Real Life Heroes - Taking Bullets for Others

After running the luxury liner Costa Concordia aground on the French coast back in January, its captain was labeled “Chicken of the Sea” for abandoning his ship and trying to save himself. There were other reports of cowardice among men on-board. An Australian woman reported, “We just couldn’t believe it — especially the men, they were worse than the women.” A grandmother recalled, “I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls.” A third passenger said, “There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats.” So much for the honor code of the sea, “women and children first”.

C. S. Lewis once observed, "We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful." When a culture devalues the traits traditionally considered manly virtues — courage, honor, duty, protectiveness, heroism – and consider them obsolete, sexist or politically incorrect, we should not be surprised when many men behave crudely, cruelly and cowardly.

Yet we are often heartened and encouraged by stories of men who do what men are called to do and wired to do.  Such behavior should remind us that God never leaves us “without evidence of himself and his goodness.” Acts 14:17

On 9/11 evil men turned airplanes into bombs and crashed them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, murdering nearly 3,000 people. We also saw that day courageous men running into those buildings to save hundreds of lives. There was another brave group of men that day on-board United Flight 93 who lined up behind Todd Beamer as he called out, "Let's roll." and prevented another flying bomb from hitting the US Capital. Great evil brings out the best in good men.

 On January 8, 2011 in a Tucson Arizona parking lot when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot by a lone gun man, Daniel Hernandez in the midst utter chaos sprang to action clearing Giffords’ air passage way and applying pressure to her forehead to save her life. Great evil brings out the best in good men.

Last month in Aurora CO great evil once again unfurled its wings and snuffed out thirteen lives out and wounded seventy-one others. In a theater of horrors we now know that the moment the shooting started three young men -- Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn, and Alex Teves -- reacted instinctively to sacrifice themselves for others. Pushing their girlfriends to the floor they made themselves human shields. They embodied Jesus’ words in John 15:13, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” Great evil brings out the best in good men. We are also reminded the words of Paul in Romans 5:20, "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

The mother of Jansen Young, Jon Blunk’s girlfriend, said that Blunk, 26, pushed Jansen under the seat. “He was 6-feet-2, in incredible shape. . . . He pushed her down on the floor and laid on top of her and died there.”

Alex Teves, 24, did the same, pushing his girlfriend, Amanda Lindgren, to the floor to protect her. His aunt reported: “He pushed her to the floor to save her and he ended up getting a bullet.”

Matt McQuinn, 27, dove in front of Samantha Yowler and took three bullets. Samantha was hit in the leg as well, but survived.

What makes men such as these?

It seems there are men who believe there are things worth dying for and the "Aurora Three" died for the innocent women sitting next to them that ominous night. Their instincts, unlike those of the Captain and many men on-board the Costa Concordia, were to protect, not run away. This is not an old fashioned notion or a social construct but an outward expression of how God has wired men to live unconditionally and sacrificially for others; anything else is a counterfeit masculinity.

Commentator William Bennett writes, “In an age when traditional manhood has been increasingly relegated to fiction -- capes, masks and green screens -- these three men stand as real-life heroes. Their actions remind us that good triumphs over evil, not just in movies, but also in reality.”  

© 2012, Dave Brown is a pastor and the director of the Washington Area Coalition of Men’s Ministries (WACMM) and has been the men’s pastor at McLean Bible Church in McLean, Va. He served 30 years in the federal government’s Senior Executive Service (SES), including eight years as an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. He did his seminary work at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Reformed Theological Seminary. He’s been a leadership consultant, university administrator, member of the board of directors for the C.S. Lewis Institute, chairs Foundation for Manhood and is the blogmaster for the National Coalition of Ministries to Men (NCMM).

Watching the Olympic Games and Thinking Eternal Gold

As we watch the 30^th modern Olympiad, it would good to remember that the Bible has something to say about these competitions.

Beginning in 776 BC the Olympic Games took place in Greece every four years. Everyone around the world even in those days knew about them, including the people who lived in Palestine. That is why Paul used them to point to an ultimate reality and a higher level of competition with eternal stakes. He writes that athletes train to win a temporary prize, while followers of Christ run to win an eternal one. 

“Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.” – 1 Corinthians 9:26

 When you see the athletes running, training, disciplining themselves and working through pain, as believers, we should see another kind of running, striving and award ceremony:

John Piper writes “the games . . . are meant to be seen and heard by Christians as a tremendous impulse to fight the fight of faith and run the race of life with nothing less than Olympic passion and perseverance. . . .”

Life is a proving ground where we reveal who we are, whom we trust, and what we love. It is a place for showing whose power, intelligence or goodness we trust—ours or God's. Life is not a field for demonstrating our own ability to make good choices. It's a field for showing how the goodness, truth and beauty of Christ take us captive and move us to choose and run for his glory. 

The race of life has eternal consequences not because grace depends on the way we run, but because grace is verified and showcased by the way we run. How we run not only affects us but also impacts others.

"By the grace of God I am what I am and his grace toward me was not in vain, but I labored [I ran, I fought] more exceedingly than all, yet it was not I but the grace of God which was with me" (1 Corinthians 15:10).

Paul's running did not nullify the purpose of God's grace; it verified the power of that grace at work in and through him. And so it is with us. 

Eternal life hangs on the way we run and the way we fight not because salvation is based on the merit of our works, but because faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Life is a proving ground for whether our faith is alive or dead—a proving ground for whom we trust and whom we love.

© 2012, Dave Brown is a pastor and the director of the Washington Area Coalition of Men’s Ministries and has been the men’s pastor at McLean Bible Church in McLean, Va. He served for 30 years in the federal government’s Senior Executive Service (SES), including eight years as an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. He did his seminary work at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He’s been a leadership consultant, university administrator and member of the board of directors for the C.S. Lewis Institute.

Are You a Saint?

Saint is one of the most widely misunderstood words in our Christian vocabulary. At some point in church history, people began to call the original apostles saints, contrary to the plain meaning of the word as used in the New Testament. So now we hear of Saint Paul, Saint Peter, Saint Andrew, and the like. In the Roman Catholic tradition, people of unusual achievement are sometimes designated as saints. Among evangelicals we often think of saints as exceptionally godly and holy people.

The truth is, though, every believer is a saint. That’s why Paul’s greetings in his epistles often include something such as, “To the saints who are in Ephesus” (Ephesians 1:1, see also Philippians 1:1, Colossians 1:2). Even when addressing Corinth, a church that was all messed up both theologically and morally, Paul wrote, “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints. . . . (1 Corinthians 1:2). In fact, sainthood is not a spiritual attainment, or even recognition of such attainment. It is rather a state or status into which God brings every believer. All Christians are saints.

It is a very unfortunate and unhelpful thing that we so often misunderstand this short, simple word. To use a word that applies to all Christians in a way that suggests there is a special, elite class of Christians is doubly wrong: it steals from the church important truths that God intended to communicate through the idea of sainthood, and it promotes jealousy and division within the body of Christ by suggesting a hierarchy that does not exist. 

—Jerry Bridges, Who Am I? Identity in Christ (Cruciform Press, 2012), 66.

Jerry Bridges is an author and conference speaker. His most popular book, The Pursuit of Holiness, has sold over one million copies. Jerry has been on the staff of The Navigators for over fifty years, and currently serves in the Collegiate Mission where he is involved primarily in staff development, but also serves as a speaker resource to the campus ministries.

The Intolerance Police, Chick-Fil-A and the Big War

The Cathy family, founders and owners of Chick-Fil-A, have always been strong supporters and promoters of biblical manhood. Truett Cathy who has some 130 foster grandchildren wrote a great book in 2004, It's Better toBuild Boys Than Mend Men, that challenges and equips men to reach out to youth.

 

Recently Dan Cathy, president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-a, in an interview with Baptist Press, pleaded “guilty as charged” when asked if he supported traditional marriage. He went on to say, “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.  We are a family-owned business, a family-led business … our restaurants are typically led by families. … We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families.”

While he said he believes there is no such thing as a “Christian business,” he did say organizations such as his can operate on biblical principles “asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have.”

Cathy’s admission set off a media firestorm that headlined his remarks as “anti-gay”. Bloggers labeled Chick-fil-a a “hate group”. The mayors of Boston, San Francisco and Chicago said they would block the company from opening any new stores, Boston’s chief politician declared “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston”; Chicago’s mayor asserted “Chick-fil-a values are not Chicago values.”; San Francisco chief pol tweeted Chick-fil-a “doesn't share San Francisco's values & strong commitment to equality for everyone.”

Jim Henson of Muppet fame pulled out of a partnership with the company and liberal groups organized boycotts, including homosexual “kiss-ins” at Chick-fil-a restaurants, Facebook temporarily censored a grassroots campaign to applaud and support the family-run business.- all this despite the fact there’s never been a hint of discrimination of any kind in Chick-fil-a's history.

Dr. James Emery White recently observed that not many years ago a business that supported of homosexual practice would have gone out of business. White says that today, “the threat to your business is support of the traditional family”. 

In many ways the moral battle lines are starker than ever before. Full-out war against historic Christianity seems more ominous. There’s a certain trajectory at work here which seems to mirror the disintegration described in Romans 1. 

First, Christianity has been increasingly marginalized by the culture; it is also being ostracized from the public square and marketplace; it is becoming demonized and penalized. The next step would be its being criminalized. Much more could be said about this trend and what is at stake now and in eternity. Suffice it to close with this truth and great assurance for every man of God.

“He told his disciples this:  “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace.  In this world you will have trouble.  But take heart! I have overcome the world.” - John 16:33

© 2012, Dave Brown is a pastor and the director of the Washington Area Coalition of Men’s Ministries and has been the men’s pastor at McLean Bible Church in McLean, Va. He served for 30 years in the federal government’s Senior Executive Service (SES), including eight years as an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. He did his seminary work at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He’s been a leadership consultant, university administrator and member of the board of directors for the C.S. Lewis Institute.

 

Sex According to God

God means sex and our gender identity as men to be gloriously true, beautiful and good.  They are good gifts for us to enjoy and delight in but they are not ends in themselves.  Sex and gender are pointers to what is most valuable, satisfying or significant, namely God. If we make sexual intimacy and gender our ultimate value and pursuit, then we’ve made them idols. In1 John 5:21 God warns us “keep yourselves from idols.”

On the soundtrack in the movie Urban Cowboy there was a song called ‘Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places”. It became a number one country hit in 1980 and has been covered many times. Looking for intimacy is not wrong. God has made us for intimacy but in the right places and the right ways. God is to be our first love above all suitors.

Below Justin Taylor in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ  captures some of what God says about sex:

Sex is created by God (“by him all things were created”—Col. 1:16).

Sex continues to exist by the will of Christ (“in him all things hold together”—Col. 1:17).

Sex is caused by God (he “works all things according to the counsel of his will”—Eph. 1:11).

Sex is subject to Christ (“he put all things under his feet”—Eph. 1:22).

Sex is being made new by Christ (“Behold, I am making all things new”—Rev. 21:5).

Sex is good (“everything created by God is good”—1 Tim. 4:4).

Sex is lawful in the context of marriage (“all things are lawful”—1 Cor. 10:23).

Sex is to be done for the glory of God (“whatever you do, do all to the glory of God”—1 Cor. 10:31).

Sex works together for the good of God’s children (“for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose”—Rom. 8:28).

Sex is a cause for thanksgiving (“nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving”—1 Tim. 4:4).

Sex is to be sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (“everything . . . is made holy by the word of God and prayer”—1 Tim. 4:4-5).

Sex can be enslaving and its entrapment must be resisted (“I will not be enslaved by anything”—1 Cor. 6:12).

Sex should not be an occasion for grumbling (“do all things without grumbling”—Phil. 2:14)

Sex should be an occasion for rejoicing in the Lord (“rejoice in the Lord always”—Phil. 4:4).

Sex should be an occasion of contentment in the Lord (“having all contentment in all things at all times”—2 Cor. 9:8 mg.).

Sex should be engaged in with holiness and honor (“each one of you [is to] know how to control his own body [KJV: “possess his vessel”; RSV: “take a wife for himself”] in holiness and honor”—1 Thess. 4:4).

Sex should usually not be withheld from one’s spouse (do not “deprive one another [sexually], except perhaps by agreement for a limited time,” that they might devote themselves to prayer—1 Cor. 7:5. But then they are commanded to “come together again [sexually], so that Satan may not tempt [them] because of [their] lack of self-control”—1 Cor. 7:5).

Sex can be both pure and impure in this fallen world (“To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled”—Titus 1:15).

JUSTIN TAYLOR is vice president of book publishing and an associate publisher at Crossway. He has edited and contributed to several books, including A God-Entranced Vision of All Things and Reclaiming the Center. He blogs at "Between Two Worlds," hosted by the Gospel Coalition, and runs the website www.johnowen.org.

"Masculine Christianity" Produces a "Rhubarb"

Along with 1,800 pastors from across the country, I recently attended John Piper's Desiring God Annual Pastors Conference in Minneapolis, the theme of which was "God, Manhood and Ministry". Piper gave a talk on the "frank and manly life" of 19th century  J. C. Ryle. In the context of this biographical sketch, Piper asserted that Christianity has a "masculine feel". His remarks have set off a flurry of shock and awe across the internet. Much of the heated reaction to what he said was based on a press account without its context.

After some introductory observations about the prominence of masculinity in the Christian faith—like the fact that God is revealed to us as a king and father rather than as a queen and mother, that Jesus came as a man, that all priests and pastors in the Bible are men, and that men are called to be the heads of their homes, etc.—Piper goes on to define this “masculine feel” or “masculine Christianity” more precisely. A masculine Christianity is a Christianity in which, Theology and church and mission are marked by overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ, with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, and contrite courage, and risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading, protecting, and providing for the community—all of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s the feel of a great, majestic God, who by his redeeming work in Jesus Christ, inclines men to take humble, Christ-exalting initiative, and inclines women to come alongside the men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work.

What Piper sees as characteristic of a masculine faith is the presence of these sometimes-paradoxical virtues, exercised in the Spirit of Christ and for his glory:

• tender-hearted strength
• contrite courage
• risk-taking decisiveness
• sacrificial leadership, protection, and provision
• humble initiative-taking

He goes on:

… I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel. And, being a God of love, he has done it for the maximum flourishing of men and women. He did not create women to languish, or be frustrated, or in any way to suffer or fall short of full and lasting joy, in a masculine Christianity. She is a fellow heir of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). From which I infer that the fullest flourishing of women and men takes place in churches and families where Christianity has this God-ordained, masculine feel. For the sake of the glory of women, and for the sake of the security and joy of children, God has made Christianity to have a masculine feel. He has ordained for the church a masculine ministry.

I have been thinking about this for almost a week now and have come to the conclusion that I just don’t know what to think! I find that I am not entirely comfortable making Christianity more masculine than feminine in its nature. I entirely affirm that God reveals himself as king and father rather than queen and mother, that Jesus came as a man, that men are called to leadership positions within the church and home. There is certainly a masculine feel to Christianity; but does this masculine feel necessarily exclude an equal female feel? Aren’t there aspects of the Christian faith that have a feminine feel to them (I think, for example, of Paul’s talk of nurturing other Christians with the milk of the word—a metaphor with a clearly feminine feel.) and should we also seek to promote these?

Here is another part of the conundrum in my mind: It seems inevitable that if men are to lead the church, there will be a masculine feel to the churches they lead. Surely if the Lord has called men to leadership, he expects them to lead as men—men who are seeking to live out the implications of the gospel. Most of those who are scandalized by Piper’s comments are already scandalized by his complementarian theology; in the way he defines it, a masculine Christianity is simply an outworking of godly, biblical male leadership—it’s men leading as men.

I suppose this is why I don’t find a whole lot of controversy here. His language of “masculine Christianity” is not language I would be likely to adopt for my own use, but I don’t see that what he says here is substantially different from what he and other complementarians have been saying for years.

I was at the DG conference when Piper made these remarks and I gladly cheered his truth telling. Todd, you wrote, "But on things like this, I’m afraid it will divide more than it will unite." So what if it divides as long it is Scripturally grounded. Don't get squishy because John ruffled the sensibilities of the egalitarian majority of the American culture and church. Since the sixties their acolytes have taken on the coloration of pop culture to be relevant, tolerant and fashionable. Stand firm in behalf of a masculine gospel Bro. The "remnant" is called to be the counterculture especially when it shows up in our churches. It can be exalting to belong to a church that is 550 years behind the times and sublimely indifferent to fashion; it is mortifying to belong to a church that is five minutes behind the times, huffing and puffing to catch up.

Three Lies We Men Might Believe

by Dr. Ray. Ortlund is Lead Pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, Tennesse

It is very much in the devil’s interests that we despair.  If he can get us to believe these three demoralizing lies that he loves to whisper into our thoughts, our powers for Jesus are greatly diminished.

Lie #1: “You’re a hypocrite.  Sure, you’re serving Jesus.  But you don’t really mean it, you phoney.  You might as well give up.”

Answer: “Whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything” (1 John 3:19-20).  “I do not even judge myself. . . . It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Corinthians 4:3-4).

Lie #2: “You’re a loser.  You’ve ruined your life.  You’ll never amount to anything for the Lord.  You might as well give up.”

Answer: “. . . the poor, . . . the brokenhearted, . . . the captives, . . . that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified.  They shall build up the ancient ruins, they shall raise up the former devastations” (Isaiah 61:1-4).

Lie #3: “You’re small.  You’re so buried under the debris of our complex and crowded culture, you’ll never make an impact.  You might as well give up.”

Answer: “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1 Corinthians 1:28-29).

Women, Stop Submitting to Men

Russ Moore, Dean of Theology, Southern Seminary - 12/5/11

Those of us who hold to so-called “traditional gender roles” are often assumed to believe that women should submit to men. This isn’t true.

Indeed, a primary problem in our culture and in our churches isn’t that women aren’t submissive enough to men, but instead that they are far too submissive.

First of all, it just isn’t so that women are called to submit while men are not. In Scripture, every creature is called to submit, often in different ways and at different times. Children are to submit to their parents, although this is certainly a different sort of submission than that envisioned for marriage. Church members are to submit to faithful pastors (Heb. 13:17). All of us are to submit to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Of course, we are all to submit, as creatures, to our God (Jas. 4:7).

And, yes, wives are called to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1-6). But that’s just the point. In the Bible, it is not that women, generally, are to submit to men, generally. Instead, “wives” are to submit “to your own husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1).

Too often in our culture, women and girls are pressured to submit to men, as a category. This is the reason so many women, even feminist women, are consumed with what men, in general, think of them. This is the reason a woman’s value in our society, too often, is defined in terms of sexual attractiveness and availability. Is it any wonder that so many of our girls and women are destroyed by a predatory patriarchy that demeans the dignity and glory of what it means to be a woman?

Submitting to men in general renders it impossible to submit to one’s “own husband.” Submission to one’s husband means faithfulness to him, and to him alone, which means saying “no” to other suitors.

Submission to a right authority always means a corresponding refusal to submit to a false authority. Eve’s submission to the Serpent’s word meant she refused to submit to God’s. On the other hand, Mary’s submission to God’s word about the child within her meant she refused to submit to Herod’s. God repeatedly charges his Bride, the people of Israel, with a refusal to submit to him because they have submitted to the advances of other lovers. The freedom of the gospel means, the apostle tells us, that we “do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1)
.
Despite the promise of female empowerment in the present age, the sexual revolution has given us the reverse. Is it really an advance for women that the average high-school male has seen images of women sexually exploited and humiliated on the Internet? Is it really empowerment to have more and more women economically at the mercy of men who freely abandon them and their children, often with little legal recourse?

Is this really a “pro-woman” culture when restaurant chains enable men to pay to ogle women in tight T-shirts while they gobble down chicken wings? How likely is it that a woman with the attractiveness of Henry Kissinger will obtain power or celebrity status in American culture? What about the girl in your community pressured to perform oral sex on a boyfriend, what is this but a patriarchy brutal enough for a Bronze Age warlord?

In the church it is little better. Too many of our girls and young women are tyrannized by the expectation to look a certain way, to weigh a certain amount, in order to gain the attention of “guys.”

Additionally, too many predatory men have crept in among us, all too willing to exploit young women by pretending to be “spiritual leaders” (2 Tim. 3:1-9; 2 Pet. 2). Do not be deceived: a man who will use spiritual categories for carnal purposes is a man who cannot be trusted with fidelity, with provision, with protection, with the fatherhood of children. The same is true for a man who will not guard the moral sanctity of a woman not, or not yet, his wife.

We have empowered this pagan patriarchy. Fathers assume their responsibility to daughters in this regard starts and stops in walking a bride down an aisle at the end of the process. Pastors refuse to identify and call out spiritually impostors before it’s too late. And through it all we expect our girls and women to be submissive to men in general, rather than to one man in particular.

Women, sexual and emotional purity means a refusal to submit to “men,” in order to submit to your own husband, even one whose name and face you do not yet know. Your closeness with your husband, present or future, means a distance from every man who isn’t, or who possibly might not be, him.

Your beauty is found not in external (and fleeting) youth and “attractiveness” but in the “hidden person of the heart” which “in God’s sight is very precious” (1 Pet. 3:3-4). And it will be beautiful in the sight of a man who is propelled by the Spirit of this God.

Sisters, you owe no submission to Hollywood or to Madison Avenue, or to those who listen to them. Your worth and dignity cannot be defined by them. Stop comparing yourselves to supermodels and porn stars. Stop loathing your body, or your age. Stop feeling inferior to vaporous glamor. You are beautiful.

Sisters, there is no biblical category for “boyfriend” or “lover,” and you owe such designation no submission. In fact, to be submissive to your future husband you must stand back and evaluate, with rigid scrutiny, “Is this the one who is to come, or is there another?” That requires an emotional and physical distance until there is a lifelong covenant made, until you stand before one who is your “own husband.”

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as unto the Lord. Yes and Amen. But, women, stop submitting to men.

Male Call

by Janie B. Cheaney - World Magazine - 11.5.11

The cultural decline of men is a problem for us all

Illustration by Krieg Barrie

"Most of us [men] were raised by women," reflects the iconic Tyler Durden in the movie Fight Club. "I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need." Around the time that he was born, a significant number of women were deciding that men weren't the answer—which led to large numbers of Tyler's generation being brought up without fathers. And that leads to the oft-remarked phenomenon of the couch-potato man-child, thumbs twitching over his PlayStation. It's a disturbing trend, especially to social observers like William Bennett.

Bennett's latest book, patterned on his classic Book of Virtues, is titled The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood. It's obviously intended as a guide to pre-men, a selection of instructional and inspirational passages. "Why Men Are in Trouble," an opinion piece for CNN, explains why he wrote it: "For the first time in history, women are better-educated, more ambitious and arguably more successful than men. ... We celebrate the ascension of women but what will we do about what appears to be the very real decline of the other sex?"

Maybe it's not a total decline; in some cases, young men are simply taking longer to mature. I know several who dragged their feet after high school, drifting through jobs or college majors, but finally snapped into a responsible mode after marrying. The average age for marriage is five to seven years later than it was 50 years ago, but is not dissimilar from other periods in history. The real problem is that (a) too many men aren't marrying at all, but they are (b) fathering children, who (c) grow up with no understanding of either (a) or (b), thus perpetuating the cycle.

Who's to blame? Feminism is an obvious target, with its ideal of the independent woman who doesn't need to be taken care of. Also single mothers who capitulate to their sons, girlfriends who don't insist on marriage before sex, and young men themselves, who find plenty of excuses to feed their slacker tendencies. Bennett cites "a culture which is agnostic about what it wants men to be." His book sets out to correct that agnosticism with a "clear and achievable notion of manhood." He would surely agree, though, that with no father or mentor to offer a book to a restless boy, the boy is more likely to plug himself into the latest electronic distraction. (And girls outpace boys in reading skills by 16 percentage points, anyway).

The root of the problem, like so much else, goes back to the Garden. The man neglected his leadership role, allowing the woman to make a bad decision, which broke their bond with God and set their relationship at odds. Mutual dependence ever since—men for protecting, women for domesticating—held a rough approximation of the creation order together by force. Until now, that is. Now we're dependent on the grid instead of each other. Anyone can fake independence, as long as the infrastructure holds up and the checks keep coming.

But even though we're not so obviously dependent, men and women are still connected. What God joins together is impossible to sever totally. Men need high expectations, worthy goals, respect. Women need security, approval, love. Each needs what the other can give, but if we refuse to support each other with our positives, we'll drag each other down with our negatives. If men and women don't mutually pledge their strengths, they will default to their weaknesses. The harder a woman pushes, the faster a man retreats. The more a man forfeits, the more a woman takes on. He gets lazy, she gets bitter. He turns violent, she becomes passive.

Fight Club ends with a symbolic collapse of civilization, but an actual collapse of civilization is not out of the question. Some men (especially Christian men) are waking up to their responsibility. May God wake up more and more. It's not just their wives and sons and daughters who need them; we all do.

Does Christianity Have a Masculine Feel? by Tim Challies

John Piper sparked quite a storm with his biographical message on the “frank and manly” J. C. Ryle. One of his conclusion was that Christianity is meant to have a masculine feel to it. Response to his message ranged from outrage to applause. I found myself perplexed and needed to give it some time to work itself out in my mind. For a while I gave up, but then decided that it would be worth the effort, so sat down and began to hash out my thoughts. It took a long time, but having done so, I find that I am pretty sure I disagree with Piper. I will tell you why, but first, a short refresher on his message.

After some introductory observations about the prominence of masculinity in the Christian faith—like the fact that God is revealed to us as a king and father rather than as a queen and mother, that Jesus came as a man, that all priests and pastors in the Bible are men and so on—Piper went on to define this “masculine feel” or “masculine Christianity” more precisely. A masculine Christianity is a Christianity in which,

"Theology and church and mission are marked by overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ, with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, and contrite courage, and risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading, protecting, and providing for the community—all of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s the feel of a great, majestic God, who by his redeeming work in Jesus Christ, inclines men to take humble, Christ-exalting initiative, and inclines women to come alongside the men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work."

What Piper saw as characteristic of a masculine faith is the presence of these sometimes-paradoxical virtues, exercised in the Spirit of Christ and for his glory:

• tender-hearted strength
• contrite courage
• risk-taking decisiveness
• sacrificial leadership, protection, and provision
• humble initiative-taking

He went on:

… "I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel. And, being a God of love, he has done it for the maximum flourishing of men and women. He did not create women to languish, or be frustrated, or in any way to suffer or fall short of full and lasting joy, in a masculine Christianity. She is a fellow heir of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). From which I infer that the fullest flourishing of women and men takes place in churches and families where Christianity has this God-ordained, masculine feel. For the sake of the glory of women, and for the sake of the security and joy of children, God has made Christianity to have a masculine feel. He has ordained for the church a masculine ministry."

I find that I do not agree. For those of you who are given to over-reaction, just breathe—I am allowed to disagree and I’m sure Piper is just fine with people disagreeing. If you don’t have a category for charitable disagreement on secondary matters, you need to develop one! I still love the man, but want to offer an alternative to his masculine Christianity.

An Alternative

I believe it is a category mistake to say that Christianity is either masculine or feminine just as it would be a category mistake to say that Christianity is Caucasian or African-American or young or old. It exists beyond or outside of such categories. I affirm that male headship is clearly laid out in the Bible, that God assigns church leadership to qualified men, and that God has given to men certain traits or virtues that allow them to lead well. However, it does not follow from these facts that the Christian faith ought to feel more masculine than feminine.

Here’s the thing: Whatever masculinity and femininity are, they are equally downstream from God, collections of traits that flow from God himself. Whatever femininity is, it is a means through which a woman can reflect the image of God. Whatever masculinity is, it is a means through which a man can reflect the image of God. When a man acts like a man he is displaying the image of God and the same is true when a woman acts like a woman.

It’s not like God gave his own attributes to Adam—masculine attributes—and then had to invent a collection of new, feminine ones when he created Eve. It seems that God chose to give some of the traits that exist in himself in greater measure to men and some in greater measure to women. Not only that, but he also gave each a particular role or sphere of operation in which those distinct virtues could be practiced and put on display. Thus to behave in a feminine way is to act in the image of God by faithfully displaying some of his characteristics and to behave in a masculine way is to act in the image of God by emphasizing other of his characteristics.

This is a large part of what we mean when we say that that men and women are complementary. The two genders form a sharper picture of what it means to be made in God’s image than would be the case if there was only one gender. Thus the church needs to go on encouraging men to be masculine and women to be feminine, each embracing the distinct and complementary ways in which they serve as the image of God. The Christian faith, being neither masculine nor feminine, is the ground in which both can thrive in equal measure and through the very same means.

In the broad picture, both masculine and feminine thrive under the same conditions: taking joyful advantage of those beautifully ordinary means of grace the Lord has provided for our sanctification. Michael Horton says it well:

"[T]he larger goal here shouldn’t be to trot out more gender stereotypes from our culture, whether feminist or neo-Victorian, but rather to rediscover the ministry that Christ has ordained for making disciples of all nations, all generations, and both genders. We need less niche marketing and more meat-and-potatoes service to the whole body of Christ. There, men and women, the young and the old and the middle aged, black, white, Latino, Asian, rich and poor hear God’s Word together, pray and sing God’s Word together, and are made one body by receiving Christ’s body and blood together: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Tim Challies is a leading evangelical blogger, book writer, co-founder of Cruciform Press, editor of Discerning Reader, and on staff at Grace Fellowship Church. He lives in the outskirts of Toronto, Ontario with his wife and three children.