Whereas I respectfully disagree. These men are trying to reclaim an aspect of the masculine soul, an aspect that our society batters and batters until it's unrecognizable. You can't tell a man to be strong like Jesus in Gethsemane unless he already IS strong. I mean, if you told me to do that, I might SAY the same things that Jesus did, but you know what would really be speaking? Fear. Not strength. Fear. Whereas the strength that Jesus showed resulted elsewhere in his taking a whip into the temple and driving out all of the merchants who, at the behest of the corrupt priests, were taking advantage of the people.
It's easy enough to say that these guys are looking for strength in all the wrong places. It's a lot harder to actually show them a good place to build up that strength. These men are learning to be men-- complete men, whole men. They're relearning the aggressive impulses that our society tries to breed out of them, they're becoming more confident in their abilities, they're learning to handle themselves in a fight should they ever need to do so, they're learning that it's ok to be enraged and be violent when the situation calls for it. All of these are things the men in our culture desperately need to learn. So I say, kudos to them.
I will respond to several of your points categorically:
*It wasn't the act of whipping merchants that made Christ strong, it was indeed His love for God from whom He received His self-image as the Son of God e.g. "This is My Son, in Whom I am well-pleased," ; "You have made MY FATHER'S house into a den of thieves." Christ knew He was the Son of God and was convinced of the Father's love for Him; it was that, not the act of whipping that fueled his strength.
*We don't seem to disagree that society batters the masculine soul.
*I think that it actually Biblical to call men to be strong as Christ was strong regardless of their level of courage or fortitude. Several other places in Scripture, we are called to to things that we will fail at miserably; among them are the Ten Commandments, being perfect as our Father is perfect, and the two greatest commandments. Simply because we are not currently able to BE or FULFILL those commandments doesn't negate that we are commanded to BE or to FULFILL them. **It is understood that the process of sanctification is many times long and quite possibly littered with failures. That is actually to be expected God delights to work through our weaknesses.
*I agree that our culture presents fewer and fewer "places" for men to build themselves up in these areas of personal and corporate strength; furthermore, the same cultural analysis applies to places for men to learn meekness, or power under control. In my book, power under control does not mean power never seen or never used. On the contrary, Christ constantly used His strength to rebuke, caste out, defy, and pronounce. The key is the whipping of merchants was an isolated incident of physical violence; however, He constantly edified, taught, prayed, endured, meditated, slept (difficult to do when you're busy ;) ), healed, forgave, and served. All of these were direct manifestations of His strength.
*I agree that a complete man is dangerous and should be able to be provoked to violence. Jesus certainly was. I would disagree, however, that these men are learning to be complete UNLESS they are also being brought into completeness as written in James 1, and 2 Peter 1. Without continual sanctification, they will pass beyond toughness, physical strength, and courage into what Paul describes as the deeds of the flesh in Gal. 5, "...immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these..." All of these fleshly deeds are obvious, and are a short step away from a healthy round of fisticuffs among pals.
In short, I don't disagree that this sort of thing is wholly wrong. Notice I didn't use the, "Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit" argument as is commonly used when it shouldn't be. My stance is that, if Christ is indeed our earthly example as the vast majority of New Testament literature suggests, then it is from His example that we should glean those "places" to build strength.
It's fair to say that I don't disagree at all with the core of your argument-- that we should use Christ to find the ways to build our strength, and that everything He did, from the gentle to the violent, was an expression of that strength that He had. I might disagree about whether the "key" of his violence is that it was an isolated incident (there's a lot going on in that story behind the scenes, most of it having to do with the fact that the priests were corrupt and were often bribed by the merchants to reject the peoples' offerings so that they would buy the merchants' goods as offerings instead), but I understand your point.
The only other thing I would say is a caution. I would be wary of being too absolute when saying that a lack of overt sanctification leads to all of the deeds that Paul listed. It can, and it often will. And of course, I'd never say that anybody can be meaningfully "complete" without the spiritual regeneration that the Holy Spirit brings into their lives. But there have been many great men of valor, honor, and integrity, men who lived great lives-- lives both of violence and gentleness-- who were never Christian. In one sense or another, their actions were redeemed by God, as all our actions must be. Or, to put it another way, God gave them grace when they weren't looking for it.
It's easy enough to say that these guys are looking for strength in all the wrong places. It's a lot harder to actually show them a good place to build up that strength. These men are learning to be men-- complete men, whole men. They're relearning the aggressive impulses that our society tries to breed out of them, they're becoming more confident in their abilities, they're learning to handle themselves in a fight should they ever need to do so, they're learning that it's ok to be enraged and be violent when the situation calls for it. All of these are things the men in our culture desperately need to learn. So I say, kudos to them.
Reply
*It wasn't the act of whipping merchants that made Christ strong, it was indeed His love for God from whom He received His self-image as the Son of God e.g. "This is My Son, in Whom I am well-pleased," ; "You have made MY FATHER'S house into a den of thieves." Christ knew He was the Son of God and was convinced of the Father's love for Him; it was that, not the act of whipping that fueled his strength.
*We don't seem to disagree that society batters the masculine soul.
*I think that it actually Biblical to call men to be strong as Christ was strong regardless of their level of courage or fortitude. Several other places in Scripture, we are called to to things that we will fail at miserably; among them are the Ten Commandments, being perfect as our Father is perfect, and the two greatest commandments. Simply because we are not currently able to BE or FULFILL those commandments doesn't negate that we are commanded to BE or to FULFILL them.
**It is understood that the process of sanctification is many times long
and quite possibly littered with failures. That is actually to be
expected God delights to work through our weaknesses.
*I agree that our culture presents fewer and fewer "places" for men to build themselves up in these areas of personal and corporate strength; furthermore, the same cultural analysis applies to places for men to learn meekness, or power under control. In my book, power under control does not mean power never seen or never used. On the contrary, Christ constantly used His strength to rebuke, caste out, defy, and pronounce. The key is the whipping of merchants was an isolated incident of physical violence; however, He constantly edified, taught, prayed, endured, meditated, slept (difficult to do when you're busy ;) ), healed, forgave, and served. All of these were direct manifestations of His strength.
*I agree that a complete man is dangerous and should be able to be provoked to violence. Jesus certainly was. I would disagree, however, that these men are learning to be complete UNLESS they are also being brought into completeness as written in James 1, and 2 Peter 1. Without continual sanctification, they will pass beyond toughness, physical strength, and courage into what Paul describes as the deeds of the flesh in Gal. 5, "...immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these..." All of these fleshly deeds are obvious, and are a short step away from a healthy round of fisticuffs among pals.
In short, I don't disagree that this sort of thing is wholly wrong. Notice I didn't use the, "Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit" argument as is commonly used when it shouldn't be. My stance is that, if Christ is indeed our earthly example as the vast majority of New Testament literature suggests, then it is from His example that we should glean those "places" to build strength.
Reply
The only other thing I would say is a caution. I would be wary of being too absolute when saying that a lack of overt sanctification leads to all of the deeds that Paul listed. It can, and it often will. And of course, I'd never say that anybody can be meaningfully "complete" without the spiritual regeneration that the Holy Spirit brings into their lives. But there have been many great men of valor, honor, and integrity, men who lived great lives-- lives both of violence and gentleness-- who were never Christian. In one sense or another, their actions were redeemed by God, as all our actions must be. Or, to put it another way, God gave them grace when they weren't looking for it.
Reply
Leave a comment