We saw in the last post that currently, in our culture, two pictures of masculinity are being promoted, both of which are truncated, even toxic. Here’s how peoples in the culture and in the Church are responding.
Reactions to Marlboro Man
As I write this, it is the year 2019. There has now been a several years long attempt by much of society, at large, to devalue or redefine manhood. They believe that they are achieving progress in leaving old stereotypes of gender behind. Recent news exposing the rampant sexual abuse that has occurred throughout sports, Hollywood, and even the Church seem to demand a new definition of manhood. They wonder how we can make men be less violent and less sexual.
And because of that, some Christians also wonder if 2000+ years of teaching on gender differences should be jettisoned so that we can have a masculinity that is a little more gentle, a little more relational. And when men who hold to some traditional form of masculinity walks in the Church, they find that they are not welcome. Watching the news of abuse, we can understand the desire to snuff out bad masculinity, but we believe that this approach starts from and ends up in the wrong place. They are reacting to bad masculinity by advocating a different, but still bad, masculinity.
Reacting to a Feminized Masculinity
Others in the culture reject the feminized picture of masculinity. Perhaps it’s because of their own upbringing, where generation after generation of men lived out the ideal of machismo. Maybe it’s cultural. Perhaps it’s subculture, passed from military father to military son. There are non-religious reasons for wanting to guard the image of Marlboro Man.
But others in the Church is guilty of promoting a false picture of masculinity as well. In an attempt to stem the cultural tide, pastors and other Christian leaders have often slipped past Biblical masculinity into forms of patriarchy or downright misogyny. Some haven’t necessarily tried to fight in the arena of ideas on this issue, instead they’ve opted to start literal fight clubs within their churches. Nothing is as manly as punching another guy in the face, I guess. Instead of calling men to a robust picture of masculinity, they’ve settled for roughhousing.
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose
We meet two brothers in the book of Genesis destined to compete. One brother, Esau, was a hunter, an outdoorsman of great ability. Jacob was described as “a quiet man, dwelling in tents.” While not quite “nancy boy” or “girly-man,” the description is intended to show that in contrast to Esau, an animal of a man (even covered in hair as thick as a goat), Jacob was much more at home, actually, at home.
Here’s the thing, neither man was a good man. Neither exhibited traits of mature masculinity. They were both BAD examples of manliness. Because manhood isn’t found in things like temperament, facial hair, interests, personality, athleticism, or preference. It’s found in Christ-like character that results in Christ-like behavior. Esau was rash, petulant, and selfish. Jacob was a liar, a cheat, and a thief.
Right now, some in the culture and Church are trying to sell Jacob to us. Likewise, people inside and outside the Church are promoting Esau. But those are both bad choices. Both are toxic options. Don’t sell out to either truncated picture of masculinity. They are selling us a house on bad foundations. If these two men fit, so well, the descriptions from each of these camps, and yet are bad men, then the definitions must be wrong.
That means it’s not about how much you cry or how much your bench press. It’s not how deep a voice or how effeminate a voice is. Don’t choose Jacob or Esau, choose Jesus. He made man, His Word instructs us as men, and He lived the perfect life as a man, showing us what a real man is.
On both sides of these stories is the decision between being, seemingly, not manly enough or not womanly enough. That’s a false dichotomy. Let’s leave that behind and move into robust, Biblical masculinity.
