More Active Posts
Front Page
Masculinity Caricatures, Part 2
 |
 53 Comments |
Brandon O’Brien’s Christianity Today column, “A Jesus for Real Men,” is an unfortunate example of opinion offered from cursory knowledge. A little bit of religious history is a dangerous thing. In fact, the overall consensus of O’Brien’s disserts is that he misses the point and innacurately caricatures and revises John Eldredge, Mark Driscoll, David Murrow.
I completely agree. O’Brien’s named “masculinity movement” has been the subject of much conversation over the past 25 years or so because a dying church in America is witnessing the fruit of radical feminism and the warehousing of generations of passive or abusive men.
Here’s recent data from David Murrow:
The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. As many as 90 percent of the boys raised in the church will abandon it by their 20th birthday. On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches. This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands. Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants. The majority of church employees are women (except for ordained clergy, who are overwhelmingly male). [Many only return when their girlfriends or wives bring them back.] More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and 5 out of 6 call themselves Christians. But only 2 out of 6 attend church on a given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.
We must wrestle with the fact that men have checked out of church-life in America.
Leon Podles provides a historical narrative of the masculinity crisis in The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity. Historian Anne Braude’s essay “Women’s History Is Religious History,” in the book Retelling U.S. Religious History readily admits that for quite some time Christianity has been, and continues to be, primarily oriented around meeting the needs of women and their children. Men are not around because American church does not connect.
However, O’Brien, doesn’t get it. The men he critiques are not trying to “re-masculate Jesus,” introduce “greater testosterone” into the church, or use natural instincts to define masculinity. Those are ridiculous assertions. They are addressing the fact that the average man in America simply does not connect with narrow image of Jesus presented in most churches today. The average man doesn’t feel like he fits into the overall ethos of church life since it has been, for far too long, almost exclusively oriented away from bringing men into a broader view of kingdom mission in ways that are unique to callings God has placed on men as they bear the image of God. Moreover, many of the men that do fit into churches organized primarily to meet the needs of women and their children are not the types of men that others look to follow.
O’Brien’s biblical theology is so bad that I’ll have to deal with it elsewhere but his claim that the only time Jesus appears as warrior are his “pre-incarnate” and “post-resurrection” debuts has no biblical warrant and largely misses the reality of spiritual warfare during Jesus life and ministry. Casting out demons is not spiritual warfare? The Kingdom needs warriors who are allied with God to fight against “principalities and powers.” Was Jesus not fighting the devil during his ministry?
Overall, O’Brien wrongly prejudices men against being challenged in good ways because of his own misunderstanding of church history, the reality of the church in America, and a biblical theology that may suffer from a lack of exegetical depth. If O’Brien “got it” a more accurate title to his unuanced opinion would be “The Bible’s Jesus for the Regular Guy.”
If O’Brien knows very little about the writings and teachings of the men he critiques, argues against a straw man, and mishandles biblical theology why should we take him seriously? This would be equivalent an accountant critiquing the Navy’s assessment of what makes a man a good Navy seal.
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, Odds & Ends |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: Brandon O'Brien, Christian church, feminism, Leon J. Podles, masculinity |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Don?t blame racism
Sorry, Anthony,
After taking the time to actually read O’Brien’s article I find it is you who are arguing against a straw man. O’Brien finds no fault with the afore-mentioned critiques of our overly femininized church experience. In fact he observes:
“I respect what these authors are trying to accomplish. They recognize that the Jesus of the Bible—unlike the Jesus of much contemporary Christian art and music—was not afraid to denounce, challenge, and offend. After all, he called the Pharisees vipers and Peter the Devil. Thus, the greatest contribution of the movement is that it identifies ways the American church has reduced Christian discipleship to minding one’s manners.”
Eldridge, Driscoll, et alia, are engaging in a necessary polemic against the feminization of the church. Like good polemic, they indulge in rhetoric that is susceptible to abuse by careless readers. O’Brien is warning against a caricature of masculinity opposed to the feminized caricature prevalent in the church.
“his claim that the only time Jesus appears as warrior are his “pre-incarnate” and “post-resurrection” debuts has no biblical warrant…”
After years of study I still can’t find those passages that portray Jesus with sword and shield slaying His enemies in the Gospel accounts of the Incarnate Jesus. Unless you read a different Gospel you will find ample biblical warrant for his claim. O’Brien is not referring to Spiritual Warfare but has in mind here the Davidic warrior of Psalm 144:1.
There is nothing uniquely masculine about spiritual warfare. The masculinity manifested in martial prowess is not uniquely Christian. The danger O’Brien seems to find is that, in reaction to the feminization of the church, we might end up trying to make Christianity masculine instead of embracing masculinity within Christianity.
Hmm, this “feminized” church does not sound like my church.
It is true that the mid-week activities tend to be dominated by women, but this is in large part because of scheduling issues.
During thre service we have a large number of men, and nearly as many men attend without their wives as wives attend without their husbands.
Likewise we seem to have a rouglhly even split between men and women in leadership roles, although women do tend to gravitate towards membership committee roles and men to buildings and grounds roles. Our top lay leader, however, has been about evenly split between men and women over the years.
In short, this “feminization of the church” doesn’t seem to resonate to the church experience in which I live.
Musing - then you are truly blessed. Your church is the rarity.
Ken - How about clearingthe money changers from the Temple? Seems sort of warrior-like to me.
The (verbal) attacks on the hypocritical Pharisees seems to have been done in a fairly macho male mode.
O’brien says
“In the process, we must remember that the purpose of discipleship is not primarily to become fulfilled men or women, but rather to be transformed into the image of Christ.”
but I see little call for change or any specific suggestions. It does seem that he would be content with the status quo.
My own experience, from attending quite a number of different churches over the years (largely due to moving several times), is that the older the congregation, the higher the proportion of women. In a church with lots of senior citizens, there are lots of widows. Where most of the congregation is younger, the split tends to be much closer to even.
As a woman I generally know the women much better, and there are always some who come without their husbands, who either don’t like coming to church, have to work on Sundays, or aren’t Christians. Men attending without their wives do seem to be much less common - but then I wouldn’t be likely to get to know them.
Pualine post 6,
one of our most active members is a man who attends without his wife. He and his wife have serious theological disagreements.
And you mean you don’t talk to the men in your church?
The true measure of the health of any congregation cannot be based on the ratio of men to women. Writing for or against the feminization of Christianity based on numbers alone or the types of mid-weeks activities is misleading. Rather, is the congregation loving God, loving others and carrying out The Great Commission (Matt. 22:37-40 and Matt 28:18-20)?
It seems many have pulled various verses from the Gospels, Epistles and Old Testatment texts to justify their view of Jesus the Tough or Jesus the Tender. Yet, Jesus didn’t care about image, only action and results that were pleasing to His Father. If men today cannot relate to the Jesus who is preached on Sundays, then I suppose I cannot blame them. Many of the hymns and associated sermons sound like “Jesus is my boyfriend” and as a guy, that doesn’t resonate very well with me. Again, pastors and congregations seem more concerned with portraying a pleasing image of Jesus (i.e., “how do we get people in the door”) rather than digging deep and finding out who is really is; then using His example to carry forth His Commission to all of us.
Our society has fed into a man’s basic instinct to be self-reliant. I no longer need help from my neighbors, as in generations past, to protect may family, bring in the crops, catch the fish, etc. Rather, I can now do it on my own. The problem is that I think I can do everything on my own and therefore, why do I need God or to hear that I must be humble? Unfortuately, doing it on my own means just that; going to a job that is an hour away, taking care of a big house and yard, meeting the needs of my wife and kids…the list goes on. Who has time for church and for that matter, who has time to help anyone else?
Yet, why am I in church almost every Sunday and continue to serve on church council, committees, etc.? Because no one deserves eternal separation from God. I said above that man’s basic instinct is self-reliance, but it is also to be a protector. The thought of living my life in a bubble while others stubble along without knowing a Savior is appalling to me.
Men of today need to draw a bigger “responsibility circle” around themselves. One that not only includes ourselves or our families, but one that includes much more. Maybe not everyone in the world, but certainly those of our community. Christianity gives great freedom, but it also imposes great responsibility. Once we understand the true span of our resposibility, we will come to realize we really are our brother’s keeper. Perhaps that is what us men need to hear on Sunday so that we can come together in fellowship once more; not to sing love songs, but serve God in redeeming His creation.
You may have hit on something, NitroBob. I think too many men are loners and unwilling to let anyone else into their inner circle. Nor are they willing to enter anyone else’s inner circle. Island living seems to be their natural inclination, but I have, from personal experience, found that all spiritual growth is counter to our natural inclinations.
Maybe an accountability to widen the circle of responsibility is indeed what is called for. Responsibility must go farther than me and mine, but often the reality is, that’s as far as it goes.
I have observed this in several generations of men in my family.
Klako - I don’t know that men don’t want to let anyone into our ‘inner circles’.
I myself am a fairly open person in that regard, but don’t find a lot of people expressing a lot of interest in getting into my ‘inner circle’.
Men just seem to be more willing to live without many (or even any) people in their ‘inner circle’.
nitrobob/klasko,
and why must spiritual experiences be a group experience???
If it can be a lone experience, then what you describe as men’s approach is as valid as any.
And when I look back over time, many ascetics apparenlty practiced their religion in a lone manner.
Musing,
Sure I talk to men sometimes, but generally in the context of a group, or to people I already know. I’m an introvert, as I’ve probably mentioned before, and I’m not all that good at getting to know people. (And our church has a LOT of people - weekly attendance is around 1200-1400. I don’t recognize half of them, and actually know a lot fewer personally.)
The people I get to know best are those I work with in some ministry, such as choir or Sunday School. In every church I’ve been in, those ministries draw a lot more women than men. I’m sure this past Saturday’s project rebuilding homes for elderly/handicapped people drew a lot of men. Probably the motorcycle ride on Sunday too - though some women get involved in that also. But my interests/abilities tend toward the stuff that attracts women more than men, or to solitary activities.
Musing - It makes for rather poor fellowship among the believers, a great lack of accountability and can stagnate spiritual growth.
And inasmuch as Christians are to be known by their love among other things, the lone experience reflects love of self more than love of others.
klasko post 13/14,
given the long history of asceticism in Christianity, if would appear that you comments here are perhaps one sided?
My suspicion is that we all need to find our own way to Jesus. It is my experience that this varies widely among people.
pauline post 12,
so our church is about 1/10th your size. That will make a difference.
I can sympathize with being an introvert: in groups, my preference is to go into a corner and watch people.
Musing #11/15 - You’re right, all believers are different, bring different sets of skills and talents to the Body of Christ and experience God in different ways. But, I figure if the Son of God Himself needed the very close fellowship of 12 other men during His ministry, then perhaps He was modeling the approach each of us should take.
“Ken - How about clearingthe money changers from the Temple? Seems sort of warrior-like to me”
Jesus was assertive, of course and unafraid to take direct action. But He was not armed and bearing a shield. He was a prophet, and very much a man, but not an armed warrior like David slaying his ten thousands. O’Brien acknowledges such actions in the first citation in my earlier post.
O’Brien’s point in context is that Jesus is not pictured in the Gospels as an armed warrior as in preincarnate epiphanies (the captain of the Lord’s Host who appeared before Joshua) or slaying the enemies of God as in Revelation. His observation is Biblically accurate and Anthony Bradley’s hyperventilation over it is wrong.
Pesonally, I am a fan of Eldredge’s work and find it a refreshing counterpoint to the flannelboard Sunday School feminization that typifies so much of the modern church. I also think, after reading O’Brien’s reflections, that he is in essential agreement with the need to recapture an authentic Christian masculinity. But he also wisely notes that in reacting to the past feminization, there is the opposite danger of emphasizing a carnal masculinity at the expense of genuine Christian discipleship.
Anthony Harris appears to be reacting to a perceived trashing of masculine Christianity and goes off half-cocked, misreading the article, misfiring and unfairly charging O’Brien with crimes against history and exegesis that do not stick upon a fair reading.
The article in Christianity Today, dated 4/18/2008 is the same article Bradley used when he posted
on April 23, 2008, A Jesus for Real Men, What the new masculinity movement gets right and wrong by Brandon O’Brien.
Brandon O’Brien makes an excellent points in his article which reads:
Mark Driscoll is very involved in the “Emerging church/”Contemplative spirituality” - That would answer more than a few questions for me.
I appreciate O’Brien’s last paragraph.
nitrobob post 17,
but Jesus also went into the desert alone for 40 days.
And there are several reports of Jesus being alone during his times of greatest doubts.
My sense is that this issue is not nearly as clear cut as you appear to be suggesting.
Musing -
When members of the body want to be their own body all by themselves, there is a breakdown. How can a loner who chooses his own walk participate in the body when he ostracizes himself and others? He makes no contribution to the well being of the body of believers, nor does he receive any benefit other than his own very personal relationship with his Savior. As members of the body, we are to be other-centered, and not self-centered.
I have no problem with finding your own way to Jesus, but then at some point, one should be expected to be a contributing and participating member of the body. The one who doesn’t, and is not open to that, is hiding his gifts and talents with which God has blessed him under a bushel. The only edification there is the edification of self. If one’s true focus is on the Lord and not on I, Me and my (as in MY Comfort zones, I don’t feel the need to participate, and Let ME find MY OWN way to God), then we see a more mature and growing Christian and not a spiritual infant. Loners are not very open to discipleship - that is in being discipled into more mature Christians - nor are they willing to make the self-sacrifice required to invest the time to disciple others. Not entirely their fault – they had poor role models too. But I don’t see a lot of men, especially in mainline denominations taking any kind of initiative to that end.
It is next to impossible for a woman to disciple a man, unless he is her own son and the discipling began in childhood. Unfortunately we have spiritually absent fathers and our men have been seeing the spiritual equivalent of the physical poverty brought about by the absent fathers in certain communities. We have fathers physically present, but not spiritually present. These are not good role models for our sons. A discipling mother can only do so much for so long before a spiritually mature man steps in. Ideally, that man should be discipling his son from birth, but too many men see it as “women’s work.”
It goes back to the fall of man. Man is wont to shirk his responsibility and women are wont to assume it. And much of the time, if she doesn’t, it won’t get done.
Musing - at some point a man has to come out of his desert and off of his island and participate.
Musing
YOU WRITE: ……
“And there are several reports of Jesus being alone during his times of greatest doubts.”
Which passsages of Scripture show Christ Jesus doubting?
Klasko
You write:…. “It goes back to the fall of man. Man is wont to shirk his responsibility and women are wont to assume it. And much of the time, if she doesn’t, it won’t get done.”
I don’t see Christian men that way at all. We have many in our family and they certainly aren’t waiting for the women to take over or assume a role of leader. The men are strong, and they study the Scripture.
The church we are affiliated with certainly has men who lead, women aren’t leaders in our church, its always been that way. In fact it is a large church with almost 1000 across the US and over 300 abroad.
Victoria - I’m sure that it’s not this way in every church, but in many of today’s churches my argument is borne out.
When there is a market for books like The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, and Why Men Hate Going to Church, there is a problem.
I have seen this pattern in my family (immediate and extended) and in my husband’s family as well. I have seen it in many of the military chapels I have attended over the years and in the many churches I have attended in my nomadic life. In all but a few, the women outnumbered the men, sometimes by a 2-1 margin.
One could argue that perhaps I have been attending the wrong churches, but I believe that I have attended the churches where the Lord has placed me.
klasko post 21,
now when you say:
“When members of the body want to be their own body all by themselves, there is a breakdown. How can a loner who chooses his own walk participate in the body when he ostracizes himself and others?”
you appear to be considering the case of an individual who joins a church and then refuses to participate.
But what about the case of an inidividual who chooses not to join a church initially?
Furthermore are you implying that once I join a church, I must remain a member forever?
victoria post 23,
try Matthew 26:36-44 [NIV]:
” 36Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”
39Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
40Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41″Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”
42He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
43When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.”
I does appear that Jesus is troubled about his coming crucifiction. And he is most clearly abandoned by his disciples.
Of course the Bible is always a case of interpretation so your mileage may vary.
Musing 27
36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.
37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.
38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
44 And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
46 Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.
47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
NOTE: Lets consider another part of Scripture:
22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
23 And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry. Matthew 17
Anthony, I think you’ve profoundly misconstrued the original piece in both of your posts. The fact remains that most men don’t identify either with the sanitized, feminized evangelical man, nor stereotypical, fake machoism that many of these books promote as the “remedy.”
DavidSess
I agree with you.
Having been involved in Church all my life, I haven’t found almost NO strong Believing males who are suffering from “masculinity crisis” - furthermore, I don’t believe the statistics.
What I have observed in the two threads which Bradley posted was a desire on the part of some writers to twist and re-work, who the strong Believing Evangelical Churches to be. It’s an attempt to make the males a bunch of silly men, when if fact the opposite is true.
I wouldn’t attend a church where the women were most of the congregation, and the men that were there were wishy-washy.
The so called surveys that have become a favorite of some people are not accurate, but instead are trying to shed an incorrect light upon the Bible believing Church. I believe it is these so ‘called survey’s which need to be examined.
victoria post 28,
I believe the key here is verse 37. NIV uses the word troubled. Your translation (source undefined) uses very heavy.
I believe using the NIV translation my model is not unreasonable.
Then check verse 43: the disciples are asleep and he is left without companionshiup durin this period where he is troubled.
I can understand from your theological perspective that you would prefer your translation and your interpretation.
I believe, however, that a reasonable person can agree that my interpretation is not unreasonable.
But of course I find you have a tendency to disagree with a great many people on how to interpret the Bible.
And you are admitting that during this period of trial he is not with the companionship of his disciples: they are all asleep.
And it is being alone in the time of trouble which I raised as the key point.
victoria post 30,
but your comment:
” I believe it is these so ‘called survey’s which need to be examined”
is indeed open to you. Anyone is free to make any survey they choose.
The question is can you run a statistically valid survey which can withstand critical scrutiny.
Based on your comments, I am assuming you are a competent statistician with reasonable training in polling.
As such I look forward to your publishing your poll material to demonstrate your thesis with adequate detail so it can undergo credible peer review.
Musing - 31
Musing, you wrote in post 20
Which passages of Scripture show Christ Jesus doubting?
I asked the question in post 23 about “doubting” - that Musing was the word that you used, “doubt” and I responded to it. NOW, you are fixated on another word which was NOT the issue.
As far as verses 37 and 43, if you wish to use the word “troubled” but it in NO WAY means “doubt” and “doubt is the word you started with and it was your post 20 which I responded to.
Of course Jesus was troubled, sorrowful and very heavy are all words which can be used, HOWEVER, Jesus Christ did not doubt HIS reason for going to the Cross, HE always knew that HE would die this way.
Jesus Christ always knew who HE was, HE never doubted.
victoria post 33,
ah you do seem to extend beyond what I said.
I never said Jesus doubted who he was.
I said the periods of his greatest doubts, (nice of you to quote me here).
So I believe we will both agree that as recorded he does not appear to show doubt much of the time.
The fact that he is troubled at this point suggests that this is his period of greatest doubt. Now you and I seem to disagree on how much doubt he is showing, and reasonable people can disagre, but I believe we will both agree that he does not often say he is troubled or heavy.
And it is nice of you to concede the obvious point that he is alone during this period of greatest doubt (although we will disagree on how much, it is still more than during the majority of the narratvie).
I appreciate your providing the required material to demonstrate the point.
Llamas believe in the herd mentality. The larger the herd the better. When we have parties we invite the entire Llama world but thankfully only part of it shows up.
Still, it is hard to get into my inner paddock that is just a few gallops off the main pasture. I never enter any other pastures unless invited and the ladies there better be pretty and pretty frisky there. Free Guinness helps some too if the ladies are thin. I don’t have time for any more friends and barely have time for God, my family, my work and the few friends I have but see rarely. Most of my socializing revolvers around work anyway.
But that is the reason to have parties, so friends can get together. I have always thought that is why Catholics have bowling alleys and bars in the basements of their cathedrals and churches. By all accounts we should all be Catholics by now but they don’t take Llamas any more than Mormons do.
Musing - 34
Musing as you can see there is a VAST DIFFERENCE between DOUBT and TROUBLED, they don’t mean the same thing.
DOUBT
Definition:
1. think something unlikely: to feel unconvinced or uncertain about something, or think that something is unlikely
TROUBLED
Definition
1. A state of distress, affliction, difficulty, or need:
No, Jesus was never doubting nor did HE doubt what lay before HIM, who HE was and HIS mission here on earth.
Since Jesus was God the Son, made lower than the angels when HE was born, HE would have had great pain in taking on the sins of the world, if even for a few moments, what a horrible burden to carry, as he bled upon the Cross, that would have meant HE understood before it came to pass and was distressed. After all, Jesus felt the pain of the nails, HE knew HE would, HE felt the pain of the thorn upon HIS head, HE knew HE would, that’s distressing. While Jesus was in the garden:
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Luke 22
victoria post 23,
now we can consider Matthew 27:45-46 [NIV]:
” 45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”"
Now as with all Biblical interpeetations this can also be read anumber of ways.
The following is apparently consistent in the narratvies: the disciples of Jesus deserted him. He was by most accounts left with the presence of the two Marys, itself an interesting starting point for discussions.
In any event, the operative word is “Why” and a fair interpretation is that Jesus again has doubts.
And of course he is absent the disciples, which would seem to raise questions about nitrobob’s observation regarding the disciples in post 17.
victoria post 36,
when you say:
“Musing as you can see there is a VAST DIFFERENCE between DOUBT and TROUBLED, they don’t mean the same thing. ”
I suggest that I don’t agree with you. They can indeed mean the same thing or not depending on circumstances.
So I am troubled with your interpretation of this passage would indeed suggest that I doubt your interpretation.
So I suggest you are overplaying your material here.
And of course, I have provided an additional point for consideration in post 36.
I do sense that you tend to have what I might term a brittle approach to words, and further that you have a tendency to use the looking glass model of words: you decide that they mean what you choose them to mean.
And I suggest reasonable people can and in many cases do disagree with you.
Musing
As you try to co-mingle the meaning of “doubt” and “troubled” you obviously aren’t able to understand they mean two entirely different things.
Musing, look the words up in the Dictionary, then you won’t have a problem with the definitions of the two words in question.
Musing - 37
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27
What I am saying, Musing, is if you are truly a member of the body of Christ (not merely a member of a local worshipping body, but a true Christian), you should at some point become a contributing member of a local body of believers. And choose carefully.
It is not necessary to remain a member fro the rest of your life - what if you have reason to move away? One would hope they you would choose a new local body in which to participate.
You might also have some very good reason for leaving a local congregation where you have been a member. We left a particular church because of the unbiblical way a major scandal was handled. My family felt that we could not in good conscience remain under the headship of the pastor. We did return after the pastor retired, but we found other bodies in which to worship and participate in the meantime.
I believe it takes a measure of maturity to commit to a body of believers. I have known people who have been in church Sunday after Sunday and they neither commit to membership, nor participate in the life of the church in any significant way. This is not Biblical. They don’t grow spiritually, and there is no perceivable fruit. What conclusions are we then supposed to draw? Christians are also to be recognized by their fruit.
True Christians do more than warm pews on Sunday mornings.
victoria post 39,
when you say:
“As you try to co-mingle the meaning of “doubt” and “troubled””
I reply not that I am trying to comingle the words, but that in fact they are comingled.
We have a complex situation in both Gethesmae and at the Crucification with a igh degree of emotion and very complex behaviors among the actors.
And of course recorded long after the facts.
So we do not now what actualy happened, we only have a glimpse of what Matthew portrayed as seen through the lens of numerous translators and copiest over the centuries.
We can however, say that the demeanor of Jesus in both cases is different however, than:
Now compare this with Matthew 17:15-21 {NIV]:
“15As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”
16Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”
17″We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.
18″Bring them here to me,” he said. 19And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.
”
We see a situation in which Jesus is very calm and confident, and interestingly is in the midst of his disciples.
and I think it fair to say that Jesus demeanor as described here is very different than at Gethesmene and at the crucifiction.
So far I believe we can state:
Jesus was alone at the crucifiction and at Gethesmene.
Jesus was with his disciples at the feeding of ther 5000.
And the demeanor is clearly much less confident at the crucifiction and Gethsemene than at the feeding of the 5000.
Now you and I can continue to dicuss the details of exactly how Jesus felt at this point. And of course it can not be completely resolved, because we do not have Jesus here to explain how he felt at the time.
We can say that this does suggest some issues with nitrobob’s thoughts on church being necessary based on the example of Jesus and his disciples: the disciples are not present at several are critical times.
We can provide more examples of cases where Jesus is clearly confident, but it is not clear it would provide any more purpose.
We have an incompleteness in our analysis so far: we have referred only to Matthew, and we should probably consider the other Gospels as well. Since it was the solitariness of Jesus which was my key poiint, it is not clear that this would add significant additional information either.
We also need to be aware that in using these examples we have not cross checked for validation of the events in the other Gospels. Again required for completeness (several of these incidents are not cross validated), but again it is not clear it would add anything further to the discussion.
I will leave with one final note Matthew 14:13 [NIV] after the beheading of John the Baptist:
13When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place.
I do believe we see a pattern of withdrawal by Jesus in times of trial as the narrative is portrayed by Matthew.
Musing - withdrawing for some private alone time, as in prayer, is not the same as a loner’s lack of participation. He always came back to the group and was very much a part of the group.
klasko post 43,
acutally I am suggesting that as discussed Jesus did not per se need his disciples.
It is perhaps a more interesting question did the disciples need the disciples, and this is perhaps far more analogous to the situation around the church, and possibly provides a stronger basis for your argument.
This is, however, a more involved process, and we will now get into a detailed discussion of Acts and the Epistles and how they should be interpreted.
So I believe your initial position is reasonably well refuted.
And to simplifiy the second argument: thoughout the history of the Christian church from the begiinning there has been a tension between an apporach basedon solitary spirituality, and an approach based on fellowship.
And I do not find in Church history or in the Gospels a clear resolution one way or the other. My sense is that it really depends on the individual.
Musing - ISTM that there is a need for both solitary worship/prayer (such as mentioned in the verse about being in one’s “closet” to pray), & also the fellowship of a church (body of believers).
We need the one-on-one time alone with God, of course. But the Bible is full of references to us being together, such as the verses about being various parts of the body, what to do when we come together to worship, & also the verse in Hebrews about not neglecting to come together.
Somehow the alone time with God & the time with fellow believers work together to mature & grow us as Christians. Each is dependent on the other.
IOW, if we merely “went to church” without having prayed & worshiped on our own, we have nothing to bring to others. But also, God will use what we learn from other believers when we are again alone with Him.
Musing - 42
I have witnessed other conversations you have had, not only with me but others here on the blog. What I see is your tangled use of Scripture, which leads no where. I don’t know if its a game or just a pass time, but it serves no purpose.
You enjoy leading a path/discussion through a maze which isn’t profitable, as far as your finally coming to an understanding of the Scriptures.
This serves no useful purpose Musing.
Karen O post 45,
I don’t think that I can argue with you.
I will note that the amount of time in each mode would seem to vary from person to person.
victoria post 46,
and if we are going to play this way.
I have read a number of your posts as well.
My sense is that there is a tendency for your posts to make assertions of certainty regarding the interpretation of scripture which are not supportable.
In somes cases your interpretations would arguably appear to have been simply wrong (comments on the son of god comment in Daniel for example).
In some cases you appear to insist on a specific interpretation where the material is clearly ambiguous.
Do remember that reading the Bible is interpretation. There will be many interpretations and what is most critical is what the interpretation says to the reader. Given the history of how this document was created, the liklihood that any of the details as we read them today was either written or intended exactly as we read them today is quite low, except for perhaps the trivial cases.
So my sense is your interpretations at times would appear to be quite “brittle”. That is to say that your comments suggest that you have difficulty in accepting that an interpretation might differ from yours and just possibly both interpretations might be reasonable.
Victoria - Isn’t Driscoll one of the new Calvinists? A very traditional, orthodox Reformation Protestant theology, albeit presented in a manner (contemporay, hip, urban informal) that is similar to what is more typically seen in the Emergent Movement?
He may be popularly thought of in conjunction with the Emergent Movement, but that seems to be more a matter of style than content.
KRM - 49
Here is one of Mark Driscoll’s quotes:
KRM, what do you think?
Victoria - Looking at the part you bolded, I can see that perhaps you don’t like his wording, or the tone of it. But the very next sentence shows that he believes that Jesus has authority & hates sin. He seems to want Jesus portrayed as a strong & masculine, not as namby-pamby or wishy-washy.
Karen
Driscoll makes statements which are not Biblical. Driscoll isn’t capable of “beating up Christ” - his statement is disrespectful, not to mention cocky. Furthermore he adds to the Word of God by his insolent, vulgar statement regarding the LORDS appearance as quoted below exposes his crude depiction of what the LORD Jesus Christ looks like is represented in his (Driscoll’s lack of Scriptural knowledge) made up version of Christ’s physical appearance.
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:19
GOD the Son should never be referred to in terms such as these, there is no excuse, the WARNING is very clear.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Matthew 12
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Revelation 1