The Problem With the Christo-hyper-masculine Mythos

There is a sentiment being displayed currently in many non-denominational, reformed, evangelical streams of Christianity, that is, pervasive in Christendom in general. It is the growing tendency to display Christ as an individual who is not afraid of conflict or to get in your face. A Christ that will get in the octagon and "kick some ass."Those who support this Christological caricature posit that feminism has created a Christ deficient of masculinity and traditional male virtues. That Christ has become effeminate and that this is a terrible blow to the work of Christ. There is some truth in this, but only in that men are unwilling to sacrifice their lives for their wives and be the man Christ demands them to be in kindness, gentleness and love. However, there are also two horrible truths about this Christological sentiment. The first is that it forces men into a singularity of aggressive behaviors as the most virtuous behavior. This aggression does not have to manifest itself purely through physical violence but it does insist that the actions of men must be forceful in a seemingly tyrannical sort of way. This leaves little or no room for any behavior of men that does not include hunting or fighting as virtuous (or anything that could bring causational goodness to the work of Christ). In the very least, all other behaviors are a bastardized version of true masculinity. Things such as academia would be less virtuous than warfare. Playing Dungeons and Dragons less virtuous than playing football. All non-aggressive actions become mutually exclusive with virtue. The second truth is that this Christology ostracizes women almost entirely. It merely reestablishes a patriarchy that is only friendly toward male cisgender constitutions. It finds no virtue in the female form or voice and demonizes all ostensible feminine roles of liturgical practices and any orthopraxic gynocentric values of the Church. YHWH is no longer the pantocreator who is intimately and deeply in love with his creation and Christ is no longer the man who openly wept and bitterly cried out in advocation for creation upon his death. No, this is a Christology that wishes to re-imagine Christ as one who jumped off the cross, pulled it out of the ground and beat to death all the Centurions in attendance. Mark Driscoll famously said that Christ is "a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up." It is proper, though not in totality, to esteem YHWH with feminine attributes and being connected with the feminine, as is seen directly within the hebraic canon in the use of Eloheim, a word that is both masculine and feminine. It is indicative in the nature of YHWH as he is the giver of life. It is also in Christ's life that we see his inclusion toward women, when they were scarcely more than chattel. It is again pervasive in the language of Pauline theology that demands an egalitarian acknowledgement of all humanity within the greater narrative of justification.
In conclusion, the aggression sought out by Driscoll and others in this camp seems to be wholly out of place with the ethos of a Christ who willingly died on the cross. He met violence with peace. He showed no aggression toward those who killed him. He begged YHWH to forgive them. These are the tenants of Christ and the life that we strive so desperately to follow. Christ should then not be viewed as wholly male and idolized as such, but rather, more specifically and properly, as the Logos, as God manifested in humanity as the perfection of humanity. Once our anthropological perception of Christ is shifted as such, we no longer see what it is to be a man, but we see what it is to be Christ like, the sole purveyor of wholly goodness in the world. A Christ that has broken all barriers and has reached out to all people not through any form of aggression or violence but through a scandalous birth, an impoverished life and an unwarranted criminal death. These are not the behaviors of a comic book super hero. These are the actions of one who would reach down into the darkness and love humanity, actions that do not establish that masculinity is important, rather, that people are important. To be sure, Mark Driscoll and others who support this type of hyper-masculine Christology are heartfelt Christians who are trying as much as I am to follow Christ. But it is also certain that this view of Christ is ignorant and demonstrably wrong.

Matt. 7:14

This is something I have been reflecting upon for some time. What actually is the narrow gate and the difficult road? I wonder if it is mutual exclusivity of that which is commonplace in the world. If it really does mean we give all our belongings away. If it means we get to know and somehow come to love not only our enemies but those who annoy us. There is a vast difference between love and hate, but there is also a vast difference between not proactively loving and proactively loving someone. Perhaps the hard road is to love those around you, especially those who try your patience with every word they speak. Further, I think it also means not acting in violence. It is easy to become angry and defend yourself and make pointed accusations at the other person. It is easy to retaliate when someone hurts you physically, emotionally, etc. It is not easy to say nothing and then tell them you love them afterwords. This is something I fail so horribly at.

Also, I have stumbled across a great blog by a fellow CoCer! Thats Church of Christ for all of you out there who are not in the know. He seems to struggle with the same things I do, so it is good to know I am not alone in these things.

Same Subject, Different Day

John 18: 33-37


33 Then Pilate entered the headquarters* again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ 34Jesus answered, ‘Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?’ 35Pilate replied, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?’ 36Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.’ 37Pilate asked him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’


Why is it that the American Church (on a large, generalized scale) wishes to make the state so Christ like? Perhaps, we should instead insist upon making the Church more Christ like. Perhaps we should rely less on civil authority in protecting the moral fabric and instead advocate for the sanctity of the moral fabric of the Church.

Pleasure

The guilty kind. That is what Kelly is for me.

But how can you not love her?

The worth of the worthless

Often we attempt to navigate the notion of justification through the cross and how that relates to us. This is fairly straight forward, and most people are in agreement that the cross was intended for all people for the proliferation of the kingdom of God. However, this is mostly discussed through a singular, personal lense

twofour

Today is the birthday of the absolute love of my life.

She is the best person I have ever known.
She is kind.
She is smart.
She is pretty.
She is wonderful.
She is adorable.

And I get to be in love with her.


And sometimes we just sleep in strange positions.