Skip to content

A repost

I preached in a pub this afternoon.  There was a gospel choir giving a concert and I said a few words here and there.  While the choir was doing its thing I spotted a pretty young blonde in the crowd eyeing up the female conductor with the kind of jealousy only a woman can muster. Men are too emotionally shallow for such mixtures of awe, scorn and terrified confusion. The conductor was dancing away, clapping and singing, leading the choir in joyful praise. The blonde looked like she just about remembered smiling, back before she renounced sudden facial movements for the sake of her plastic beauty.  Anyway, it prompted this poem:

.

Plaintive, Platinum, Pained
Caked in make up,
faked up, furtive,
Birdlike watching,
wild-eyed, wondring how she's watched.

Faintly feeble, restless, regal,
perched in peerless poses,
None opposes,
Female poseurs all faced-down.
No finer found
than she.
And she knows it.

Yet on this day, a blaze is lit, to flit
Upon her plastic face.  New radiant grace
descends to offend. To bend and afflict her.
Slight frowns a-flicker.
Scowls unfurl.
Lips now curl.
For here a foreign fire is set upon her world.

Another sun is risen.
Unbidden.  And previously hidden.
She hasn't sought the room's permission.
And yet she stands four square, bare foot and laughing,
Leading, clapping, stamping, shouting.
Tangled hair and hands upraised,
God praised in ways unfazed
by inhibition.

At once the made-up beauty gapes. Envy's swirled.
There's longing there, in her stare.  And rage.
And awe and shame and scorn.
This light has dawned
from another age. A distant world.

The light, for her, was meant to fall,
and she to catch its rays,
in dappled hues upon her face.
She had not thought at all
That she was meant to blaze.

But then, what Force could ever source such light?
To call it mine and free-forgetful shine.
Much safer to take flight, flee to flattering night,
ever minding others' sight.
And yet true beauty will endure,
she stands secure,
first captured by a fierce delight,
And tunes our hearts to Joy's invite.

.

1

Recently I wrote about every husband's temptation towards resentment.  Wives also have every inclination (as well as motivation!) towards sinful attitudes regarding their husbands.  (Mistrust and disrespect are perhaps chief among them).

But in my post I counselled husbands to die to their private ambitions and seek a fruitful union with their wives that acknowledges the completely new unit they've become.  Now, as I read back over that language of "sacrifice" and "death", I have a fear.  My fear is that this talk of "death" will feed directly into the resentment I was highlighting.

I know this because for many years I considered myself to be a sacrificial head.  I took Ephesians 5:25 as perhaps my most basic calling as a husband - to lay down my life.  Trouble was - there's always a counterfeit way to view marital roles.  The death I embraced was not the joyful abandonment of my rights to find a deeper joy in my wife's flourishing.  Instead it was the proud martyrdom of the burden-bearing ox.  I'd trudge along singing "Nobody knows the trouble I've seen...", just loud enough for people to notice.  But while-ever I was a burden-bearing ox, there was a deep sense in which I needed my wife to be a burden.

This is counterfeit headship and it comes in a couple of different flavours.  Some, like me, emphasize the "dying" part and spin it to mean 'desire-crushing trudgery.'  Others emphasize the "saviour" role (Ephesians 5:23) and spin it to mean "knight in shining armour."  But if you're married to such a head, watch out.  The burden-bearer will (unintentionally) make you the burden.  And the knight in shining armour will (unintentionally) make you a "damsel in distress."  In either case we have a sick perversion of roles masquerading as biblical faithfulness.  If you want to consider it in trinitarian terms (which I do here), you end up with Arian distinctions not Athanasian ones.

The terrible tragedy is that these marriages can appear to fulfil an Ephesians 5 complementarity.  And those who trumpet complementarianism as though it's the key to gender relations can apparently justify their counterfeit roles as "Scriptural."  I know I did.

But the husband is not simply called to a death, but to a happy death.  As with Christ, this death is because of love and for the sake of the joy set before him.  It's the very opposite of resentment.  It's acknowledging the indicatives already present for the husband:

* Christ has put me to death in His cross and I no longer live (Galatians 2:20)

* The Father has made me one with my wife quite apart from my efforts (Matthew 19:6)

* My wife is a gift straight from the LORD and she's good for me (Genesis 2:18 ; Proverbs 18:22)

* There simply is no life without a good death (Matthew 10:39)

* God will make our sacrificial union fruitful (Genesis 1:28)

* Her beauty will be presented back to me, shining all the brighter for the love which nurtured it (Eph 5:27)

The husband's death is not the sacrifice of a noble sufferer or the heroics of a brave rescuer.  It's the grateful response of a guy who - in spite of how she may have hurt him - still counts himself "lucky" to have her.  And if he doesn't, his need is not to stuff his feelings and die anyway.  He needs to go back to the 6 indicatives above and prayerfully ask for help.

No marriage needs a resentful martyr for a husband.  Every marriage needs Jesus to make husbands joyful self-givers.  And He will... if only we'll drop our counterfeit roles and receive again from Him.

 

 

9

I'm always hearing about the benefits of "accountability."  Men in particular, apparently, are meant to get together... for accountability.  (I think it's "men in particular" because women already actually share life with each other.  Men have to be corralled under false pretences).

It's not so much that we're meant to meet for fellowship.  Not so much to speak the good news to each other, but to hold each other to Christian standards.  We're being called to mini-communities of law, where a combination of fear, pride and resolve dis-incentivise the appearance of sin.  Not "sin" itself.  I can easily survive an accountability group while nurturing a love for sin.  It's the "not appearing to commit sin" that counts.

Behind this drive towards "accountability", so often there'a a vision of the Christian life as sin-management.  It's not even that we're aiming for Sinlessness.  We're aiming for Sin Less-ness.  We're trying to keep the 'flagrant transgression count' down.  That way we won't have to appear before our brothers and sisters as "a sinner."    Phew.  That'd be awkward.  Having to confess I'm a sinner - Yikes!  No, that horrible feeling becomes the dis-incentive to transgress.  What's important is avoiding the need for, you know, confession, grace, forgiveness, the blood of Jesus.

And even as men herd together for accountability - the big issue we're meant to drill each other on is... the dreaded P word.  No, not Pride.  How intangible!  How can we measure progress in that?!  And no, not Prayer.  Goodness me - let's not over-spiritualize things here.  We're after indicators of performance.  No, no, every man's struggle is Porn.  Obviously.  (Of course with every man who's ever confessed struggles with porn to me, it hasn't taken long to establish that pride and prayerlessness are way bigger problems contributing to the mess.  And yet, those are problems it never occurred to them to confess.  It's "Porn" that's the issue, right?? That's by the by...)

What am I saying?  Stop meeting up for accountability?  Well look if you're a guy in an "accountability group" - well done.  Everything you love about this group is good and godly and biblical - you enjoy brotherhood, you enjoy sharing life, you enjoy another human being speaking forgiveness and grace into your life.  Hallelujah!  That's what fellowship is meant to be like.

But "accountability"?  Thing is - it doesn't even work.  But confessing your sins to each other... speaking words of forgiveness in Jesus' name... opening up to each other as a fellowship of the broken... having a cry... having a laugh... that's the Christian life.  And guess what?  It doesn't have to be gender specific!!  Cos, heck, you don't have to "fellowship" around "men's problems" or "women's problems."  You might just be able to, you know, be family together in Jesus.

And at the end of it all, you'll almost certainly sin less.  But that's not the point.  The Christian life is not sin management.  It's life together in Jesus.

 

I guest posted for Emma on headship and submission and all that.

Stuff like...

The Father is the Head, His Son is the Body (1 Corinthians 11:3)...

Christ is the Head, His Church is the Body (Ephesians 5:21-33)...

Ephesians 5 says that  Head and Body roles are taken on by husbands and wives…so it seems clear that there is a place for roles.  But what place?

If you only study Christ on earth, you might see a passive Father and an active Son.  If you only study Christ exalted to God’s right hand, you might see a busy Father and a resting Son.  If you only look at Christ in Gethsemane you might see a sweating Saviour and a sleeping church.  If you only look at the worship of heaven, you might see worshipping servants and a seated Lord.

Freeze-frame a marriage at any one point and either spouse might look like the active partner, either spouse might look like they are ‘taking a lead’.  And that’s a good and healthy thing.  It’s the nature of a proper relationship which thrives on give-and-take.

The thing is – and finally I’m getting to my point – we just can’t insist on one kind of action for one member of the relationship. In fact, to worry about specifics is a big mistake.  Roles is about an overall shape to the relationship in which the Head serves in love and the Body encourages and receives that serving love.  And when this shape is even approximated in human marriages, something wonderful happens.  Suddenly the  caricature of marriage is over-turned.  You know the picture – rightly derided in our culture: there’s a  good-for-nothing husband, half-man, half-sofa, watching Top Gear repeats on Dave while his embittered wife taps her foot and nags him into submission.

The gospel redeems this shadow of marriage as partners embody the true roles of Head and Body.  Where Adam was silent and Eve grasped, now husbands step forward and wives receive.  It’s a beautiful thing when true roles are played out.

But… resolving to take on these roles is not where the revolution lies.  The roles are an expression of the revolution, not the cause.

The gospel is the cause and Ephesians 5 (the passage on roles) couldn’t be clearer about it....

Read the whole thing here.  And perhaps if you want to comment, do so there to keep them all together.

 

4

This happened two years ago.  Revealing!

Finally!  JW's knocked on my door this morning.  First time ever.  An older guy and a younger Polish woman.

So I threw some Genesis 19:24 shapes their way. "To which Jehovah are you witnessing, the LORD out of the heavens or the LORD on the earth?"

The woman seemed quite interested.  The man said "Trinity?  Rubbish.  Paul refutes the trinity in 1 Corinthians 11:3."  So we went to 1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

"How does this refute the trinity?" I ask.

"Well," he explains, "God is the head over Christ.  Which means Christ is less than God."

I say "So the Father is the head of Christ the way I'm the head of my wife?"

"That's right"

"Let me ask you, Is my wife less of a human being than me?"

"Yes" said the man.  "N.." said the woman and then changed it to a faltering yes.

I check I've heard them right.  "So my wife is less of a human being than me?"

"Well," reasons the man, "you make the decisions.  You're in charge."

"Hmmm (I hum non-commitally).  And so I'm a greater being than my wife?"

"That's right" said the man.  The woman frowns.

I turn to her and say "You realise you're in a cult don't you."

The man grabs her by the arm and they start to make their escape.

"Keep reading the bible and keep thinking about marriage," I call to her as they move down the street.  "You know women are equal to men... AND JESUS IS EQUAL TO GOD!"

Don't think they'll be back any time soon.

But it goes to show that Arians are misogynists whatever the PC gloss.  And of course misogynists are Arians, whatever the Christian gloss.

.

4

The Gospel of the Blokey-Hearted doesn't seem to be going away any time soon, so maybe I need to bang some old drums again.  For those who missed the rants first time around, here's

Models of masculinity

Some manly things Jesus did

He said – She said

Spouse speak

Three thoughts on Headship

Is the fruit of the Spirit too sissy for real men?

Arian Misogyny

And here's a repost regarding a distinct but related problem: when blokey attitudes define marriage...

Today I heard one more story of a keen young gospel soldier recently married.  From what I can tell the wife is feeling abandoned, isolated and increasingly desperate.  And the husband is pressing on in his ministry service for the Lord!

If I had a minute with the young gun I'd ask him to read about John Wesley's disastrous marriage. Just after John married Molly he wrote to her from the road to inform her of his views on marriage and ministry: "I cannot understand how a Methodist preacher can answer it to God to preach one sermon or travel one day less, in a married than in a single state."  (Read more here).  It should be a cautionary tale for every young gospel soldier.

But the Wesley model is not dead.  I still remember the ringing endorsement our own marriage union gained from a leading UK evangelical while we were still engaged.  "You're marrying well there Glen," he said, "She's a doubler."  He was referring to a calculation that there are (apparently) ministry doublers and ministry halvers.  Thus the question to be asked about every prospective bride is, "Is she a doubler?"

Now that might be a question you ask a prospective PA or church worker.  But if that's the first question you want to ask your bride-to-be then, seriously, that's the proof right there.  It's not meant to be.  And you're the problem!  If the prospect of being fruitful and multiplying with this woman inspires a ten year business plan, call it off now.  The kind of multiplication God has in mind is multiplication in which you commit to each other for their sakes.  And, fellas, the more you want to use her for other ends, the less multiplication's gonna happen!

And I'm not just trying to make a cheap gag here.  The Lord has designed marriage to be a multiplying union.  But in His economy it turns out to be fruitful as and when you are brought to commit to each other in deep oneness.  I mean this physically but I mean it in every other way.  The way to ministry multiplication can only be through marriage multiplication which can only happen in and through the union and communion of husband and wife. That's got to be the beating heart of it all.

Single people should definitely seek the Lord's wisdom about who to marry.  Wesley should definitely not have married Molly.  If two people have massively different expectations of what Christian service will entail then that's a real warning sign.  But what first needs to be sorted out in our thinking is the very nature of marriage itself.  It is not a ministry multiplication venture.  It is a covenant union, joined by God, reflecting Christ to the world.  And out of this union comes a multiplication of spiritual and physical children.  Under God it cannot help but be fruitful and multiply.  But under God He will bring fruitfulness in very unexpected ways.  It will not be a multiplication one spouse's prior ministry plans.  The old individual plans must die.  This will be a new union with a totally new kind of fruitfulness - much of which simply cannot be predicted.

But an understanding of marriage that is anything like a contractual business partnership will strike at the very heart of the covenant union.

I pray for this young couple, that there would be a death to the old individualist/contractual understanding.  And that out of that death would come new life in their union and communion.  And, yes, that out of that there may even come a wonderful fruitfulness.  But it will be His fruitfulness His way.

.

Some Adam Buxton goodness.

The last few videos on escaping to the shed nails masculinity better than anything I've ever seen!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2o4W4-ULjM]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9sJVJMiYM]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvul3DC4l4E]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZnPE3G_YY]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM6xbDX5iHU]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQNzT14U0EQ]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn5BeflRi_E]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqsPsPuvgIk]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z2NuqjlNiY]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBeO7i7JQGk]

5

From a letter to an American woman, 31.7.62

I have a notion that, apart from actual pain, men and women are quite diversely afflicted by illness.  To a woman one of the great evils about it is that she can't do things.  To a man (or anyway a man like me) the great consolation is the reflection "well, anyway, no-one can now demand that I should do anything." I have often had the fancy that one stage in purgatory might be a great big kitchen in which things are always going wrong - milk boiling over, crockery getting smashed, toast burning, animals stealing.  The women have to learn to sit still and mind their own business: the men have to learn to jump up and do something about it. When both sexes have mastered this exercise, they go on to the next.

A clarification written 03.09.62

[this] is simply my lifelong experience - that men are more likely to hand over to others what they ought to do themselves, and women more likely to do themselves what others wish they would leave alone.  Hence both sexes must be told "mind your own business" but in two different senses.

.

I think that's very incisive.  By the way - how serious do you think he is about "purgatory"?

jesus gun

Three pictures of manliness in the gospels:

ONE.  Jesus, pictured as the father in Luke 15, (seriously the father is Jesus.  Just straightforwardly and obviously Jesus.  There's no question in my mind).  Where was I?  Oh yes, Jesus, pictured as the father, is turned in his stomach with compassion, hitches up his robes, runs to his good-for-nothing son, flings his arms around him, falls on his neck and smothers the boy in kisses.

Here is the most poignant picture of Jesus' love for sinners.  And Jesus chooses a patriarch to show it.  We might think he looks pretty motherly and not fatherly.  We might question the masculinity of this scene.  We'd be dead wrong.  Here is a picture of total Jesus-shaped manliness.

TWO.  Jesus gets up from the evening meal, downs his drink in one, belches and then challenges Judas to a cage fight.  No wait.  That's not John 13.  In John 13 He gets up from the table, takes off His robe, picks up a towel, and He gets down on His hands and knees to wash and pad dry the dirty, naked feet of His friends. 

Was this a detour from His otherwise robust masculinity?  No, it was the expression of it.  Here was Jesus showing the full extent of His love (v1) - the Bridegroom washing His bride in sacrificial service. 

THREE.  Gethsemane: Jesus, overwhelmed with sorrow, actually lets His friends in on His distress - inviting Peter, James and John to watch with Him.  The Passion of the Christ gets this wrong - Jesus does not say 'I don't want them to see me like this.'  The only reason we know about this episode is that Jesus must have told them all about it.  Desperate praying, sweating blood, heart poured out, never has Jesus looked weaker.

I've heard Driscoll repeatedly describe Gethsemane as a portrait of femininity - Jesus in submission to His Head, the Father.  Of course both men and women need to look to Christ as Model.  But frankly I think Driscoll is avoiding something that ought to challenge his macho-man masculinity. Here is Man in submission to God.  This is what man is made for.  The Ruler under God, in the garden, obeying submissively in total dependence and willing to die for His bride - here is the Last Adam, the true picture of manliness.   

Of course it doesn't look very macho.  It isn't.  But it's what Jesus-shaped masculinity looks like.

To be a man like the Man doesn't look manly to men.  A man must be man enough to reject men and follow the Man.

.

Some more posts on gender here.

[A repost]

And I quote:

Real manliness is defined by Christlike character, and not just the Gentle-Jesus-meek-and-mild-style character, but the full-orbed fruit of the Spirit rounded out with strength, courage, conviction, strong passions, manly love, and a stout-hearted willingness to oppose error and fight for the truth—even to the point of laying down your life for the truth if necessary.

From TeamPyro's More on the Sissification of Church

Just the other day I was going to post on the fruit of the Spirit - wondering whether 'real men' would find Paul too feminized at this point.  All that girly 'patience and gentleness' and nothing about mechanical, athletic or barbecuing ability.

Then I read the quote above. Now I think I agree with much of what the author says.  He himself is reacting against a kind of John Eldredge 'wild man' myth.  And who could disagree that manliness is defined by Christlike character?  But to say the fruit of the Spirit requires 'rounding out' when it's applied to real men....  ??

Does this mean that 'faith, hope and love' are a bit 'chickified'?  Perhaps they require rounding out with 'strength, honour and belching'?  Or maybe 'be joyful, pray and give thanks' (1 Thes 5:16-18) need augmenting with 'build, fix and kill.'

Oh look, I'm all for stout-hearted fighting spirit.  I know that men are cowards.  I know what a problem this is.  After all, the silence of Adam got us into this mess in the first place.

But when true, stout-hearted, courageous manhood is expressed, you know what it will look like?  Cheek-turning, cloak-giving, rights-yielding, foot-washing, burden-bearing, shame-absorbing, sacrificial love.

It will look like the fruit of the Spirit.  And even though these qualities may look sissy to the world - well...  Real men don't care about looking sissy.

.

Other posts on men stuff:

Models of masculinity

Three thoughts on Headship

He said - She said

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer