Nate Pyle on Why Christ Wouldn’t Aspire to ‘Christic Manhood’

Photo by Elias Sch./Pixabay/Creative Commons

Nate Pyle is an authorblogger and ordained pastor in the Reformed Church of America. Nate has written two books: Man Enough: How Jesus Redefines Manhood, and More Than You Can Handle: When Life’s Overwhelming Pain Meets God’s Overcoming Grace. Currently, Nate serves as the pastor of  Christ’s Community Church in Fishers, Indiana, where he lives with his wife and three children. He tweets at @natepyle79.  The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of BCNN1.

Masculinity in America is an exercise in proving oneself.

In measuring up.

But to what?

In America, there is no standardized assessment to measure when (or whether) one has completed the transition from boy to man. Is manhood reached when one gets their driver’s license? After one has their first full-time job? Achieves an athletic milestone? Gets married? Has a kid? Opens a Roth IRA?

We joke about men losing their “man card.” Is that really possible?

And what if whatever scale one measures themselves against shifts with the currents of culture?

Undergirding most celebrations of hyper-masculine characteristics is a chronic anxiety about whether one is strong enough, successful enough, rich enough, or powerful enough. Because there is not a static definition of manhood, men are left wondering if they’ve achieved the necessary accolades to establish themselves as a man in the eyes of others — particularly other men.

For Christians, of course, there is an ideal man — who invites us to follow his teachings and example. But that doesn’t alleviate the cultural anxiety around masculinity Christian men feel. In fact, following the life of Jesus and his teachings may move Christian men farther from the dominant cultural ideals of our day. Rather than traveling this narrow way, some take on extraordinary mental gymnastics to fit Jesus into our modern molds.

Take, for example, Owen Strachan’s recent tweet gone viral, “Men today are often soft, weak, passive, unprotective. But physical discipline is key for men. Hear Paul: “I batter my body and make it my slave” (1 Cor 9:27). Christic manhood is protective, sharp, watchful. The man who is willfully soft physically is often soft spiritually.”

Fear is at the heart of these sentiments.

A man who is physically soft and weak is a man unprepared for battle and, thus, easily conquered by others. A man who is passive is easily dominated. A man who is unprotective is a man who will have what is his stolen from him — including his masculinity.

This understanding of masculinity goes back to the founding of America.

As America sought to define itself apart from mother England, American men sought to define themselves in new ways. Whereas men were once defined by the genteel landowner, the new world gave rise to the new ideal: the self-made man. This was a man free from the old world social hierarchies. A new world meant new beginnings; he was now free to determine his own lot in life. Most importantly, he was independent, free from being dominated by another.

But not free from the fear of being dominated by another.

This fear of being dominated by another has necessitated shifts in Americans’ understanding of manhood. In the mid-nineteenth century, a real man was a cowboy fleeing the dehumanization of industry. During WWI and WWII, the ideal man was a soldier fighting Nazis and fascists. Post war, it was the guy with dirty hands carrying a lunch box and a welding torch confident in his ability to shape the world. In the 1990s it was Gordon Gekko in Wall Street insulating himself with financial security.

It’s worth noting how everyone of these examples is embodied by predominately white men. It’s no coincidence that black men were denigrated by being called “boy.”

Manhood is a game of winners and losers. And those who are winning make sure the game remains one they can win.

Every time the definition of manhood shifted, it created a crisis within men because the ideal they worked so hard to embody drifted away from them. Where once others saw them as men, this new ideal created the possibility they could lose their place in society to someone else. Rather than lose status and influence, they doubled down on what gave them power.

Strachan’s tweet appears to follow this familiar impulse.

During the first two decades of the 20th century, Billy Sunday shared the same fears as Strachan. Men, in his mind, were becoming too feminized. And so he prayed, “Lord, save us from off-handed, flabby-cheeked, brittle-boned, weak-kneed, thin-skinned, pliable, plastic, spineless, effeminate, ossified, three-karate Christianity.” Sunday’s fear about sissified Christian men was happening at a point in American history when women were gaining the right to vote, the androgynous behavior of flappers was all the rage, and technology continued to shift men’s place in the workforce.

Click here to read more.
Source: Religion News Service