Ads


Jesus is Not a Cagefighter

My manly bona fides: I’ve spent sixteen years in the Marine Corps and sixteen seconds (cumulatively) riding bulls. I’ve spent my summers in 104-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 avionics on F-18s, tires on Humvees, and a carburetor on a '76 Gremlin.

I’ve hunted for snipe and fished for shark. I’ve eaten rattlesnake, alligator, and the pork patty from an MRE. I’ve stoically endured tornados, typhoons, and a two-year-old toddler. I keep a .40 caliber Glock under my pillow. My hero is John Wayne.

The counter-argument to my manliness: I own a lot of Celine Dion albums.

In other words, while there is some evidence that I am—or at least once was—a fairly “manly man”, I don’t fit the culture’s ideal of masculinity. Sure, compared to a skinny jeans-wearing hipster, I’m a model of virility. But compared to your average Navy SEAL, I’m a wee bit effeminate. I’m not too concerned about myself since I’m old (42) and secure with my place on the man scale. But I worry about the young men—especially young Christian men—who are trying to navigate their way through the maddingly vague and conflicting cultural expectations of manhood in modern America.

Unfortunately, trying to find one’s place in the male pecking order based on cultural cues is an American tradition; even more unfortunate is that this custom has been adopted by the American church.

Although this has been a problem for decades, it has increased recently because of the resurgent fear of the “feminization” of the church. For a purportedly repressively patriarchal organization, the American church has a peculiarly perennial obsession with being associated with the feminine. No doubt some of the concern is nothing more than a childish "girls are icky" male chauvinism. But there is also a genuine reason why we should be concerned about the church's failure to attract men.

A 2008 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that women outnumber men in attendance in every major Christian denomination, and they are 20% to 25% more likely to attend worship at least weekly. Why does it matter that woman are more church-going than men? “If the mom comes [to church], there's a 15% chance the family will,” says Pastor Ross Sawyers of 121 Community Church in Grapevine, Texas. “But if the man comes to church, 90% of the time the family will come along behind.”

Attracting men has therefore become an urgent evangelistic concern, especially—though not exclusively—in evangelical churches. The result is a series of men-centric initiatives that are presumably endorsed by the manliest man of them all—Jesus!

The new focus on a rugged, blue collar, warrior Jesus is a direct reaction to his cultural appropriation during the 1960s and 1970s. During those decades when the ideal of masculinity was in flux, Christ was portrayed as a sensitive, pacifistic, Phil Donahue-style guru (think “hippie Jesus”). As Msgr. Charles Pope recently wrote:


1970s Jesus was “nice,” and I should be nice too. In my 1970s Church we had no crucifix. Rather there was a cross and a rather slender and starry eyed Jesus sort of floated there in front of the Cross. The cross, it would seem, was all too much for a kinder gentler Jesus. The cross was, how shall we say . . . so “unpleasant.”

Somehow, even as a teenager, I craved a stronger, manly Jesus. My heroes then were Clint Eastwood and I loved John Wayne movies which my father called to my attention. Now those were men. (I know they were into revenge, but I’d learn about that later).

The “Jesus” I was presented with seemed soft and unimpressive compared to them and, teenager that I was, I was unmoved. Who will follow an uncertain trumpet? The basic message of Jesus 1970 was “be nice” but 1970s Catholicism (which Fr. Robert Barron calls “beige Catholicism”) stripped away the clarion call of repentance and trumpet-like command that we take up our cross, that we lose our life in order to save it.

Imagine my pleasant surprise when I actually began to study the real Jesus, the one in Scriptures. He was nothing like the thin little will-o'-wisp of a man I had been taught. He was a vigorous leader, a man among men. Someone who was formidable and commanding of respect. Someone I could look up to.

While I can appreciate the desire to present Christ as a masculine role model, I fear we may be shifting too far in the opposite direction. In correcting the misimpression of “nice Jesus” we have shifted to an equally erroneous impression of “pugilistic Jesus.” For instance, the novel In His Steps—the best-seller written in 1897 that inspired the “What Would Jesus Do?” phenomenon—convinced generations of Christians that Jesus would oppose the sport of boxing. Today, however, we have churches using mixed martial arts (MMA) as ministries to attract young men. Instead of wearing the effeminate “WWJD?” bracelets, they wear t-shirts emblazoned with “Jesus Didn't Tap”—a reference to yielding to one’s opponent in a combat sports.

Although well-intended, these ministries that focus on “ultimate fighters” are giving young men a deformed view 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 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. It is difficult to square the Good Shepherd of the Gospels with the hyper-masculine ideal of the cagefighter. And it takes an incredible leap of logic to conclude that since Jesus was a carpenter he would have enjoyed watching Christian men kick and beat each other until one is forced to “tap out.” Whether such a sport is morally licit is debatable. But it seems obvious this isn't the type of submission that Jesus is calling us to.

The real concern, though, isn’t that we are going to raise a generation that wants to trade blows in the octagon, but rather that we are encouraging an attitude of aggression and pugilism that carries over into our churches, homes, and communities. As theologian Russell Moore recently noted,


For some time now I’ve been concerned that Christians are not paying serious enough attention to a temptation the apostles warn against constantly. That temptation is “pugilism” or “quarrelsomeness.” It is, you might say, the draw toward hyper-masculinity, in which assertion and aggression itself is defined as “manhood.” You can see that in everything from Hip-Hop lyrics to some evangelical sermons about Jesus.

And, man, is it dangerous.

Our society is desperate to find the balance that only Biblical manhood can provide. Until we do, we are likely to swing back from one misguided view of masculinity to another. For example, during the early 1990s, “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, the latest 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 Clint Eastwood, and snarls like Dick Cheney. They don't need Jesus the cagefighter, they just need Jesus the Savior.

Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.


RESOURCES

USA Today, At nation's churches, guys are few in the pews

Msgr. Charles Pope, Jesus Was was no “Girlie-man.”

Russell Moore, “A Boy Named Sue,” by Johnny Cash

Andrew Walker, Jesus is a Warrior, But Not a Cagefighter

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.


 

Comments:

9.21.2011 | 3:02am
edmond says:
C'mon Joe, Jesus had His moments too. I mean overturning the moneychangers' tables, fashioning whips out of cords and sending out the profiteers is nothing to sneeze at. How about keeping silent during the torture and the beatings, the scourging at the pillar? The nialing to the cross etc. I think that is as manly as it gets, particularly because He was "manning up" not for the camera and the fans or the groupees and fans, but just so we could have a second chance. Clint who?
9.21.2011 | 7:49am
Alan says:
Thought this might be a column I would have confidence in, until I got to the line "since I'm old (42)." Someone who thinks that is old is probably not reliable on other matters either.
9.21.2011 | 8:14am
Resh Galuta says:
This post seems primarily informed by experience in evangelical churches, so perhaps it is not surprising that it does not accurately reflect the situation in the Catholic Church.

There have been a preponderance of women in Catholic congregations for centuries, but Jesus the Sissy really only showed up in the 1970's. So, one could ask, who have historically been devotees of the cults of slender, compliant, hairless, androgynous gods?

Doesn't it seem unfair that women, who already have to tolerate being the main targets of gay priests' misogynistic neuroses, should also be blamed for "feminizing" the Church?
9.21.2011 | 8:19am
Thomas R says:
I have to admit I liked the "nice Jesus" image and when I read the Bible for the first time, and saw that Jesus was pretty confrontational, I was at first troubled.

However the strength/confrontationalism is, as I recall, generally non-violent and had a purpose. To me a "manly" kind of Christian character would be one who maybe harangues about injustice or dies to save the life of his friends. One who beats people up for sport I just don't think really fits or at least it's not what I'd believe in.
9.21.2011 | 8:52am
SteveP says:
Joe Carter: A fine article on your part. I am curious as to why your lineage of MMA ministries excludes “Fight Club.” That is, rather than hyper-masculinity, could the attraction of MMA really just be deep discontent with consumerism, relationship dysfunction, and cults of victims?
9.21.2011 | 9:20am
Craig Payne says:
"That temptation is “pugilism” or “quarrelsomeness.” It is, you might say, the draw toward hyper-masculinity, in which assertion and aggression itself is defined as “manhood.”"

There is a reason almost all writers and speakers on apologetics are males. I love apologetics myself--it is something of a specialty of mine--but you have to watch out for this temptation. It can become another way for men to fight, with a "winner" and "loser" in every clash.
9.21.2011 | 10:22am
@Craig Payne
That is a great point! I have seen many combox forums on religious topics devolve into shouting matches. Unfortunatly it is often the ostensibly Christian combatants that throw off the gloves of charity and start hurling insults. Come to think of it...I'm guilty of it. I just can't resist getting in a dig or two on some mushy thinking, smug, self-satisfied, pseudo-intellectual, whether they are Christian or not. Shame on me! I tell myself that their ego needs a prick, but I'm really just being one. It is just too much fun to metaphorically smack Mr. Knowitall in the face.
9.21.2011 | 10:59am
Lee Podles says:
The wimpy Jesus has a history in the Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart. Jesus was seen as a gentle, non-threatening, understanding man, everything that ordinary men were not. The Jesuits were the main propagators of the devotion to the Sacred Heart, but they were not happy with its effeminate overtones. Franz Hattler. S. J. in 1894 described the image of Jesus in the Sacred Heart cult as “a matchmaker” with a “flirtatiously bowed head, longing eyes, a mouth puckered with kisses,’ and “foppishly crimped hair.” Otto Pfülf, S. J. found the devotion “too sweet,” “like a pious fantasy,” that was “more suitable for the souls of women.” Richard Burton describes the nineteenth-century French Christ as “curiously androgynous, with his wispy beard, does-like eyes, and delicate, soft-limbed body.” In 1899 in the United States an historian described the image of the Sacred Heart as “a young man in flowing gowns, with soft face, large eyes, small delicate out, slightly parted lips, small thin nose, downy beard, long curly hair parted in the middle and falling gracefully to the shoulders, slender hands,” or, as another critic called the image, “a pink painted Valentine.”

The feminine softness and sympathetic gaze of Jesus established a bond between them and those who sought his aid, that is, “ primarily women and children.”

This was a major change, as David Morgan points out from the original image of the Sacred Heart; it substitutes “closeness and delicacy of feeling for the older passion, devoted personal relationship for penitential anguish.”
9.21.2011 | 11:21am
greggo says:
joe: don't fall victim to the "St. Augustine syndrome." I used to be a tough guy, and had great fun at it, but let me tell you, now that I've had my fun I'm going to give advice to the young folks, don't do what I did. But it really was great fun; I know from first hand expirience.
9.21.2011 | 11:23am
Aimee Byrd says:
Interesting article. Really? Celine Dion? You probably need the gun under your pillow now that that is out of the bag :)

We should keep our sports as sports, and our church as church. My brother teaches MMA, and he even has some great opportunities to bring people to the Lord and mentor them. But it is not a ministry of the church, it's my brother living out his vocation in the world as a Christian. We Christians have a way of making everything so second-rate and cheesified when we try to turn cultural activies into Christian ministries. It doesn't make Jesus look more manly to make a ministry out of MMA; it makes him look like a poser.
9.21.2011 | 12:01pm
KLS says:
To Alan: 42 is not old at all, but given his context I don't blame him for qualifying that. The military men and church men he is referring to are considerably younger, and to them 40 is ancient. As a grad student living among undergrad age people, I know full well that 25 isn't "old" but I sure do feel it in my context.
9.21.2011 | 12:18pm
S.L. Hersey says:
I can't really ARGUE with the headline of your article, but there's something mildly disappointing about reading and acknowledging it.
9.21.2011 | 12:34pm
Joe Carter says:
@Alan ***Someone who thinks that is old is probably not reliable on other matters either. ***

You're probably right, which is why I should trust my daughter to be a reliable source. (She's the one that tells me on a daily basis that I'm old.)



@SteveP ***That is, rather than hyper-masculinity, could the attraction of MMA really just be deep discontent with consumerism, relationship dysfunction, and cults of victims?***

That's a good point. I suspect those are some of the reasons why men are attracted to MMA. But the church needs to offer the proper answer to those maladies rather than just co-opting a sports fad that is filling that void.

@Craig Payne ***There is a reason almost all writers and speakers on apologetics are males.***

Too true. I think that explains much of my love of apologetics.

@greggo ***joe: don't fall victim to the "St. Augustine syndrome."***

St. Augustine syndrome? Great term, I'll have to steal that. I think SAS is something that is usually applied when older Christians relate their sordid sexual history.


***I used to be a tough guy, and had great fun at it, but let me tell you, now that I've had my fun I'm going to give advice to the young folks, don't do what I did. But it really was great fun; I know from first hand experience.***

I should clarify that (a) I was never really a "tough guy" and (b) I don't have problem with "tough guy" stuff (within limits) as long as its not presented as the only way for a Christian man to be. I think a Christian man should be courageous and virile enough protect his family. But he doesn't necessarily need to love beer, football, and 'rassling.

@Aimee Bird ***Really? Celine Dion? You probably need the gun under your pillow now that that is out of the bag :) ***

It's true. I figured that confession was enough to offset any manly thing I've ever done.
9.21.2011 | 12:34pm
oto emlak says:
Thought this might be a column I would have confidence in, until I got to the line
9.21.2011 | 1:05pm
AC says:
Appreciate your thoughts, Joe. I cannot perceive of a more perfect manhood than shown by Jesus. He chose his course to trust and obey His Father, and nothing, not even his own unjust killing, could turn him. "When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly." 1 Peter 2. And he did this as our savior, but also as our exemplar, to "leave us an example, so that we might follow in his steps."
9.21.2011 | 1:10pm
David L. says:
Thanks for writing this. I've been saying this quietly for the past several years as I wallowed in a church that fetishizes precisely this kind of caricature of our Lord Jesus. (Thank God, my family is out of there now.) It was always--always--Jesus clearing the temple and nothing else. And Russ Moore is right: it IS terribly dangerous spiritually, because it teaches men to crush the souls of those around them and, God preserve us, those under their "pastoral" care. More, it teaches them that soul-crushing is the purest expression of Christian holiness. May God rebuke them strongly.
9.21.2011 | 1:28pm
Eric says:
Dude, Celine Dion? You need to do some soul-searching.
9.21.2011 | 1:30pm
Dave Eden says:
Great posting, Joe. I share Resh Galuta's observation that the over-masculinity doesn't seem to have made it into Catholic churches. I think we could use a bit of it. I'm sure that overly feminine decorating in some churches, combined with some of the modern hymns which can be gutless and sappy, turns off a lot of men.

In fairly recent times (pre-1970?), there were some good examples in Catholic culture of balanced masculinity. The cliche of an Irish priest coaching boxing comes to mind. Then there's the example of St. John Bosco, which lives on even today in Catholic boys schools that have a strong sports programme. In this sort of context, I think the balance is right: teaching virtue through sports in a Christian environment.

Regarding MMA, I think the larger danger in applications of Christian ministry is that as a commercial sport, MMA culture has a particularly crass side to it, worse than most sports. As to the morality of MMA itself, I actually think it's, if anything, better than traditional boxing. I regret I can't make claims to manliness on par with fixing fighter jets in a hurricane, but I have some first hand experience of training in an MMA gym (for exercise - I never had any interest or delusion of ability for competition). When supervised competently, the training is no more dangerous than any other sport. And in competition, I would argue that it's safer than boxing. Because there are many ways a fight can end in MMA, it relies less on causing concussions in your opponent than boxing. MMA is a new sport and the statistical data sets are thin compared to more established sports, but it's conceivable that MMA, despite its savage appearance, could be safer than football or hockey for example (I chose those examples to equally provoke the pseudo-religious sensibilities of both Americans and Canadians).

Also, in terms of training culture, MMA doesn't need to be boorish. The gym I went to was just a business (no faith connection - however I did see a guy there wearing the Jesus didn't Tap t-shirt!) but they did a very good job of maintaining a respectful culture. In the year that I was going there, only once did I encounter someone who crossed the line a bit in terms of aggression, but he courteously pointed out to me that my nose was bleeding and the coach told him to ease off a bit in sparring.

It's probably best to keep MMA in the kind of context that Aimee Byrd refers to, but I don't think it's necessarily incompatible with being delivered through a Christian organization, as long as it's done in a way that isn't cheesy or gimmicky, and that doesn't distort the image of Christ.
9.21.2011 | 1:38pm
I’m sure we’ve all known a few single men who wanted to play Jack Nicholson but were stuck––indeed typecast––in the role of Jack Lemon. But by what methods are they or their potential partners to resist bowing before the idol of hypergamy (i.e., the idea of “marrying up”) pitched by our media? Do some men remain unmarriageable because they are beta-males or do they stay beta because they are unmarriageable? And what of those who suffer from involuntary abstinence? As a specimen, and not a sociologist, I can only suspect these answers involve something more than an admixture of snakes, snails and puppy-dogs’ tails.
9.21.2011 | 2:12pm
Joseph says:
I don't understand the statistics. As a parish priest for over 50 years, I have found men and women in roughly equal numbers at weekend Masses. However the number of children attending was poor in comparison to religious education numbers. I have been in around 10 parishes, filling in at 3 or 4.
9.21.2011 | 2:28pm
The Moz says:
The Church has been very good at being mother church but now it also needs to learn to be father church.
9.21.2011 | 2:46pm
Jon says:
Have you ever thought about how far, and over what kind of terrain Jesus of Nazareth hiked ON FOOT during his lifetime?

He had to have been one tough dude!
9.21.2011 | 2:48pm
Randy says:
As a former ELCA Lutheran (and recent Catholic convert) I've seen male pastors extol the virtue of turning the other cheek, and Protestant female pastors extol the virtue of turning the other cheek. But it's more effective (on the human level) if you imagine that the pastor in front of you, that's recommending pacifism, had other options. Just saying....
9.21.2011 | 2:49pm
Artaban7 says:
The important thing is to hold in balance the nature of Jesus, rather than accepting one aspect of his character as an exclusive extreme. Jesus IS loving, merciful, and kind, but He also refrains from sugar-coating things, and he is strong and sacrificial.

It reminds me of something that was said at the funeral of Abe Lincoln. He was described as being steel and silk simultaneously.

I have no problem with a manly, warrior Christ, so long as we remember his generosity and mercy as well. As C.S. Lewis said, the Lamb of God IS also the Lion of Judah.
9.21.2011 | 3:26pm
mcasey says:
Good example of the balanced male: How about Charles (Pa) Ingalls from the Little House TV series? Here's a big, strong family man who can build his own house, farm his land, work his tail happily off each day, then come home, sit with his (girl) children, help them with their homework, read the Bible and play the fiddle. He's not macho, but you'd be a fool to mess with him. I always think Jesus was a bit like Pa Ingalls.
Why is that balance so hard for guys to cope with these days, either in themselves of in Jesus?
9.21.2011 | 3:58pm
Michael says:
All of this is really missing the mark. There are some stylistically irritating things about the modern Church that probably irritate men more than women ( At least they bug me more than my wife) Things like the effeminate music for example ( Question how many men do not gag when they hear the opening hymn will be "Lord of the Dance"?) This is not the central problem, it is not a masculine or femimine Jesus that is the issue.

The Central issue is that the Church no longer preaches a coherent reason to be a Christian.

Once upon a time when I was a boy... I learned God made us to know him, love him and serve him in this world so as to be happy with him in the next. Man was damaged by the fall however , and because of our sinfulness we needed actual graces to merit the sanctifying grace which made our soul pleasing to God and allowed us to avoid hell and be with him in heaven. The ordinary means of access to these graces was membership in and participation in the Catholic Church. There could be found the sacraments, and a reliable interpretation of the divine and natural law. True one could be saved if one was invincibly ignorant of this need to be a member of the Church, but this was a tougher road, and such unfortunate souls were saved through graces obtained for them via an indirect connection to the Church, they were "implicit "Catholic Christians, hindered in their search for truth by something that was not their fault. If you believed that.. well then it was pretty straight forward why you should be a Catholic.. in short made it easier to avoid hell and get to heaven. Period.

In place of this now days we have..... Well what exactly? The Church does vague things like help us experience God love... But is there any one out there who post Vatican II is saying it makes a difference in terms of ones eternal destiny whether you are a Christian or not, A Catholic or not? Does anyone in the Church claim if you are a "nice" atheist you are as likely to be "saved" as someone who is a professing Catholic? If so its not clear to me who that is.

Ergo plenty of people no longer see the urgency or the point in being in the Church. I think this lack of a coherent message is more crucial then whether when we picture Jesus we picture the Jesus casting out the money changers or weeping over the dead lazurus. Obviously Jesus was both. The real issue is anyone still teaching He is the way the Truth and the Life and No one gets to the Father but through him?
9.21.2011 | 4:16pm
Interesting article, well-written.

Not just the Church, but America, has lost its idea of what being a man means. Manliness is natural, and every man ultimately understands that intuitively. It's built-in, God-created.

It does not mean hyper-aggressive, but it does mean competitive. It does not mean violent, but it does mean having a "stand-up, take charge" attitude. In other words, it is a soldierly attitude: one that shows solid, honorable dependency, a knightly attitude.

For the last 60 years, this attitude has become anathema; America is systematically beating this characteristic out of its men and boys and there are few men standing athwart history, yelling “stop!” without the fusillade of invective (misogynist!!) directed their way. Many men'd rather disengage.

Which allows society trying to reconfigure the male brain into a gentler, gelded vision of natural itself. From the moment a boy steps into daycare and until college—if he gets to attend—his role models are female. Those from whom he seeks approval are 90% female. And many times, these female teachers will not tolerate “normal,” ie. generally rowdy male behavior in class. No, what they want are easy-going boy-girls. Girls, on the other hand, are uniquely and naturally suited for such environments. I believe this is the main source of the explosion in mood modifying drug prescriptions for boys of school age.

Unfortunately, this beat-down does not kill but merely diverts natural male inclinations so that we now see Christian (young) men taking the tough guy, MMA route. It's cosmetic, but betrays a man's natural drives. Isn't that ironic?

The modern Church shares the guilt in allowing this state of affairs to continue and is being rewarded by the distinct lack of male attendance—at least not until those males are in their 70s and basically “inert.” Jesus The Meek hasn't left the building, he's still there whimpering in the corner.
9.21.2011 | 4:33pm
Alex says:
Joe,

I'm amazed that you managed to write an entire article on this topic without once mentioning Mark Driscoll.
9.21.2011 | 4:49pm
Joe--you have got to trade in that Celine Dion stuff for some Billy Joe Shaver. And you're from Texas? Other than that, terrific article.

I confess to being pretty oblivious to the whole Jesus-as-cage-fighter trend, but my sense that the overwhelming tendency in Evangelicaldum is still toward Jesus-as-really-really, really-nice and effeminate.
9.21.2011 | 6:01pm
Adam G. says:
Jesus the Sissy really only showed up in the 1970's.

It was a clear trend in 1960, when Canticle for Liebowitz was published, on internal evidence from the book.

Really, it was a trend in the 19th C. The Edwardian 'muscular Christianity' was a reaction to it just like the current trend of pankristion that Joe Carter identifies.

In my faith (Mormonism) the trend is still probably towards a feminized version of masculinity, though not egregiously so.
9.21.2011 | 7:39pm
Durin says:
There are signs of a feminine Xianity in Evangelicalism, especially in some of the music - "love songs to Jesus". I suspect most men do not want to sing "You are my everything" to another man. This probably matters more than in Roman Catholicism since "singing" and "worship" are often treated as interchangable in Evangelicalism.
9.21.2011 | 9:22pm
GABRIEL says:
It takes a MAN to get crucified without crying.
9.21.2011 | 9:23pm
bill bannon says:
Subconscious clericalism combined with modern hermeneutics may have chased men from the Catholic Church. In 1930, Pius XI in section 74 of Casti Connubii wrote: " The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man."
He had 6 inspired (by the Holy Spirit) passages in the NT to back him up. But that was long ago and before the entrance of modern hermeneutics into the Catholic milieu....a hermeneutics which sometimes (not always) asks with Satan..."did God say?" Gen.3:1.
Pan to the early 1960's and Vatican II which while repeatedly speaking of the authority of clerics....said zilch in the family sections about wives obeying husbands.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church did the same omission. Big surprise....men from macho cultures and subcultures began dropping away. Not only that, they started to dress like eternal college jocks....whereas in the 1940's men wore suits and ties and hats on Sunday and dress pants often during the week...or pants that said they were not their 17 year old son.
9.21.2011 | 9:31pm
Immediately after reading this fascinating post, I read the "Meditation of the Day" for 9/21 in Magnificat's September issue. Apropos, I thought, of this post, the meditation begins:

"As long as we wrap ourselves up in the cloak of virtue, of devotion, of religion, as long as we have not become detached from ourselves, then, indeed, we affirm our faith by feats of strength.
"But the saint, who really exists, who is greater than life, who is no longer turned in on himself, leads us to a God who is at the core of the heart of our life, who is the sole real experience, the only experience that reveals man to himself, because, as long as man is putting on the act of virtue, of humility, there is no one there. The wonderful fact about saints is that, in them, there is someone, there is a man there at last, there is, at last, a source, a freedom, and, finally, an intimacy. There is really a mystery there."
9.21.2011 | 9:54pm
Jeremy says:
"No doubt some of the concern is nothing more than a childish "girls are icky" male chauvinism."

I think this is a strange, anti-intellectual view of this problem. I'd say the opposite is true--a lot of times, young evangelical men go to MMA clubs and pick up quintessentially "masculine" habits because they want to increase their chances with women.

Also, the evangelical church loses the single male demographic because many men find it impossible to reconcile their evangelical beliefs with their sex drive. Evangelicals are so overbearingly insistent on abstinence that many evangelical young people are scared to death to even date. A real man who wants to take responsibility for finding a wife can't function in such an environment. This attitude contributes to the whole Jesus-was-a-pushover thing.
9.21.2011 | 10:44pm
bill bannon says:
Those picturing a Stoic crucifixion please review the NT in your preferred translation:

Hbr 5:7 "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear."
9.21.2011 | 11:41pm
T.D. Roy says:
Many commenters here seem to be focusing on defending Jesus' bona fides as a tough dude, as if that were the point at issue! Let's be clear here: courage is a foundational virtue, a sine qua non of right living and holiness, and toughness is a form of that courage. There is a certain anti-self-pity attitude that comes out of thinking about what Jesus did, too: we can't be soft toward ourselves when Jesus did not spare himself, for our sakes. Toughness isn't the issue.

And no one is attacking MMA in and of itself, a fascinating and subtle sport, which can be a means of developing courage and brotherhood.

The issue is when 'niceness' is set up on the one hand (as though love meant forgetting justice), and as a reaction as some folks fall into prideful aggression on the other hand.

Sometimes I imagine this happening in a home. A 'nice guy' is getting pushed by his wife, pushed to the point of snapping by her attacks of disrespect. She's searching for the backbone. His temptation - to react in anger, to show he's a 'tough guy', maybe even a temptation to react physically.

Neither reaction is moral toughness - not passivity, not controlling behavior. The real toughness is not to let anyone push you to passivity or brutality. Neither one is assertive confrontation on the behalf of the dignity of both persons. I think that's what we're called to.
9.22.2011 | 12:47am
Whatever happened to the Imitation of Christ? This column and the ensuing exchange sounds like (pop) Sociology not spirituality. Christianity, per its Founder, is about taking up our crosses and following Him, and not about the manliness or femininity of the songs we sing.
9.22.2011 | 1:18am
Jesus is a Jew, and he's a man. Christians are still trying to come to terms with both of those predicates. We've spent centuries wondering about the first: What does it mean for Jesus to be a Jew -- and not just a Jew but the consummate Jew?

Lately a lot of us have been asking what it means for him to be a man -- not just /anthropos/ but specifically /aner/. And not just /aner/ but the consummate /aner/.

A lot of good scholarship is being done on this question. Most of it is written from the perspective that gender is socially constructed, an axiom with which you may disagree (I do), but insights abound in much of that work nevertheless.

A good place to begin: Colleen M. Conway, /Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity/ (Oxford, 2008). It's an elegant, cogent argument that from the very beginning the Church was concerned to uphold the manliness of Jesus.

Ecclesiastical MMA and similar efforts to affirm Christianity's Y chromosome may be clumsy, but I respect the impulse behind it and think that impulse is healthy. Similarly, in much of the contemporary popular literature (Eldredge, Crabbe, Murrow, et al.) promoting a sort of second-wave muscular Christianity I find much to criticize, but I salute the effort. It could be done better, sure, but better to do it imperfectly than not at all. The need for it is so great.
9.22.2011 | 2:46am
Tim Smith says:
Good points. In presenting Christ, we must present all of Him. Scripture doesn't pull any punches. Jesus is not just the Jesus of past history, but the coming, conquering King Jesus. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is LORD to the glory of God.

The churches, however, that preach Jesus, continue to poorly appeal to men. Preachers who understand how to reach men are few and far between. While cage fighting is not the answer, preaching that doesn't pull punches and gets in the faces of men seems to be what men want in their pastors. I want to see more of that kind of preaching.
9.22.2011 | 4:41am
edmond says:
Tim: Yes please don't let us men pull any punches when it comes to issues on abortion, gay marriages etc. Right men?
9.22.2011 | 7:34am
Years ago I read Harold OJ Brown's book on the history of heresy and Orthodoxy in the Christian church. I remember my surprise conclusion: the church, for it's survival and growth, must always fight.
9.22.2011 | 9:26am
Men who will contemplate God only in rallies held in football stadia--a vogue a few years back-- or as a conquering King rather than in church as the Paschal Victim want God on their own very comfortable and familiar terms. God, though, chose to give Himself to us on His own excruciatingly uncomfortable terms--as Christ crucified, a scandal to the Jews and a folly to the Greeks. There is a message (or "gospel") in that.

Those who insist that men will only worship Christ if He is sold in terms that would work best during a Monday night football broadcast do men a disservice. In fact, men have rallied to the cause of Christ for 2000 years now, even in days when to be a man was a lot more uncomfortable than it is today. Let's take one of the most extreme examples: the crusaders. They went cross-country from Germany through the Balkans to Constantinople and then through enemy lands in Asia Minor and Syria before reaching Jerusalem. Although they didn't have the grace of being Dallas Cowboy or New York Giant fans, they could probably do most of the athletic things such Monday Night couch potatoes do in Twenty First Century America.
9.22.2011 | 9:39am
Oooh for...yer all a bunch of pantywaists! Look, if I remember correctly, in his commentary on Galatians, Martin Luther quoted St. Bernard saying something like "the church is in the best position when it is under attack from all sides, and in the worst position when it is at peace." And I happen to like the Nicene Creed, born of bitter fighting. Oh sure, they all could've gotten along a lot better and said "well you know, those Arians, no need to make any trouble right now..." Now I might have this wrong, but I seem to remember someone telling me that St. Nicholas himself cocked some attending bishop in the jaw, laid him out flat, and was subsequently banned from the church, and was then reinstated a day later.

When I finished Harold OJ Brown's book on the history of Heresy and Orthodoxy some years ago my takeaway upon turning the last page was that you can never stop fighting. You just can't. I don't care if you are the last man standing (sort of like the woman in the final scene of the 70's remake of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers when she reunites with Donald Sutherland only to find out that he too has been snatched), you just never stop fighting. You never actually win, in fact you pretty much always lose, but you never stop fighting. Okay, pushup time.
9.22.2011 | 11:17am
King says:
Be not afraid of too much manliness in the church. She has been so feminized that what would have been an overdose in another era would only be a minor counterbalance today.

Despite his qualifying citations, Mr. Carter treats the huge disparity between male and female parishioners as harmless if not coincidental. It is a side effect of the wider culture infecting the pews, much as it now infects college campuses tilting toward 60-40 female-male matriculation rates.

Now we are engaged in a great cultural war under which the church has allowed itself to be subsumed, unfortunately. This hundred-year conflict has poisoned even a "manly man's" assumptions about human nature, leading to Carter's issuance of a corrective where none is needed, based on fears of overreach bordering on paranoia.

"Jesus Didn't Tap" isn't a compromise of the church's integrity; it is an invasion of the Gospel into every realm of God-forsakenness, the very purpose of the Good News, a moment to celebrate not to fear.

Manliness is a necessary quality of human nature that has of late been condemned as the source of all violence and evil, public enemy number one. A century of its condemnation has now driven it to the edge of extinction, manifest in the boys who play video games into their thirties, living with mom and dad, lives of sloth and purposelessness and sexual incontinence. The last thing we need is yet one more feminist sandbag heaped onto a suffocating, terminal patient.
9.22.2011 | 11:22am
Zeb says:
Good advice any time any Christian church feels lost and needs guidance is "Look to the East." Now, I was raised Roman Catholic so maybe feminizing/masculizing of Jesus and the faith are actually a problem in Eastern Christianity and I don't know about it, but just looking at the iconography and other aesthetics it seems that tradition has avoided either extreme. This famous icon combines both the gentle Jesus and the tough Jesus simultaneously in a way that does not particularly imply masculinity or femininity. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMqNaWEUTt8/SwxUS5R_OqI/AAAAAAAADUw/4xkGnZAZCP8/s1600/Christ+Pantocrator+Sinai.jpg
9.22.2011 | 11:31am
JonDWhite says:
"Meek" is "tame" and "tame" connotes "obedient", and Jesus WAS obedient - even to death on a cross - nothing meely-mouthed in that!
9.22.2011 | 8:13pm
I couldn't agree with you more Joe. I do think we are missing the point in terms of what manhood really is. Tony Romo, quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys, was praised recently, ad nauseam, for playing with a cracked rip and punctured lung. Are you kidding me?

So if he hadn't played? The innuendo is that he would have somehow been less than masculine.

I think real manhood is taking responsibility for one's actions - acting with integrity and having the courage to simply be about the Father's business.
9.24.2011 | 5:42pm
Robert says:
The difference between the savage "man" seen in the octagon and true manliness is the difference in protection and domination. A true man knows that he is dangerous, that he is powerful, but he uses that strength to protect. Jesus is a protector of our dignity.
MMA is not a contest of authentic manliness, it is a brutal beating through which men try to prove that they have what it takes. It is broken men trying to prove that they are whole by breaking another man.
Now I am not at all against combat sports and I do not claim that I am not also broken. I wrestle and have boxed, but MMA takes it too far. I am broken, a sinner, but I look to God and my spiritual fathers and brothers to affirm my dignity.
9.26.2011 | 1:23pm
Greg Blosser says:
I'm a 38 years old presbyterian pastor and until recently I was involved in the sport of wrestling and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu at a gym where most of the guys were training for and some competing in MMA. It's not at all the hyper-aggressive, thuggish culture one might expect. A good program will teach respect, honor, self-control, humility, teachability, perseverance, patience and the like. And as any skilled practitioner will attest, "hyper-aggression" gets you nowhere fast in these sports. Now of course, there is no accounting for general bone-headedness, but such behavior was neither encouraged nor tolerated in the gym where I trained. Instead, we bowed when we stepped onto the mats each day. An abbreviated handshake began each new sparring session with our training partners. More advanced practitioners were continually showing less experienced students how to improve. It was a wonderful environment for young men to test themselves in competition, develop character, and build friendships. The concern that hyper-aggression and pugilism will make its way into the church and the home when the church recovers a view of Lord as Warrior (belt-wrestler!) or the use of martial arts based ministries to reach young men seems a bit misplaced and under-informed. If such attitudes do creep into the church (not as if they've ever been absent!) they are probably attributable to general bone-headedness rather than martial marts ministries or an emphasis on legitimately biblical "Jesus as warrior" themes.
1.9.2012 | 1:17pm
Jharris says:
Jesus had his moments? Yes, he chased out the money changers twice. The rest of the gospel narratives are filled with those pesky little times when he sometimes spoke strongly (to Pharasees and Herod) but mostly went about doing good works that did not involve violence or rebukes. Not, mind you, that righteous anger is something only males experience.

As for why there are more women than men in churches? The church has always attracted the powerless of society and been a stumbling block to the powerful. In spite of the fact that many men seem to be shaking like leaves because they have lost some of their privilege in our society, they still are the powerful. I dare you to look at any denomination, any major business, any government institution and tell me differently.

I am always curious about how it is women have supposedly "feminized" the church, though. Did women accomplish this by passing rules? Oh, wait -- women in the overwhelming majority of churches have no say in the way the church is run so how could that be?

Finally - tell me this, please. Where is macho in the list of the fruit of the Spirit?

Men and women should be learning at church and from the Holy Spirit how to walk in the Spirit. Walking in the spirit is full of feminine-like characteristics (at least they are feminine like according to the hyper-masculinists) like love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Again, nothing on the list about macho-hood, warrior-attitude or in-your-faceness. Living out any of the actual fruit of the Spirit might result in taking a firm stand against corruption, as it did in Jesus' case. But that is another matter all together. God has revealed the basis of how we are to act in the Spirit and it isn't what these people teach.

Finally, I don't see that the it is the church's job or God's will to call people to Christianity by making them feel good about themselves. I think we are supposed to help people *see* themselves as well as see God and let that change them.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact