, rather than identical. Equality in voting rights, and in employment opportunities and remuneration (which is still not a reality in many places), should not be taken to imply such identity. And, within marriage, the guideline is clear. The husband is to take the lead—though he is to do so fully mindful of the self-sacrificial model which the Messiah has provided. As soon as ‘taking the lead’ becomes bullying or arrogant, the whole thing collapses.

If this guideline still seems outrageous in today’s culture, we should ask ourselves: do our modern societies, in which marriage is often a tragedy or a joke, really offer a better model of how to do it? Does the spectre of broken homes littering modern Western culture indicate that we’ve got it right and can tell the rest of human history how we finally resolved the battle of the sexes? Or does it indicate that we still need to do some rethinking somewhere?

Paul underlines the rule of life he has sketched with a quote from Genesis 2:24, the passage about the man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife. That is full of psychological insight. Often what pulls a marriage off course is the failure of one or other partner to distance themselves emotionally from their parents and devote themselves totally to their spouse. This is worth pondering in itself.

But Paul takes it in a different direction as well. Back there in Genesis, even before human rebellion had tainted the world in general, and the relation between the sexes in particular, he sees a glimmer of God’s ultimate intention in creation. The man—the Messiah—will leave the place where he was at home, and go in search of a bride. Read Philippians 2:6–11 or Colossians 1:15–20 in the light of this rich and fascinating suggestion. Contemplate the many-sided way in which the truth about God himself, and the truth about how we live out our most precious relationships, intertwine and create a God-given beauty the world never dreams of.”

Paul for Everyone: The Prison Letters. (Commentary on Eph 5:21-33, Wives and Husbands)