Report comment to moderator

There is a lot to what you say about a brotherhood. My husband spent a 26 year career in Special Forces and I saw that kind of comeraderie on every A-Team that he was ever a member of.

How do we allow our men to be manly men in church? Maybe we could come to Quantico and see these manly men at worship in the chapel. My family has worshipped in many military chapels and have found fewer touchy-feely experiences than we have in civilian churches.

Military chapels, on the other hand, have their own drawbacks.

Maybe we should study male role models from the Bible, with an emphasis on their blatant male qualtiies. Or maybe we should study some brave martyrs who were also action guys.

Report comment to moderator

I’m sure my take on this topic will not be popular, but here goes: I think part of the problem goes back to original sin: The man, Adam abdicated his God-given role, and the woman, Eve userped it. God put all things in order when He created them, and the man and the woman reordered them to suit their desires.

This same scenario is repeated time and time again. (And I am a woman saying this.) It’s not about who is better at spiritual things, it’s about whose God-given role it is.

David was of the kingly tribe of Judah, not the priestly tribe of Levi. He was a man’s man and he poured out his heart in the Psalms. He was a sinner just like the rest of us, a murderer even, and yet God called him “a man after My own heart.” David didn’t ever forget who he was or Whose He was. I can almost see him on the outside looking in at the priests in the tabernacle. If the tabernacle had glass windows, David’s nose would have been pressed against one because he had the heart of a priest. But his God-given role was king. So he worked within the boundaries that God set for him and still contributed significantly to the spiritual life of Israel.

Would that women in church would operate similarly in church today, and subordinate their desires to what God has (and hasn’t) given them to do. What a mighty witness that would be!

If women refused to userp the roles of men, I daresay there would be more men fulfilling them.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

As to the Henry V bit, I’d have to see an original quote, in context, before I’d give that allegation any attention. For all the time you’ve given to reading about Eldridge, you could have gone to the source and made up your own mind.

Report comment to moderator

A friend of mine was disallowed from serving in our church because he was divorced when he was young. Even though he has been a godly man, faithfully married for decades, his past supposedly disqualifies him. But what about Paul, a murderer and Peter who committed felonious assault and denied Christ? No one forbid them from serving.

Another example is a man who was caught by his wife looking at Internet porn. The church cleaned up his computer and suspended his membership until he repented. He did repent several times, but each time would fall back into it. The church asked him to leave.

The worst part of all this is that I am sure that some of the men who kicked that man out also struggled with the same sin. So the church is really a whited sepulcher, a facade of hypocrisy, all shiny on the outside, but afraid to mention the hidden rottenness for fear of public humiliation.

We speak about sinners as though they are people other than us. There is no ‘us’ and ‘them’. If the subject is sin, then there is only ‘us’. There is no ‘them’. We should not speak of murderers and adulterers and rapists and liars and cheats as them. We should call them part of ‘us’ and acknowledge that the grace of God is sufficient.

Report comment to moderator

I think the reason that hidden sins remain hidden is because Christians are the only army that shoots its wounded. A church that accepted failings with grace and challenged the men to ’sin no more’ with love would have a lot more openness and probably a lot more involvement in service.

#30 Stubob – No, I didn’t read ‘Wild at Heart’. As I said, I was quoting from a critique in the book ‘Fools Gold’ produced by John MacArthur.

If someone claims to be Henry V at Agincourt, I don’t see the need to read his book. But even Daniel Gillespie’s critique acknowledged that Eldridge had a good handle on the problem. It was his solution that was flawed and unbiblical.

Report comment to moderator

There’s good and bad in there. From what I’ve seen, I’d say that Eldridge has a better handle on the Church’s “man problem” than David Murrow and Anthony Bradley have.

Report comment to moderator

and xion, i agree…i don’t think eldredge plundered the depths of sound theology on ‘wild at heart,’ yet i feel he identifies something as you have said.
with the addition of the blog on xxxchurch.com, i wonder if a lot of men are inactive because of hidden sin (a.k.a. internet porn)…. i wouldn’t be so quick to scoff at that thought, it’s prevalent…very.

Report comment to moderator

The answer is not for men to march off into the wilderness to pound their chests and eat raw meat. The answer is not to act like Gladiator or Braveheart. Biblical role models were men of integrity, fortitude and passion, but also of righteousness, not vengeance.

There is a good critique of ‘Wild at Heart’ by Daniel Gillespie in the book ‘Fools Gold’, edited by John MacArthur. It exposes many of the fads that are running through the church. One of them is ‘Wild at Heart’.

Four problems are identified with ‘Wild at Heart’:

1. Insufficient view of scripture Eldridge appeals to movies, books and even his own supposed revelations from God, but provides little biblical authority. Supposedly God told Eldridge that he was Henry V at Agincourt.

2. An inadequate picture of God He says real men shouldn’t necessarily be nice guys, since God wiped out the Egyptians. He emphasizes God’s wrath and power, but ignores his mercy and kindness. He calls God wild at heart (p.29).

3. An incomplete portrait of Christ He correctly identifies Christ as a model for masculinity, but he focuses on Christ’s second coming with power and overlooks his meekness and grace. Eldridge calls Christ “fierce, wild and romantic to the core” (p.203).

4. An incomplete portrait of man In chapter four he shifts the blame for personal sin onto wounds that every man supposedly carries. Eldridge misconstrues man’s purpose by saying “our design is revealed by our desires”. (p.48) In other words, our passions and pleasures define who we are.

In conclusion, ‘Wild at Heart’ accurately identifies a critical problem within our churches. Men need to be strong, resolute and of solid character. However, Eldridge’s views are unscriptural and flawed in theology, Christology and anthropology.

Report comment to moderator