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.

Masculinity ... or Maturity?

"The Church’s biggest problem right now is a lack of maturity, not a lack of masculinity...Gender is not the problem...The real problem is a failure to grow up, to take initiative and be leaders," So, in sum, says David Dunham, who weighs in on the latest installment of  the debate about what is a Real Deal Man. Check out David's perspective ...

What is a man? If we were discussing anatomy, the answer would be simple enough. But I don’t think that is what is in view when popular preachers and theologians talk about biblical manhood or the Church’s masculinity deficit. It’s probably for the better, since I was never very good at science. I am a theologian.

So, what is a man? The answer, contrary to popular opinion, is not so simple. The Bible doesn’t necessarily give us specifics on what constitutes masculinity. And most definitions are far more culturally bound than some admit. That’s what makes the gender discussion so frustrating for some of us in the Church. It’s not that I am naïve to the Church’s problems with young men. As a pastor of a church fully comprised of college students, I see them regularly. But I don’t think this problem has anything necessarily to do with gender. I think the Church’s biggest problem right now is a lack of maturity, not a lack of masculinity. And that distinction is important if we’re going to avoid creating bigger problems for the Church.

The Church is full of “boys who can shave,” adultolescents, or rejuveniles. It’s not uncommon for pastors to discuss and dissect this problem. What is strange is how often this discussion immediately shifts to an issue of gender identity. What begins as an issue of maturity shifts to an issue of masculinity. The problem, we are told, is that feminists have influenced our Church culture. Church is a place for women, and the pastors who lead them look and act like women. And don’t get popular preachers started on this mamby-pamby Jesus that “feminized” church worship. Jesus is a Dude, we are told (note the capital D). “Turn the other cheek” might have been one of his teachings, but sometimes you have to give a man the “right hand of fellowship” across the face. 

Of course, this only represents a shade of the real position. But it is a position that seems to be missing the real point: Gender is not the problem.

The problem is not that men can’t fight or wear pink neckties. Popular preachers might like to highlight those things because they get a laugh, but such things don’t identify the real source of a young man’s failure. The real problem is a failure to grow up, to take initiative and be leaders. And while some theologians want to root this failure in abandoned gender roles, it seems more likely that it is rooted in a culture that coddles teens and expects them to be selfish. Some will call this an issue of semantics. After all, in calling little boys to grow up, aren’t we saying they need to “act like men”? At one level, I suppose we are. But by making this an issue about gender and not maturity, we are creating some real problems for the Church. I have seen at least three potential and real problems.

First, we become judgmental. Because we struggle to identify masculinity in concrete terms, we end up evaluating young men based on their clothing, hobbies and hands (“Are they calloused from manual labor?” and so on). What many popular preachers end up doing is adopting the cultural norms for masculinity, which may or may not reflect the biblical expectations. Masculinity is very hard to define in concrete terms. I might speak of man’s function as head of his home, provider and protector, but how that plays out in any specific context can’t be nailed down by quoting a few Bible verses. Men come in all shapes and sizes, even in the Bible. David is sometimes a warrior and sometimes a poet. Solomon is never a warrior. Jeremiah the “weeping prophet” and Shamgaur, the “Dude” who killed a bunch a people with an ox goad, are clearly different men. Because of personality, skills and context, being a man may look very different from person to person. The failure of so many critics is that they assume there is a one-size-fits-all “man” and that anyone outside those boundaries is in sin. In asking young men to lead, however, we are not calling into question their gender; rather, we are calling them to grow up. 

Second, we ostracize women. If the problem is “over-feminization,” it doesn’t seem like a faulty assumption for some women to feel unwanted in the Church. Women have long been denied a place of importance in the Church, and this trend to promote solely macho men only continues a failure of pastoral leadership. For some leaders, there is a direct relationship between getting godly men and getting godly women. Such a view devalues and degrades women and assumes that you don’t need to spend time working with women. It’s sometimes easy to sympathize with those critics who accuse the church of being patriarchal.

Last, we create a machismo culture that threatens to undo godliness. I have seen many a young man influenced by the “be a man” rhetoric who have become arrogant, unteachable and divisive. They may be behaving “manly,” as the common trope identifies, but they have yet to grow up. This machismo model continues to miss the real problem and only exacerbates the church’s efforts to move forward.

Maybe I am not very “manly.” The desk I am sitting at wasn’t built with my own two hands, and the callouses on my palms aren’t from swinging a screwdriver (you do swing one of those, right?). But I am husband, a father and a pastor. I believe in leading my home and my church. I believe protection and provision are part of my God-given responsibilities. And I want to spend my time teaching our young men about those principles. That means, then, that I need to spend less time making jokes about pick-up trucks and UFC and spend more time doing real discipleship.

David Dunham is Associate Pastor at Revolution Church in Portsmouth, Ohio and holds a Masters of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

l

Act Like Men: A Titanic Lesson in Manliness
by Dave Brown, WACMM Director and Pastor

Churches cannot thrive if there’s not a solid core of men leading them who are Gospel-driven followers of Christ.  

When men are absent, lackadaisical or weak when it comes to God and the things of God, churches atrophy and eventually die. If men become ensnared in therapeutic moralism now rampant in many churches, they will become self-focused rather than living sacrificially for the sake of others. And churches will atrophy and die.

Among the many distinguishing characteristics of men who live out of their God-assigned roles and responsibilities are boldness and courage. Godly men - men of true valor - are supposed to fight for their families, the gospel, for the weak, innocent and vulnerable who are being threatened or oppressed by evil and danger.

100 years ago - April 14th, 1912 - the RMS Titanic struck an iceberg with 2,223 people on board. In the midst of that disaster, courageous men sprang into action to ensure that women and children would be saved. Today authentic manhood seems to be sinking. This is one of the most significant issues of our time.Interestingly it is being seen as such by more and more secular analysts and academics but not by most churches. Check out this trailer of a new film called Act Like Men - HERE