As much as I keep hoping the Church will either move on or find better answers to its questions, the search for true Christian manliness has popped-up again. And it has the same stupid answers again. Wild at Heart seems to have either disappeared, or at least lost a lot of its steam. And though Mark Driscoll's church is growing with its blatantly male-centered, "we're 1,000 years behind the times" attitude, people seem to be realizing the truth behind his postmodern fundamentalism.
But apparently Nashville and Brad Stine have something (not) new to offer for the macho Christian male. You can read all about it in this LA Times article. These men have discovered a truth that I wholeheartedly agree with: Jesus was no sissy. Of course, they take it to a different place than I would. Apparently, Jesus' non-sissiness means he would have swore a lot, bossed women around, watched football, and basically be a stereotypical American male. I guess he'd go hunting and fight in the military also...
Of course this is just another attempt to make Jesus look more like us: specifically Americans in the 21st century. Jesus was brave and wild. But he was brave and wild for the kingdom's sake, not to have fun, fulfill his testosterone-driven desires, or to look tough for his friends. The bravest thing to do is to be meek when you have the power to do otherwise. A real tough guy takes up his cross and follows Messiah to the foot of Calvary, choosing the way of Jesus over the way of Barabbas. Or, to put it in John Howard Yoder's words, "Jesus rejected the way of Barabbas, not because he was a revolutionary, but because he wasn't revolutionary enough." In the same way, I reject the way American Christian manliness, not because it is all about being tough and brave, but because it is neither tough enough, nor brave enough to equal what it means to follow Christ.
Peace,
Matt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Nice post. I suppose everyone here is guilty of turning Jesus into their own image -- the men in the article as well as the women against whom they are reacting. Time to start reading the Bible again...
It is one thing to say that Jesus didn't use or express his power and manhood in the same way, but you know there were times when he had fun in culturally masculine ways. Sometimes i feel like there are people who need to worry less about being a "man" or "woman" of God and worry more about actually being a Christian, as in actually being transformed into a new creation and living out that creation in a way that blesses the world.
this post reminded me of a poem the other day that i just posted on my blog, you should check it out man
Matt,
I stumbled onto your website through a link from Tyler Watson. I think your response here is right on. Here is what I said at Tyler's place: I feel a bit queasy right now. Could be the Times article, could be the leftover enchilada I just ate – probably a bit of both. I liked what Matt had to say about this being “another attempt to make Jesus look more like us”. Perhaps the most manly response to this is to stand up and say no, the image of Jesus you present here is not true, or helpful. Yes, I imagine we are often guilty of “neutering” Jesus in our presentations of him, but recasting him in the form of a boozin and brawlin American alpha male does not seem like a step in the right direction. By the way, if you disagree with me I will KICK YOUR ASS!
Wow. I'm pretty sure that what the article describes is idolatry. Idolatry of the American image of manliness. How is this even close to being Christian? Don't they see the irony in rejecting "feminine Christianity" for being overly feminine only to opt for "Iron-Penis-Domination Christianity." Ugggh. Makes me sick.
Post a Comment