Skip to main content

True Masculinity

It seems our nation is embroiled in an incessant battle between the "progressive" ideals of feminism and the "old-fashioned" view of the family (and the woman's role therein).  One problem at the heart of this vitriolic debate is an incorrect view of "Biblical" or "traditional" masculinity.  Now, I intend that to be taken in two ways.  Let me explain.

Firstly, many feminists misrepresent the traditional view of marriage.  The Bible teaches a form of complimentarianism, which means that men and women have equal-yet-distinct roles in the family.  The roles compliment each other and are the result of a) our created design and b) the Fall.  Some people like to call this view Patriarchy, but the arguments against this view are often of the "straw-man" variety.  Whatever you want to call it, the Biblical view of the male/female dynamic, along with all leadership/submission relationships, is that of authority predicated upon responsibility.  Leaders protect followers, but followers have to follow if the leaders are going to lead.  That's an oversimplification, of course, but that's the general principle laid out in the Bible.  The Bible teaches protection, not domination.

Secondly, many men, and I mean a whole bunch, have validated the feministic misrepresentation of the Biblical idea of manhood.  Whether misrepresenting or misapplying the Bible, or just generally being a jerk, many men have sought to justify their mistreatment of women/their wives by citing their authority over them as stated in the Bible.  These men have portrayed masculinity as a harsh, domineering, unpredictable trait.  We should note, however, that this problem has existed in practically every society, Judaeo-Christian or otherwise, which demonstrates that this a sin issue, not a problem of ideals.

This is not true masculinity.  True masculinity looks more like the Good Shepherd than a 'roid-raging 80's movie star.  True strength is demonstrated by self-control; not by outbursts of anger.  True leadership cares for and protects; it does not take advantage of or manipulate.  Feminists can find this chauvinistic if they want, but this is true masculinity.  They may not think that they need protection, but the Bible says that it is the man's job to protect, provide for, and guide his family.  His authority is based upon this responsibility.  He is to be their prophet, priest, and king. 

So, men, it begins with you!  Instead of justifying the stereotypes, we must demonstrate this true masculinity.  Don't demand respect--earn it!  If you want her to look up to you, don't look down on her.  Mutual respect is the cornerstone of fulfilling relationships, as there can be no love without respect.

You want to assert your authority?  Go clean the house.

You want to be powerful?  Be gentle.

You want control?  Restrain your own passions.

You want to lead?  Serve.

It's easy to be a bully.  It's easy to manipulate and to use other people, but serving others and putting your family first is the truly difficult, demanding task.  I struggle with this daily, but I recognize that that is my calling, as demonstrated by my Savior.  True men--true followers of Christ--seek to imitate his humble service for his bride.  Our Lord was clear that the path to greatness in His Kingdom is the the path of service.  Our King died for us!

People with an agenda will commonly misrepresent the ideals that they oppose, especially when abuses of those ideals are prevalent.  We cannot expect people to accept our beliefs if we pervert them for our own selfish purposes.  If we are going to stand for the Biblical design for marriage, we must follow the Biblical design for masculinity.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary