cup a joe

This is the fad right now it seems. A "masculine" gospel.

I've been around long enough to know that sometimes a fad may contain something valid that needs to be considered, but it almost always goes out of balance. It goes too far.

I believe there are elements of the Christian Message that would appeal to men and that some of those things have been under emphasized. Dominion. Work. Conquering. But that doesn't mean we should stop wanting to love Jesus!

It isn't about DE-emphasizing intimacy and relationship, it is about remembering to emphasize everything that the Bible teaches.

:-)

Ooch…my heart breaks for this gentlemen and the lie that he bought into. To start with, there is no set standards or “biblical” definition of masculinity or femininity. There are culturally defined terms that are and have been defined different throughout the ages depending on the geographical location of a person.

Secondly, it pains me to see that this group, who claims to follow Jesus, don’t have a clue who Jesus is, for it was Jesus Himself who said that His followers would be known for their love (not, I might add, for being warriors).

Thirdly, these folks seem to think that it is hard to fight and easy to love. Yet, if you actually read the life of Jesus, you will notice that it took more strength to stand up for love and mercy than to bow into the pressure of becoming a Zealot.

Fourthly, intimacy is what we as humans need. We need it in our marriages, our friendship, our churches, and, most importantly, in our relationship with Jesus. Intimacy is not a ‘feminine’ thing but a God thing that the Creator of the Universe is calling all people too. To toss it aside like a dirty rag is to toss aside one’s connection to the Holy Lord and pick up the empty bag of religion.

Fifthly, I can’t help but notice that through those comments there is a sense that women are devalued and are someone less than their male counterparts. This is a lie from the pit of hell and has no place among the followers of Jesus!! Women and men are each to be valued because they are made in the image of God and are loved by Jesus. One gender is not ‘better’ than the other and, therefore, Jesus followers should refrain from using gender specific words to downgrade or rank anything, less of all the words and works of Jesus.

sigh…yeah…being part of the radical middle is hard…but it is worth it. Keep on walking after Jesus and follow Him where He leads.

I've heard two angles on the "masculine gospel" thing.

One one hand, I've heard talk about being more "manly" (whatever that means).

On the other hand, I've heard talk about returning to the balance of emphasizing the whole message of the Bible - which includes the importance of vocation, dominion, family leadership, standing against evil, etc.

I understand (Joshua) your concern about not stereotyping "manliness" or putting down women. (Genesis teaches that both men and women are created in the image of God!) But do you think that there is something to the concerns of those who have noticed that the whole emphasis of church these days has come to having a deep emotional experience during the worship time of the service?

In other words, whether or not the "masculine" vs. "feminine" language is the right way to describe it, is it not possible the the "hey where is the dominion and all-of-life stuff that often would appeal to men" concern is a legitimate one?

I believe that there is benefit to having the Spirit move in the deep places of spirit and soul. However, I am also convinced that there is a place for gathering up one's inner strength and acting like a "man" and a leader and taking the land.

Your thoughts?

Ah, Jon…you have broached a multifaceted subject which may threaten to take over Joe’s original post. =)

To benign with, I think there is a HUGE difference between having a “deep emotional experience during the worship time” and intimacy with Jesus. The former focuses on oneself and how I feel during the worship – to the point that some branches of the church start trying to manufacture emotional experiences on Sunday morning (which can be done via manipulation and psychology). However, I don’t think that this emphasis on the “deep emotional experience” is the primary emphasis on the church in the USA. On the contrary, I would say that most churches in the USA place a higher emphasis on intellectually knowing and agreeing to certain doctrine statements. Think about it, Americans are not known as emotional people – instead we the John Wayne folks who are governed by logic, reason and science.

But I drift… I started off by saying that emotions and intimacy are different and I do believe that is the case in following Jesus. Intimacy with Jesus is akin to intimacy with one’s spouse (there is a reason the church is called the bride of Christ) in that it involves more than emotions. It is a sense of trust and belonging that transcends all experiences and situations. You can be burned out and an emotional wreck with no feelings in worship or church at all, and still be intimate with Jesus. Unfortunately, a lot of people are scared of this intimacy as it requires the baring of your soul and life to someone outside of yourself. This is why, in my view, most marriages and relationship in the USA do not work out; we are a people focused on ourselves who do not know how to fully love or trust anyone.

Accordingly, it actually takes more ‘guts’ and strength to push in and bear oneself to Jesus and the world as our King did than to sit at a distance and either reveal in an emotional experience or try to logical take over the ‘land’. intimacy is not weak.

In closing, and at the risk of taking over this blog post, I am wondering how do you define or see as “taking the land” and having “dominion”? To me those terms reek with Constantian baggage and presuppositions that have created the current culture wars as well as thousands of physical wars across the globe and the span of history. For me, following King Jesus is not to seek to ‘take’ any land or to ‘rule’ over anything, but to do what the Father in doing and to say what the Father is saying in every area of life for there is no sacred or secular world. It is an enacted inaugurated eschatology life full of intimacy with Jesus.

Hmm… in re-reading my comment, I realize that I must add one last thought (thank you Joe for bearing with us on this!). The life of following Jesus is one that is lived out among the people. It is not, nor has it ever been, about attending ‘church’ or being a part of the right crowd. It is about doing the things that said to do::

“As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give…. ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” – Jesus (Mt 10:7-8, 22:37-39)

wow - Interesting debate. I've got to start writing more because you guys are going to unpack this before I do (lol)!

When I refer to "dominion" and "taking the land" I am talking about Genesis 1:28 (also repeated later and never yet revoked) and Matthew 28:18-20.

Christian Dominion:

Level 1: Personal Transformation in Relationship with Jesus - Becoming Like Jesus. Learning to obey Him in everything in love.

Level 2: Marriage, Family, Teaching the Next Generation (unless one has the rare call of singleness) (Be fruitful and multiply, raise up a child in the way he should go, etc.)

Level 3: Vocation - work with hands, mind, etc. to participate in the human endeavor to steward the earth and make life better for everyone.

Level 4: Take the Good News of Jesus to the whole world, disciple nations, teach all nations to obey everything God has commanded! (Which includes worldview and instruction for every area of life and society!) Pray, Give, Send, Go!

Christian Dominion is not a top-down control people by force of "government" type thing. (That is a humanist approach). Christian Dominion is organic, relational, sacrificial, transformational and unstoppable!

I am not a proponent of trying to "make" the world submit to Jesus.

"Dominion" is, however, a very strong Biblical idea so I am not willing to surrender that word because of real or perceived abuses throughout history.

The only reason I brought the whole "dominion" thing up is because I was trying to point out that while the whole "masculine gospel" thing may be an over reaction, there may be some who are discerning that some parts of Christianity have been left out. I wonder if some of those things that are left out would happen to appeal to men more than the "intimacy" idea.

I am not suggesting that this means that intimacy is not important, only that the Christian message doesn't stop there.

You may have a point when you differentiate between real intimacy vs. an emotional experience, but I am not trying to say that either are wrong. I am only suggesting that Christianity involves more than either.

It also involves the challenge of working to rule this planet and make it fruitful and to live in a more Christ like society.

You said: "However, I don’t think that this emphasis on the 'deep emotional experience' is the primary emphasis on the church in the USA. On the contrary, I would say that most churches in the USA place a higher emphasis on intellectually knowing and agreeing to certain doctrine statements. Think about it, Americans are not known as emotional people – instead we the John Wayne folks who are governed by logic, reason and science."

I know what you are saying there. I have seen both kinds of churches.

I would like to hang with believers who have intimacy, an emotional experience, logic, reason, science, dominion, all of life Christianity, masculinish stuff (whatever that is), femininish stuff (whatever that is), etc.!

:-)

Quick thought on the whole dominion thing. I think we need to view this in the context of what Jesus was preaching - that the Kingdom of God is here. I think we need to look at those verses asking the question about what the rule and reign of God would look like (assuming that God were King - that his Kingdom was here in it's fullest). Otherwise we are simply creating another religious culture - trying to reinvent Christendom (that worked so well in the past...)

I think the rest of the Gospels begin to demonstrate what the Kingdom looks like (interesting that Jesus repeatedly says things like "What should I say the Kingdom is like?"). Things like the sermon on the mount (or all of Jesus' discourses from Matthew) come into play. Perhaps the Kingdom - or dominion - looks more like that then just a process (not trying to dis you here John - just thinking out loud).

I'm meaning to post more on this - life is just getting in the way. You guys are grabbing some of my text's for future posts though.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Hi Joe!

I don't feel "dissed" at all. I love the conversation. :-)

I don't know if I'll fit in any box on "dominion" because I am kind of a theological "mutt." I've never been loyal to somebody's denomination or theological system. I'm just doing my best to learn the Bible and know God.

I like what you said about "the Kingdom is here." In Matthew 28 Jesus says that "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me" (i.e. the Kingdom is Here) THEREFORE Go and... (my words) take dominion!

So there is a sense in which the Kingdom is here now, and there is another sense in which we still pray (and work) to see God's "Kingdom come and will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."

On earth as it is in Heaven. Woah. Sounds like a good thing.

I don't see the idea of taking Genesis 1:28 Dominion and Matthew 28:18-20 Dominion as in contrast to the idea that "The Kingdom is Here Now."

I see the Kingdom as Here Now, Always Increasing, and Coming in Finality with the Physical Return of Jesus to the earth.

@ Jon – thank you for your definition of “Christian Dominion.” I agree with a lot of what you are saying in the sense that life with Jesus effect every area our lives (pleasure, work, business, family, etc). Yet at the same time I’m with Joe in that I’m very wary about reinventing Christendom (which did not work and, quite frankly, left us with a ton of problems to clean up).

I think the root of this discussion is that the followers of Jesus are largely NOT turning over their entire lives to King Jesus. Instead they are picking and choosing different parts, whether that be the emotional or the intellectual side or whatever. This mentality has caused a dualism in the church that has come to light in terms of “masculinity” and “femininity.” If the people of Jesus would just bow down and give Jesus access to every area of their lives, then this entire conversation would go away. Sadly that has not or is it likely to happen…meaning that folks like our Seattle friend are going to continue to preach a warped ‘gospel’ designed to propagate a dualist worldview. God forgive us!