I have spent much time thinking about the path that I should take regarding this blog. I believe that I have too many flaws of my own to be a critical voice in the world. I have been very hypocritical in the younger parts of my life, and I don’t want to repeat that behavior.

Having spent time learning about the other pressing issues in this world, I have decided to take my time and effort into the area of social entrepreneurship. Instead of simply being a critical voice, I think it might be better if I acted to improve the lives of others.

Seeing the impact that unemployment has on people in the United States and in poorer countries around the world, I would like to try to do something about it. I’m starting a new site that will focus on helping people to become entrepreneurs. The site is at listentree.wordpress.com. It is fairly new and is currently in development. If you find nothing there when you visit, it’s because I’m still trying to figure out how to approach this idea of social entrepreneurship.

I hope that the field of Men’s Rights will continue to blossom and bring fairness and equality to both men and women. May the advocates of Men’s Rights bring meaningful change to the lives of men and women everywhere.

I hope that my new path will yield fruit and have a meaningful, positive impact on the lives of many people.

Matthew5sixteen.

I would like to take time to think about the blog and what its purpose is. I am concerned that the original purpose I had for the blog is beyond my capability to write about. The Christian aspect of my blog is not adequately served because I do not have enough theological training to be able to debate someone concerning Christianity.

I do not have much original material on my blog. I mostly comment on other people’s posts or articles. If you would like to see a glimpse of what I would have posted if I did not take a break, simply visit Biblical Manhood for MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) and MGTOW (Men Go Their Own Way) material. Also, visit WordPress’s Christianity tag surfer. Those are my main sources of material.

I wish you all good reading.

Matthew5sixteen.

I would recommend that you read the post by Robins and the article by Gates. They are both very interesting pieces of writing. But what I would like to focus on is the use of verses in the Bible to prove a point.

I would like to ask, what is the purpose of the word of God? I believe that this is an important question. And I doubt that I am alone in this belief. Christian apologists, atheists and non-Christians have been arguing for centuries on the veracity of the word of God and its usefulness.

For Christians, the power and usefulness of God’s word is a belief that is held with conviction. For non-Christians, however, the word of God is at best a set of wise teachings. At worst, for non-Christians, the word of God is utter foolishness. I would like to state that, personally, I view God’s word as basically the meaning of life. It’s a status that I’ve given it in my personal life after I accepted Jesus into my life. I don’t think that it is the meaning of life for everyone. It can only be meaningful if someone believes in it, which some people don’t.

Let’s take a look at the Bible from a secular viewpoint for a moment. What do secularists view the Bible as? Is the Bible a book of science? Is the Bible a book of that teaches good governance? Is it a book that teaches us how to structure our society? Or is it a book that deals only with our spiritual aspect?

For some Christians, the Bible is a book that talks about everything. I believe that they hold this view because of the fact that the Bible talks about many of the more important aspects of human life. But I don’t believe that the Bible was meant to cover every subject under the sun. When Jesus was asked what was the most important commandment, he responded, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 22:37-38.)

Jesus didn’t go through a carefully prepared list covering everything that humanity would ever experience after his death and resurrection. From Jesus’ response, I would like to state that the Bible was meant for us to love God and love others. When we use the Bible to try to prove a point about science or society, I believe we go beyond the focus of the Bible.

“All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:40.) There are a lot of laws in the Old Testament that cover numerous areas of daily life. And the prophets spoke many things concerning how we should live our lives. Yet Jesus suggested that they all pointed to the two things mentioned above. I view this as meaning that the Bible has a focus. And we should keep this focus in mind when we try to use its verses to prove a point, in case we go outside that focus.

I leave you with this verse: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16.)

Matthew5sixteen.

Justin states, “The heart of Christianity is FAITH in Jesus, not a political or social ideology.

Because it is a faith, it is extremely adaptable to any cultural/historical situation. Thus, the cultural umbrella of Christianity is full of true diversity. Various Christians can be culturally opposite things: conservative or liberal, slave-owner or abolitionist, anti-Semitic or philo-Semitic, anti-homosexual or pro-homosexual, etc.”

Justin states that on issues like homosexuality, there are verses that support both sides of the argument. One verse may condemn the act, but another verse will say that Christ came to save sinners.

Justin states, “We are repeatedly told that God is reaching out to sinners, to the lost sheep. And we are assured that repentence and sorrow for sin are far more important that righteous behavior. Everyone knows that we are called to “condemn the sin, but love the sinner.” Thus, Christian culture is infinitely variable.”

Justin states the Christianity shines brightest in a culture of decadence. He provides ancient Rome, pagan Europe, and modern America as examples.

Justin concludes, “The Good Book is the perfect guide to worldly happiness, there is no doubt. People should be encouraged to follow its moral precepts for their own good, out of loving concern. We spread the gospel of Christ out of love, to save people from hell, the hells of this world and the next.”

I look back on my life at the times when I was “fervent” for God and tried to live by the law. I did this because I believed that through the law, I could come closer to God. But I did not understand that it is by faith that we are saved.

I think Justin wrote his post as a commentary on the current battle over homosexual marriage in the United States. I guess I can also comment on this matter.

In my life, I have known several homosexual people. By the world’s standards, they were pretty decent people. Some were even raised as Christians. They made, in my opinion, some interesting arguments based on the Bible as to why homosexuality is not that bad. One person mentioned that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. I guess he was implying that if it was such a bad thing, Jesus would have mentioned it during his ministry. I saw his viewpoint.

Justin suggests that we should live by faith and not try to impose our beliefs on others through secular laws. I see Justin’s point. It is better to be a light to others and influence them by love than to force others to be like ourselves.

I guess we should ask ourselves, is it better to spend our resources trying to keep homosexual marriage illegal or is it better to spend our resources to help the homosexual community deal with their problems? By helping them, we would be showing them the love that Jesus showed us while we were in our own sins. I’m not saying we shouldn’t call homosexuality a sin. But I am saying that Jesus came to save sinners, not to condemn them. (John 3:17.)

We all sin. If we try to depend on living by the law to save us, we will fail. But if we live by faith, we will be saved.

I leave you with these verses:

“All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.^‘ Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘The man who does these things will live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” (Galatians 3:10-13.)

Matthew5sixteen.

In addressing the issue of whether Feminism is bad or good, I have to state that I don’t really know if it’s good or bad. I have not had enough exposure to feminism to be able to give a thorough assessment of its merits. I have seen many people in the Men’s Rights Movement criticize Feminism and its adherents. Most of my knowledge of Feminism is second hand knowledge.

To act as a voice of moderation in this matter, I will state that Feminism as an idea is probably not a bad thing. It is comparable to the idea of civil rights for minorities. It seeks to better the lives of certain people. In the case of Feminism, it seeks to better the lives of women. At least this is the case in theory. In practice, it may be observed that not all women benefit from Feminism. The more radical elements of Feminism may bring supposed freedoms to women but may ultimately be harmful to those women who follow these more radical elements.

Feminism can be compared to Christianity. Just as there are false prophets in Christianity, there are false prophets in Feminism. False prophets seek to twist the good that is found in a movement and use it to further the false prophet’s own goals. False prophets may introduce teachings into a movement that seek to divide the followers of the movement from the general population. In other words, these false prophets may seek to radicalize the followers of the movement.

Feminism is not a bad thing. The followers of Feminism are not bad people. It is the leaders of Feminism that one must be concerned about. People who devote their lives to a cause usually do so because they have life changing experiences. When it comes to the leaders of Feminism, these experiences might not be good experiences but rather bad experiences that these leaders have gone through. These bad experiences may color the way they look at life and at other people. And it may lead these leaders down a path of extreme beliefs. These beliefs may be hurtful to others because they were born of hurt.

As Christians, we should not hate the people who hold feminist beliefs. We should be innocent of hate. But we should be sharply critical of the more harmful ideas espoused by their leaders. We should point out these harmful ideas and talk about them. We should not give these harmful ideas a free pass simply because of the claim that these ideas are all about equality.

I leave you with these verses: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-18.)

Matthew5sixteen.

Anakin Niceguy states, “We usually talk about ‘singles by choice’ or ‘singles by circumstance.’ But what do these categories convey? The first implies a group of people who embrace singleness as a preferred status, perhaps with enthusiasm. The second group implies those who would marry if they could but circumstances beyond their control prevent them from doing so. But I think a lot of single people, if not most of them, fall into a third category. They can be identified as follows:

1. They would very much like to get married (unlike ‘singles by choice’).
2. They have had opportunities to get married (unlike ‘singles by circumstance’).
3. However, they have passed up opportunities because of circumstances they deem to be unfavorable.

In other words, their singleness is due to an exercise of judgment (discretion).”

Anakin Niceguy goes on to explain that some people are not married yet because, when given the opportunity, they deem the opportunity to not be worth the cost. These people worry “that bad marriages are worse than not getting married.”

Anakin Niceguy asks, “…how should we treat singles who are not married because of judgment calls they have made?” He states, “we shouldn’t belittle them for their singleness. We should not treat them as ‘incomplete’ or as second-class citizens in a church. We should not treat them as asexual eunuchs, either; they have honorable desires that need to be acknowledged. Finally, we shouldn’t force these singles to get married, but we should help them get happily married–if that’s what they want.”

My concern is for those people who are “single by circumstance” and for those who are single because they have not yet found the right person. I do not have advice for how to get married, because I am in the same situation that they are in. What I do have is a little bit of advice for how to live when you are single.

My advice is that, since a person is not able to find a spouse, they should instead find wisdom for the time being. I know this sounds a bit old fashioned. But the book of Proverbs has many descriptions of wisdom. Most of these describe wisdom as a protector, as someone who “will watch over you.” (Proverbs 4:6.)

Wisdom should not be considered as just another thing in life one should have like a college degree. The Bible describes wisdom as something very important. “How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver!” (Proverbs 16:16.)

Essentially, what I am stating is that there are some significantly wonderful things in life that exists independently of marriage. It is not to say that these things exist outside of marriage, but that you can have these things whether you are in a marriage or not in a marriage. Wisdom is one of them.

Although video games are a fun distraction, not everyone will find in them a long term fulfillment of their needs. Although having friends that you can spend time with is wonderful indeed, it sometimes gets lonely when you go home at the end of the day.

Marriage can be wonderful. But marriage is not always possible. Find your significant other in wisdom and in your understanding of God. Then you will find long term fulfillment, whether you are single or married.

I leave you with this verse: “Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you;
love her, and she will watch over you.” (Proverbs 4:6.)

Matthew5sixteen.

O’Brien mentions a quote from David Murrow, “The stallions hang out in bars; the geldings hang out in church.” O’Brien states, “This observation … strikes a little close to home for someone like me. I always thrived in my congregation but was never certain I fit the mold of masculinity I saw modeled around me. So as much as I resent Murrow’s sentiment, it nevertheless rings true: In many churches, a certain type of man is conspicuously absent.”

O’Brien states, “The disparity in men’s and women’s attendance in American churches has made men the target of specialized ministry over the last two decades.” He mentions Promise Keepers as an example of this type of ministry. He states, “Today a growing body of literature is leveling its sights on the church, suggesting that men are uninvolved in church life because the church doesn’t encourage authentic masculine participation.”

O’Brien mentions John Eldredge, the author of Wild at Heart, as “first writer to popularize this concern.” O’Brien states that Eldredge “lamented that the masculine spirit was at risk because ‘most men believe God put them on the earth to be good boys.’ The church’s tendency to promote discipleship as merely becoming ‘nice guys’ keeps men from embodying their God-given maleness.”

O’Brien states, “Wild at Heart sowed seeds that have sprouted as a new ‘masculinity movement’ aimed to get men into church by changing the church’s atmosphere.” O’Brien mentions David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church. O’Brien says that Murrow “founded the group Church for Men because, while the local congregation is ‘perfectly designed to reach women and older folks’—with its emphasis on comfort, nurture, and relationships—it ‘offers little to stir the masculine heart, so men find it dull and irrelevant.’”

O’Brien mentions others in this “new masculinity movement” such as Brad Stine of GodMen and Mark Driscoll of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church. O’Brien states, “In Driscoll’s opinion, the church has produced ‘a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickified church boys. … Sixty percent of Christians are chicks,’ he explains, ‘and the forty percent that are dudes are still sort of chicks.’”

O’Brien states, “The aspect of church that men find least appealing is its conception of Jesus … According to Driscoll, ‘real men’ avoid the church because it projects a ‘Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ’ that ‘is no one to live for [and] is no one to die for.’ Driscoll explains, ‘Jesus was not a long-haired … effeminate-looking dude’; rather, he had ‘callused hands and big biceps.’ This is the sort of Christ men are drawn to—what Driscoll calls ‘Ultimate Fighting Jesus.’”

O’Brien mentions Paul Coughlin, author of No More Christian Nice Guy. O’Brien states that Coughlin agrees with Driscoll’s sentiments, “The problem with the wimpy Jesus of the popular imagination is that ‘a meek and mild Jesus eventually is a bore. He doesn’t inspire us.’”

O’Brien says, “I respect what these authors are trying to accomplish.” And he goes on to explain the ways that the “masculinity movement” gets it right in regards to how the present culture has effected the church.

O’Brien states, “The movement’s method of reclaiming the radical nature of the gospel, however, poses a genuine threat to Christian discipleship. These authors see the church’s fixation on morality as part and parcel of the church’s feminization, and they suggest that the solution is to inject the church with a heavy dose of testosterone. In other words, allowing women to create Jesus in their image has emasculated him; thus, regaining a biblical image of Christ is as simple as re-masculating him.

The masculinity movement’s solution assumes that Jesus came to model genuine masculinity. The authors don’t say so explicitly, but their rhetoric assumes manly instincts are inherently godly.”

O’Brien states, “…for women and men alike, the Bible never speaks of Christians as reformed men and women, but as altogether new creations (2 Cor. 5:17). The Fall has done more damage to the human heart than the masculinity movement seems willing to admit.

…Most importantly, Scripture gives no indication that Jesus came to earth to model masculinity. He is the ‘image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation’ (Col. 1:15). As such, he is not simply the perfect male; he is the perfect human being. Through his obedience to the Father, Christ exhibited the qualities that should characterize all believers, both male and female.”

O’Brien states, “The masculinity movement would have us emulate the glorified Jesus—the one who will return on horseback and brandish the sword of judgment. That is certainly the Jesus we worship. But it is not the Jesus we are commanded to imitate. The only times Jesus appears in Scripture as a warrior are in his pre-incarnate debuts in the Old Testament and post-resurrection glory. Our model of behavior, then, is the suffering Son, not the glorified one. Humanity in the image of Christ is not aggressive and combative; it is humble and poor (Phil. 2:5). We are most like Christ not when we win a fight, but when we suffer for righteousness’ sake (Eph. 5:1-2; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14).”

O’Brien concludes, “The way to recover the biblical image of Jesus is to submit ourselves to the Scriptures and let them discipline our preconceptions. In the process, we must remember that the purpose of discipleship is not primarily to become fulfilled men or women, but rather to be transformed into the image of Christ.”

It is difficult for me to voice my opinion in this matter. There are some well known people who are in the “new masculinity movement.” But I would have to agree with O’Brien where he says that we should not seek to emulate the masculine Jesus or the effeminate Jesus. Rather, we should pursue the Jesus that is wholly presented in the scriptures. The Jesus who was both zealous (John 2:17) and gentle (Matthew 11:29).

I am hesitant to blame the crowd that remolded Jesus into an effeminate man, just as I am hesitant to criticize those who seek to remold Jesus into a masculine man. The reason is that these people use examples from scripture to support their viewpoints. If Jesus can be described as masculine or effeminate, it is possible that this is a result of hardened cultural stereotypes. What I mean is, it is the culture that has deemed Jesus masculine or feminine. We should not allow the culture to shape scripture. We should allow scripture to shape us and our understanding of Jesus.

Perhaps the reason that fewer men than women want to go to church is not because Jesus has been feminized as much as it has to do with the possibility that the culture has such a strong grip on men. Perhaps men are reluctant to go to a church that does not conform to the manly image that the culture has presented for men. I don’t deny the possibility that the church may have become more feminized. But I wonder, if the church somehow returned to its original state, would not the present culture still consider the church to be effeminate because of the way scripture presents Jesus? “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matthew 11:29.)

I leave you with these verses:

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11.)

Matthew5sixteen.

Kluth states,

“The Roman emperor Constantine … caused a counterintuitive problem for early Christians.

By converting to Christianity and making it the official religion of the Roman Empire in about 313 AD, Constantine made it impossible for early Christians to be either confessors or martyrs.

1. To be a confessor meant to acknowledge openly to the Roman bureaucracy that you were a Christian. This carried the risk of martyrdom.
2. To be a martyr then meant actually going through with the process and dying for your faith.

…these were the two main ways in which early Christians competed for religious kudos — and those Christians were (are?) a competitive bunch. Both confessing and martyrdom constituted a sort of second baptism and suggested spiritual excellence.”

Kluth states that being martyred “was surprisingly difficult.” He states that “historians have recovered trial transcripts” that demonstrate “how eager the Roman administrators were to accommodate Christians.” He provides examples of how the Roman authorities tried to accommodate Christians. He says, “But when the Roman Empire officially became Christian, this form of Christian achievement came to a complete and screeching halt.”

Kluth provides information derived from Philip Daileader’s work on the Early Middle Ages. He provides the example of Anthony of Egypt who, after trying to get himself martyred in Alexandria and having failed, went into “the desert to live as a hermit.” “He ate nothing, slept little, did everything to punish the human senses.” Kluth states that Anthony’s deeds made him famous after Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, wrote a book about Anthony titled Life of Saint Anthony.

Kluth states,

“The result was a competitive free-for-all, as Christians tried to one-up each other in search of spiritual kudos.

• The Grazers, for example, ate only grass and shoots and chained themselves up as barnyard animals.
• The Holy Fools behaved as though they were insane, or tried to be insane. The most famous of them once paraded into the women’s bathhouse and disrobed, at which point the women, suspecting that he might be less foolish than he pretended, beat and ejected him.
• The Stylites lived on top of pillars (Greek stylos) or poles.

…

The most famous Stylite, named Simeon … and also sainted before long, lived on top of his pole for some 40 years … People sent food up to him via ladders and pulleys and presumably received and disposed of Simeon’s detritus by the same method.

Simeon became a tourist spectacle. Crowds watched from below as he performed painful exercises.”

Kluth concludes, “what were these early Christians up to? Were their stunts not huge ego trips?”

In my opinion, Kluth was very kind to describe these early Christians as “competitive.” I, on the other hand, call them crazy. I can say that, not only because I’m a Christian, but because I have walked down their path before. I will exaggerate my experience to avoid completely embarrassing myself.

Crazy Christians are “enthusiastic” Christians who want to compete with other “enthusiastic” Christians. They do things like try to speak in tongues when they don’t have the gift of tongues. They say “hallelujah,” “praise the Lord!” and “Amen” every chance they get because they want others to hear them say it. They say that they feel the Holy Spirit moving in them when it’s probably just what they ate last night.

I will now mention those Christians who like to handle snakes because of what they read in Mark 16, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” (Mark 16:17-18.) I think these people know the letter of what is written but miss the spirit of what is written.

When the average Christian lays their hands on someone with a cold, the person with the cold just passes it on to the Christian. When the average Christian drinks even soda, it’s bad for their health. I wouldn’t recommend drinking deadly poison. The average Christian is probably afraid of snakes and wouldn’t even go near one, let alone pick one up with their hands. When the average Christian wants to speak in a new tongue, what do they do? They take a language class. And when the average Christian wants to drive out demons, they go to school to become a psychologist, not an exorcist.

Yes, I’m making fun of Christians. Mark 16:17-18 does not show the power of Christians to do the things mentioned. It shows the power of God to do those things mentioned. But some people want to turn the power of God into a hobby, into a show to put on for others to see. “Watch me do this. Isn’t it cool that I can speak in tongues?”

Kluth’s post should show us Christians what it’s like to “enthusiastically” compete with other Christians to show how excellent a Christian we really are. We should also take away from Kluth’s post the lesson that we should also watch how we compete on less crazy levels. Do we compete for spots as ushers? Do we compete for the spot of youth leader? Do we compete with our fellow brothers and sisters for the sake of competition?

Let’s not forget that no matter how much we may want the honored places in church, no matter how much we may want the honored places in the kingdom of heaven, it is not up to us. It is up to the Father. “Jesus said to them, ‘You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.’” (Matthew 20:23.)

I leave you with these verses:

“This is what the LORD says:
‘Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,

but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,’
declares the LORD.” (Jeremiah 9:23-24.)

Matthew5sixteen.

Anakin Niceguy states, “The paradigms listed probably do not exhaust the notions people have about manhood, but understanding them is essential to discerning the difference between those expectations of men that are biblical and those that are worldly.”

Anakin Niceguy presents the male paradigms of the “Playboy,” the “Feminist,” the “Nice Guy,” the “Family-First” man, the “Masculine Christianity” man and the “Misogynist.”

In regards to the “Playboy,” Anakin Niceguy states, “Under this paradigm, a man’s raison d’etre is to accumulate a large amount of toys and sleep with as many beautiful women as possible. The problem is that a man begins to see his worth in terms of the fun he is able to have and his failure in terms of what he think he is ‘missing out’ on. Sooner or later, we are left with miserable human beings enslaved to an endless quest for the ever elusive thrill to trump all other thrills.

…In the end, it’s all sinful and it betrays men.”

In regards to the “Feminist,” Anakin Niceguy states, “The Feminist Paradigm promises men freedom from restrictive sex roles and expectations, but in reality, it delivers one of the most restrictive and demeaning roles of all to men–the whipping boy. We are supposed to believe that no matter what happens, women always have it worse, that women are basically innocent, and that men are guilty. We are supposed to believe that feminism merely wants equality for both sexes.

The problem is that feminism wants equality for the sexes the way communism wanted equality for workers.

…Religious feminism is not much better. All it can offer is a tortured exegesis of certain uncomfortable passages (1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Cor. 11:3) in an attempt to explain away what God has clearly ordained for women.”

In regards to the “Nice Guy,” Anakin Niceguy states, “He has accepted the trek of college, work, marriage, children, work, and retirement as the measure of his worth. He really believes if he works hard enough he will get the pay raise and win the heart of the girl next door. Popular culture, parents, the community, etc. tell him he must jump through certain hoops if he wants to be ‘successful’ or ‘loved’. He dutifully complies. He doesn’t think too much about the forces unleashed in society that add to the probability of his failure and humiliation. He is all too trusting and doesn’t engage in enough healthy skepticism of the status quo.”

In regards to the “Family-First” man, Anakin Niceguy states, “In a milder forms, it is the prevailing spirit of suburban churches where bible studies go hand-in-hand with double lattes, SUVs, white picket fences, L.L. Bean and Pottery Barn Catalogs, voting Republican, etc. In it more extreme forms, it manifests itself in the Marriage Mandate Movement or the Full Quiver Movement.

…The expectation seems to be that a man must work hard in a dehumanizing office environment, be the primary breadwinner in the household, have at least two children (but preferably three or more), buy lots of consumer goods, and not question his religious leaders and the corporatist welfare/warfare state for which they might be shilling.

…Family-firsterism also seems to have the following notions about gender roles: If any thing goes wrong in a man’s relationship with women, it is his fault. He is a depraved human being who receives sanctification through the sacrament of marriage (a mystical union with a precious, fragile, female human being for whose choices he must take complete responsibility).

…A particular subset of the Family-First Paradigm merits attention–the Neo-Traditionalists. They exclaim that women have a right to be successful and stand toe-to-toe with men in traditional spheres of male influence (political, economic, and cultural). Yet, when it comes to shouldering the burdens of responsibility men have traditionally borne, neo-traditionalists are all too willing to fall back on earlier sex roles. The result is that women have choices but men only responsibilities.”

In regards to the “Masculine Christianity” man, Anakin Niceguy states, “Some have called men to renounce a ‘feminized,’ ‘nice guy’ approach to Christianity and instead embrace the supposedly ‘manly’ aspects of biblical manhood (a ‘new masculinity movement’ if you will). It’s a call for men to be Bible-believin’ bad boys–Christian tough guys who take charge.”

Anakin Niceguy quotes Brandon O’Brien, as mentioned above, where O’Brien writes concerning the “new masculinity movement,” “Imposing qualities we consider masculine on an image of Jesus we consider feminine does not solve the problem. It only gives us a new problem–another culturally shaped Jesus, only masculine this time …

In the end, the biblical image of Jesus presents a far more radical role model than Jesus the dude. Jesus was gritty, honest, and fearless. Yet his strength was not displayed in his willingness to punch evildoers in the mouth, but in his suffering at the hands of the wicked for their good. Where such strength is found–whether in a man or a woman, a latte-sipping sissy or a muscled mason–there is godly strength.”

In regards to the “Misogynist,” Anakin Niceguy states, “In response to the mistreatment men have experienced, some men have become so embittered that they have assumed a hostile stance towards women.

…there are truly men who have a dehumanizing attitude towards the opposite sex. It is a danger that any man angered by anti-male sexism needs to avoid.

…Some men say women are “only good for one thing.” Others say women all share the same amoral nature. Still others claim that women need to be demoted to second-class citizens or be coerced into submission. Finally, there are those who express elation at the suffering of women. No Christian men who takes the teachings of Christ seriously can embrace these kind of attitudes.

…religious men need to heed the admonishment of the Apostle Paul to ‘be angry and yet do not sin’ (Eph. 4:26, NASB).”

Anakin Niceguy concludes, “the six paradigms of manhood listed above are unsatisfactory in providing a framework for men to discern what biblical manhood is. They all ultimately fail to meet the most important test all of all: conforming to God’s will as revealed in his Word. Religious men need an alternative to the aforementioned choices.”

It is good to put into words the observations that we see in society regarding the archetypes that men choose. But as Anakin Niceguy stated, some of these archetypes fail to conform to God’s will.

As someone who has been quick to follow the ideals of others, I know the emotional high one gets from being able to identify with a larger group. It is tempting to behave in a certain way to gain the rewards that society has for those who behave in that way. But the Bible says that when I acted like that, I was like an infant, “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” (Ephesians 4:14.)

As we know or should know, society’s standards for men and women change with time. Society’s standards do not make for a good foundation to base your life upon. All I can do is recommend the use of the Bible as a guide that can be used to examine your behavior. I don’t know if the Bible has any particular archetype available for us. Perhaps rather it has a set of quality ingredients that can be combined into any number of recipes that would be pleasing to God. Just make sure that the ingredients you use come from God’s grocery store and not society’s grocery store.

I leave you with this verse: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” (Romans 8:29.)

Matthew5sixteen.

“The Editor” starts with a quote from Elisabeth Elliot, “Everywhere my husband and I go we meet lovely Christian women, beautifully dressed, deeply spiritual, thoroughly feminine–and single. They long for marriage and children. But what is it with the men? Are they blind to feminine pulchritude, deaf to God’s call, numb to natural desire? . . . Where are the holy men of God willing to shoulder the full responsibility of manhood, to take the risks and make the sacrifices of courting and winning a wife, marrying her and fathering children in obedience to the command to be fruitful? While the Church has been blessed by men willing to remain single for the sake of the Kingdom (and I do not regard lightly such men who are seriously called), isn’t it obvious that God calls most men to marriage? By not marrying, those whom He calls are disobeying Him, and thus are denying the women He meant for them to marry the privileges of being wife and mother.”

“The Editor” responds to Elisabeth Elliot, saying, “…This is a serious charge for someone to be making against religious men.” “The Editor” goes on to state his disagreement with Elliot’s statement, “First of all, and most importantly, the idea that God mandates most people to marry (pronuptialism) is a blatantly unscriptural idea.

…Secondly, I do not believe the doctrine of pronuptialism is a harmless doctrine. I think it has the potential for making a shipwreck of people’s faith.”

“The Editor” states, “For one thing, imagine a young soul being told he has no control over his sexual desires and therefore he has to marry (a notion based on a popular misreading of 1 Corinthians 7:2, 7:8-9). The problem is that he hasn’t won the obligatory popularity contest with the opposite sex. He remains single and frustrated. He gets angry at God because he assumes his Creator has given him an appetite that he can neither check nor lawfully sate. Robbed of any confidence he might have in controlling himself, he reasons, ‘I can’t help my feelings therefore I am going to do something illicit.’

Then there is another young man who looks at the onerous burden of marriage, all of the obligatory social expectations, the fallout from failed unions, etc. and shies away from matrimony. But here come the religious leaders to point their fingers at this young man and shame him for his choices. So, he gets bitter and drops out of church, or he ill-advisedly enters into marriage out of obligation to a social custom (not because he has any substantive feelings for his wife). The seeds of an unhappy marriage are thus sown.”

“The Editor” says, “God created marriage as a gift, not as a requirement … Thus, it can be said that marriage was made for man but not man for marriage.” And he says, “The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one. We are not under the Old Covenant of Israel anymore, therefore God’s kingdom is not preserved by family lineage (Matthew 3:9; Luke 8:20-21; Luke 12:51-53). That is, the kingdom increases by sharing the Gospel (Matthew 27:19; Romans 1:16-17; James 1:18), not by making babies and filling padded pews with third-generation parishioners.”

“The Editor” continues with a section explaining “Why Men Aren’t Stepping Up (Like Sheep to the Slaughter)” to marriage. I will attempt to summarize the important points of this argument.

The arguments concern “money,” “arrogance about sex roles,” being “shallow,” “sex,” the blaming of men and “women behaving badly.”

In regards to “money,” “The Editor” says, “It takes money to raise a family…” And he criticizes the expectations of those who believe that it is the norm to have a traditional sized family while maintaining a comfortable lifestyle.

In regards to “arrogance about sex roles,” “The Editor” criticizes the idea that men always must take on the role of the provider. He states, “I wonder what happens when a man gets a disability and his wife has to care for him. Does he cease being a man since he is no longer physically strong? What about mental strength? I guess a college-educated woman has to pass up a man with a high school education, even though he’s wonderful in every other way.”

“The Editor” provides and criticizes a quote from Willard Harley, “a popular author among many Evangelicals [who] describes the type of man that women supposedly find ‘irresistible.’” The quote from Willard Harley, “He assumes the responsibility to house, feed, and clothe the family. If his income is insufficient to provide essential support, he resolves the problem by upgrading his skills to increase his salary. He does not work long hours, keeping himself from his wife and family, but is able to provide necessary support by working a forty to forty-five-hour week. While he encourages his wife to pursue a career, he does not depend on her salary for family living expenses.” “The Editor” states that people don’t want women to live as they did in the past with the limited opportunities and sacrifices that were common, but these same people still want men to follow the old rules of chivalry. “The Editor” calls this “neo-traditionalism” and he also calls it a double standard.

“The Editor” states that some people’s “views on ‘Biblical manhood’ and romantic relationships are … unrealistic and demeaning…

…In your marriages, you expect some sort of Superman who will make all of the hard decisions for you, read your mind, and somehow arrive at the choices you would pick. He will be emotionally strong, never have any fears, doubts, uncertainties, vulnerabilities, weakness, or (gasp) needs. The husband you want is not human. Indeed, I wonder why so many marriages in the Evangelical community end in divorce.”

I will mostly skip the argument on being “shallow.” It basically compares the shallowness of men and women in terms of what each gender finds attractive and unattractive in the other gender.

I will also mostly skip the argument on “sex.” It basically is suspicious of the motives of some women who want a family, arguing that they do it simply to better themselves in the eyes of others and not out of genuine love for their family. It also criticizes people who say men are not able to control their sexual desires, arguing that men do have the ability to control their sexual desires. It argues that men should not be goaded into getting married through fear and intimidation.

In regards to the blaming of men, “The Editor” has some strong words to say. I will highlight them because I believe they hold some relevance. He states, “…We have Promise Keepers to keep men on the straight and narrow, but where are the football stadiums full of women promising to be better wives and mothers? Are you women so infallible? Are you so untainted from the ungodliness in this culture?

Men have beaten down too much. We are told that we are insensitive; then we are told we are being too wimpy. We are too told that we need to be industrious and ambitious; then we are old that we work too much and don’t pay enough attention to our families. We were shamed for our desires for women; and now we are shamed for not desiring women.

…Why do religious pundits push this nonsense?”

I will also mostly skip the “women behaving badly” argument. It basically criticizes the unbalanced nature of divorce. It argues that Christian women are no save haven for men who wish to avoid these unbalances.

“The Editor” concludes, saying, “As long as everything is going well in their little world, they don’t care about what’s going on in ours. If these women are not willing to listen to our concerns before we marry them, they are probably not willing to do so afterwards.”

What is my opinion on all of this? I believe that “The Editor” makes some valid points. I would have voiced my opinions more diplomatically than he did in his post. Once again, I recommend that people also read Terry’s post, referenced at the beginning, to balance the Faith and Society post with something from a woman’s perspective.

I try to view the Faith and Society post as what I think it is, a complaint. “The Editor” views the suffering of men at the hands of society as being unjust. I suggest considering objectively what “The Editor” has to say and doing your own research on this matter. Don’t let mere opinions sway your thinking, but let facts form your judgement.

I leave you with this verse: “I pour out my complaint before him;
before him I tell my trouble.” (Psalm 142:2.)

Matthew5sixteen.