I have read all of Eldredge's man-books, as well as his latest, Captivating which he wrote with his wife. It is also excellent. I am currently reading Why we hate going to church. I am planning a post on it, but my initial reaction is that it may have been ghost written by George Barna.

Why are you telling me? I never won, and while we're at it, thanks for bringing up that..those humiliations. Those were the days, weren't they? Minutes of study interspersed with dragging you down to be the fourth for a game or three of doubles.

Maybe we can get Sam to transcribe his ping-pong illustration/sermon. What do you say, Sam?

Brian, I have been reflecting on your post.  I appreciate the questions you have raised and there are definitely issues to work through.  I do have a couple of initial thoughts…

First, with several potential points of reference for “manliness”, I remain unsure as to exactly how we might define the term.  You have rightly condemned popular culture for propagating ideas of “manliness” that are more properly described as “chauvinism.”  I would only add that these cultural portrayals are just as often negative and critical of “manliness” (however we might define it) as they are promoting or encouraging it.

Further, I am yet unpersuaded that Godliness and manliness should be united (regardless of how we define manliness).  It would seem to be an attempt to unite things that are constituted of different essences.  For example, I agree that as a Christian man, I should attempt to be like Jesus.  But what is it about Jesus that I should be like?  As for my wife or yours or any Christian woman, her goal too is to be like Jesus.  Is there something different about how a female should emulate Christ?  If so, how would we avoid the charge that we are offering a second-rate status to women?  I am not so sure that the manhood of Jesus is as significant an idea as the humanity of Jesus.  I am quite sure that your passion on this topic is generated primarily by the truncated presentations of Jesus that are often foisted off upon those not deemed worthy of a considered answer.  Furthermore, I know that your passion is that men be Godly men (or perhaps Godly Men).  But what does that mean?  Or, what does that not mean?

With respect to things that might be understood to exemplify “manliness,” war, revenge, and violence are not solely associated with men in the OT.  Deborah and Jael then become examples of “manliness.”  Again, I think it forces us to reflect upon our concept of “manliness.”  Which leads me to another thought – namely, my unease at certain ways of associating gendered terms with God.  Is God manly or masculine?  I do not believe so – basically, because He is not a man.  I realize that one might note that the second person of the Trinity became a man, but it would be erroneous to extend masculinity or manliness to the entire Godhead from that.  Christ taking on humanness does not make the Trinity human.  Also, I don’t think very many people would be comfortable asserting that God is male.  And, if God is manly, consistency seems to require saying that God is also womanly.  If we attempt to associate manliness with certain qualities or even actions, then this result seems unavoidable.  I would not wish to postulate that certain aspects of God’s character are manly and others womanly.  God is a Father, but I am not sure as to what conclusions this allows us to make, if any, with respect to manliness.

As for Jesus driving people out of the temple with a scourge, I don’t think that manliness is the essential element in the particular actions that He took.  There is no doubt that Jesus was male and experienced humanity as a male human, but I fail to see what masculine elements can be distilled from the gospel accounts of Jesus that would be to the exclusion of every believer.

Charlie mentioned Wild at Heart, so a few comments about it since it perhaps initiated in contemporary Christianity a consciousness of “masculinity”.  I think Eldredge hs captured the essence of masculinity for many men, but I do not think it applies to all men.  My fundamental hesitation is that it seems he has extrapolated what it means for him personally to be male and generalized this to all males.  I am unable to see how this generalization is possible without reducing “adventure” or “a beauty” to meaningless abstracts,  It may be that he covered this but I don’t remember, but how do unmarried men, both lifelong singles and those yet unmarried, win a beauty?  How do we avoid defining manliness as “those things done by men”?  Is manliness even a worthwhile category?  Perhaps the issue is not so much a question of a lack of manliness as it is a lack of Godliness.

Is God manly?  Is God masculine?  It is hard for me to think of how to answer those questions in the positive without belittling God.  Brian, you are right that there is a problem with our view of God often being too wimpy, and I think you are also correct to cite the narrative portions of Scripture as a helpful corrective to this.  I just don’t know if trying to encapsulate this problem/issue under the heading of manliness is the right track.  I know Godly men.  I hope they serve as examples to me of what it means to be Godly and what it means to be a man.  Thanks again for your post and the chance to reflect on this issues.

The image of God is fulfilled by men and women; not by an individual nor even by one and one woman together. These microcosms both resemble the image of God in many ways, but it is the whole of feminine and masculine humanity that is the image of God. While there is much overlap between the genders in fulfilling this role, men fulfill this role in ways that women are not meant to, and vice versa.

Christians have been bending over backwards to avoid the false accusation that Christianity offers women only a second rate role. I say “false accusation” based on church attendance percentages. More women than men attend and minister in church because feminine values are cultivated. This is intertwined with a disdain for masculinity that has weakened the church. This disdain is not complete nor could it be. Masculinity cannot be eradicated, but it has been devalued.

My vision is that we rediscover the depths ad grandeur of both masculinity and femininity. We have lost sight of both in a drift toward androgeny. We resist describing God in crude, biological terms, but masculinity and femininity are not biological terms. Secular humanism casts them as biological since the physical world is the only admissable source for any distinguishing characteristic. But we are not bound by such ignorance. In order to discover the glory of being a man, we must look to God, the source of manliness. God is not male, but he is the original for all characteristics of true manliness.

I hoped to get your attention with the question, “Is God manly?” I believe that the answer is identical to the answer for the question, “Is God godly?” God is the original. He is not god-like for he is God. People can be god-like --in limited ways. Man-people have a subset of ways that they may be god-like that is distinct from the subset of ways available to woman-people. This we can call “manliness.” As we explore this, we cannot help but uncover the value of being feminine along with the value of being masculine. I have no concern about this. The discernment that we gain will increase our appreciation for women and allow them to revel in being feminine as we revel in being masculine.

Had I realized that dropping a dollop of the image of God into a post is all it would take for bait, you would have been lured out quite some time ago.

On the matter of humanity reflecting the image of God, I believe that the difference between “wonderful” and “pretty awful” is no more difficult for this interpretation than for any other. The Fall corrupted individuals as much as it corrupted humanity as a whole, but comparative interpretations of the image of God is more of a discussion than I wish tackle here. The fact that both declarations concerning the “image of God” are immediately followed by functions justifies function (at least partially) as integral to the image of God.

The main thrust of my statement in my post, however, is that male and female together are the image of God. The support for this comes from the parallel statements in Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

In the third line, “male and female” replaces “in the image of God” in the second line. Both genders are necessary for being the image of God. I believe this is key for us to understand masculinity and femininity. Neither man nor woman is adequate to be the image of God independent of the other gender. Since God chose to make this distinction clear in Scripture, we are justified in discerning differences between feminine Godliness and masculine Godliness.

I am not sure why you interpreted the idea of exploring the masculinity promoted in Scripture to mean that femininity doesn’t (or shouldn’t) exist in Scripture. I hope to allay your concern that I want to interpret Scripture from a completely masculine point of view. The underlying problem that I wish to attack is the refusal to discern between masculine and feminine characteristics in Scripture.

Men and women value different traits as part of their identification as men and women. So men and women should be allowed to discern these characteristics in Scripture and apply them in their own lives. If, one the other hand, we deny that there is masculinity in Scripture then we also deny femininity. And since men and women are masculine and feminine beings, we also deny that Scripture provides instruction about being godly men and women. We replace it with a genderless Godliness.

But the Christianity I describe holds much more for women than does the genderless homogeneity that seems prevalent today. If we encourage men to be Godly men according to the pattern of masculinity in Scripture then women will simultaneously be encouraged to be Godly women according to the pattern of femininity in Scripture. They go hand in hand.

Or something like that.

The difference isn't between masculine virtues and feminine virtues. Such as: justice is a masculine virtue while mercy is a feminine virtue. Rather, I think the difference is in how men desire and execute justice versus how women do.

Maybe I am saying that it is a matter of style. Men do things differently than women do. Men can exercise strength that women do not possess. Related to this fact, manliness includes restraining the exercise of one's strength.

The may also lie in the occasions for men to demonstrate virtue. Numerous times in the Lord of the Rings Frodo and Sam show mercy to Gollum by putting away the knife rather than putting it in him. That is a masculine occasion for mercy. Women on the other hand do not pick up the sword unless there is no room for mercy. Witness Eowyn riding with the riders of Rohan and slaying the Nazgul.

I cite these archetypical examples to suggest a pattern for us to look for when discerning the differences between masculinity and femininity.

That's a real quick diversion, Sam?

I just have one comment from a few comments ago about Hebrew poetry. The male and female does not replace the image of God in the poetry: this is the old view of Lowth, who viewed parallel lines as synonyms. But the better view (Alter, Berlin, and friends) is that the second line intensifies the first line. So they are not exactly the same, but it is expanding the thought in some way.

On the general thread, I stand with Josh and Adam. The question I have is this: how would a church directed to males act? What would it look like that is different than now?

My initial answer is, “No.”

I’ll hedge my my answer with another question. How is a wife's submission to her husband different from the general Christian submission one to another?