From Stuff Christians Like: Remix - #9. Comparing Braveheart to Christianity.

3. Jesus was a brawler.
Look at that verse where he clears the temple. Jesus is wild. He's intense and violent and leading a revolution. No forget that, he's leading an xRevolution, which is like a revolution only a million times more relevant to today's culture. I mean check out how he cuts off that Roman soldier's ear when they come to arrest him. Jesus was a ninja! Huh? That wasn't him? He healed that dude? One of his last physical actions was to wash people's feet and heal the guard? You are ruining Braveheart for me right now. I hate you.

Heh. "You are ruining Braveheart for me right now."

And "he's leading an xRevolution, which is like a revolution only a million times more relevant to today's culture" had me spewing diet coke all over my monitor.

As voted on by a select panel of my one year old.
Read the rest of this entry . . .

Bumper sticker I saw yesterday:

"Jesus had a mullet"

On the way home tonight, I was listening to the Mack Brown show-- the weekly program featuring discussion with the head football coach of the Texas Longhorns himself.

The main commercial sponsor appeared to be a high-powered DWI lawyer.

Right about now I can't think of many guys more to be admired in the blogosphere than Reggie Kidd.

Kidd is a professor at RTS Orlando, and recently one of his blog posts made big waves in the (reformed) blogosphere when he called out some of his brothers for what he saw as unnecessary and self-destructive infighting. He did not mince words.

He cited Herodotus chronicling the cooperation of Athens and Sparta to defeat a common foe, who wrte in part: "the evil of internal strife is worse than united war in the same proportion as war itself is worse than peace."

He then asked: why don't we get it?
Read the rest of this entry . . .

Popular Mechanics has a list of the 25 Skills Every Man Should Know: Your Ultimate DIY Guide. It's updated to include some computer/web related skills that manly men need in today's world. According to the folks at PM, you ought to be able to:

1. Patch a radiator hose (Check)
2. Protect your computer (Check)
3. Rescue a boater who has capsized (I guess. I've never rescued someone who's capsized, but I've spent some time on the boat and I know better than to jump in after a drowning guy.)
4. Frame a wall (Check)
5. Retouch digital photos (Not interested. My wife does all the photo stuff.)
6. Back up a trailer (Check, although interestingly, my wife is better at this than I am.)
7. Build a campfire (Check. But who actually does it the old-fashioned way?)
8. Fix a dead outlet (Check)
9. Navigate with a map and compass (Check)
10. Use a torque wrench (Check)
11. Sharpen a knife (Check)
12. Perform CPR (Never been trained in it, so unless what you see from watching TV counts, then no.)
13. Fillet a fish (Check. But it's just not worth it.)
14. Maneuver a car out of a skid (Check. But knowing how to do it and actually being able to execute in the moment are two different things.)
15. Get a car unstuck (Unstuck from what? I'll say check.)
16. Back up data (Check. The irony is that I lost the first incarnation of this post about 3 sentences in when my browser froze.)
17. Paint a room (Check)
18. Mix concrete (Check)
19. Clean a bolt-action rifle (Oh yeah, baby.)
20. Change oil and filter (Check)
21. Hook up an HDTV (Considering I don't own one, I'll have to say no. But how hard could it be?)
22. Bleed brakes (Nope)
23. Paddle a canoe (Check. But does this really qualify as some kind of special skill? Who doesn't know how to paddle a canoe?)
24. Fix a bike flat (Check)
25. Extend your wireless network (Would this be anything more than buying and installing the relevant hardware, of which there are several types? I've never done it, but I'm not sure how it counts as some critical skill. Setting up a wireless network would make more sense here.)

The above link takes you to the list, and this link takes you to a skill-by-skill descriptive breakdown of the list so you can make up for your shortcomings. How do you measure up?

This list seems deficient in a lot of ways. Of course it's a PM list, but a little more balance to what makes up a skilled man would be nice. I'd be happy to hear suggestions in the comments.

I just saw this classified ad:

WANTS TO BUY
An AK-47 for wife, in 7.62x39. Must be in excellent working order with no modifications to trigger and in descent appearance. No SKS models. Surprise for wife, please do not discuss it with her.

That's Texas.

A fifty-nine year old man is returning to Sul Ross State University in Alpine, Texas to play football one more time.

Michael Flynt, who last played college ball in 1970, is currently attending training camp at Sul Ross University in Alpine, Texas, along with about 100 other players -- most of whom are younger than Flint's own three children, the Nashville Tennessean reported Tuesday.

Flynt, who was dismissed as starting linebacker for the school's team in 1970 after a series of altercations, will find out later this week if he made this year's team's final cut.

I heard some guys on sports talk radio discussing this today. They invited callers who had similarly ageless exploits. One such caller was in his fifties and still works out heavily. He recited a list of his current weight lifting benchmarks, including leg pressing 400 lbs., bench pressing 300 lbs., and more.

That led to this exchange among the two radio guys:

Guy 1: Wow. I'm feeling emasculated just listening to this.

Guy 2: I'm not. It's making me feel like a little girl.

Guy 1: Um, that's pretty much what "emasculated" means.

(awkward silence)

The link to this caught my eye this morning. Unreal.

Dear Margot,
I’ve been seeing two women at my church. One I know from Bible study, the other from Sunday Eucharist. They don’t know each other and attend different services. I like them both, but am not sure I’m ready to commit to either one. My choir buddy says I should tell them about each other. That little devil on my shoulder says I don’t need to. Who’s right?
– Double Dipping Darrin in Dallas

Read the rest.

I'm in the kitchen, working on the computer. The Spurs/Cavs game was getting boring so Jill switched over to another show. It's a Christian station, and this show is featuring the guy who wrote one of those Why Men Hate Going To Church books.

He's blaming the abysmal church attendance of men on . . . altar flowers.

Personally, I think men don't go to church because they're idiots.

I've been teaching a guy's class recently (based on the excellent Raising a Modern Day Knight by Robert Lewis) and it teaches that one of the key traits of a real man is that he "Accepts Responsibility".

So, if you're a guy who's not going to church because your masculinity is offended by altar flowers or intimate worship or whatever other built-in excuse you've been able to find, it's official.

You're not a man.

Quit being a victim. Quit being a pansy. Accept responsibility, be a man, and go to church. Ditch your consumerism and what's-in-it-for-me-ism. Take your family to church. Start living Scripture. And if the church is too feminine for you, get involved, lead courageously, change the culture. For God's sake - we need you. Or, hopefully, you'll get so immersed in the life God's called you to that peripheral stuff won't matter so much anymore.

But if you must complain, please do it elsewhere. This world has enough whiners in it. We don't need one more.

I made Jill switch it back to the game, by the way. :-)

Go Spurs.

That is all . . .

This is a few days past due, but congratulations to Blest for hitting her weight loss goal. That chick dropped 78.2 pounds in 10 months. Amazing!

Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson square off at Christianity Today on the question: Is Christianity Good for the World?

Courtesy of the Jollyblogger, here's the New York Times on us cluttered types:

An anti-anticlutter movement is afoot, one that says yes to mess and urges you to embrace your disorder. Studies are piling up that show that messy desks are the vivid signatures of people with creative, limber minds (who reap higher salaries than those with neat “office landscapes”) and that messy closet owners are probably better parents and nicer and cooler than their tidier counterparts. It’s a movement that confirms what you have known, deep down, all along: really neat people are not avatars of the good life; they are humorless and inflexible prigs, and have way too much time on their hands.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

- 1 Corinthians 13:11

So much to write, so little time.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. It's time I posit my theory of manhood. It's very simple:

We all need to grow up.

Suggestion #1: Church leaders concerned about the state of manhood in the church: please ditch the "all church guys are chicks" talk. It's not true. I mean, it sounds good, it sells books, it spices up sermons when you describe the alleged wussification of men in our society (even better if you add the picante sauce of manly curse-words to your message), but it's not the problem. The supposed feminization of the church, where real and not just imagined, is just a symptom of a bigger problem: the men in our churches that are part of the problem are not wusses, they just aren't men. They are boys.

The problem is a lack of maturity, not a lack of masculinity.

Read the rest of this entry . . .

Dan Edelen has done it again. Run, don't walk, over to Cerulean Sanctum to read his latest post: The Humble Warrior.

Here is an excerpt (the whole thing's good). I have nothing else to add, other than that I want to be like the humble man he describes.

Less often than that do we have examples of men who never picked up a sword or gun, who never spilled blood, but spent most of their time on their knees. George M?ller was such a man. A lot of the testosterone-laden out there wouldn't think much of M?ller; he was concerned for orphans. Sounds kind of womanly compared with the examples we see held up in bestselling men's books. But M?ller prayed. That man sweated out big prayers that met big needs and overcame ferocious principalities and powers that sought to destroy little boys and girls, demonic forces that wanted nothing more than to grind up children in the hardscrabble streets of England. And the one thing that people said about M?ller besides the fact that he was a praying man? That he was humble.

As much as the bestseller shelves are loaded with books jam-packed with bone-chewing examples of manliness, the dearth of books featuring meek and humble men speaks volumes. Simply possessing a penis and knowing every great line from Spartacus, The Green Berets and the king of all warrior movies, Braveheart, doesn't qualify you for warriorhood. Making prideful, snarky assertions about someone's eternal security on the God-blog flavor of the week doesn't make you God's man, either. It takes a humble man to walk into his prayer closet (where, it should be noted, there are no ticker-tape parades), kneel in humility before the Lord, and start assaulting the powers of darkness through prayer. Your average street dog can easily sink his teeth into a flesh and blood foe, but only a meek man devoted to prayer can tear down demonic strongholds in spiritual places!

The problem with Christian manhood today is not that there aren't enough villages to plunder, it's that humble, stooped grandmothers are out there on their knees fighting the battles that "real" men are too proud (or lazy or weak) to fight. Too many men in our churches moan that someone stole their warrior badge. Meanwhile, Satan is plundering OUR village. And he's doing it not in the obvious places, but in the spiritual realms, the very place that prayer alone works.

Time to stir these waters again, although the source material I'm using is a review that is almost a year old. But we have been taking walks down memory lane here on Thinklings these past few days, so check out this Review of John Eldredge's Wild at Heart on Challies.com.

Tim holds back a little at the beginning (not really):

A few months ago I mentioned on this site that I was reading John Eldredge's book Wild at Heart and intended to write a review of it. After reading the book I elected not to write a review at that time. The book was so full of error and absolutely ridiculous nonsense that I just didn't have the heart to document it all. Honestly, I was frustrated and discouraged to see that a book like Wild at Heart could make it to the top of the Christian best-seller's lists.

You and me both, Tim.

It's not unusual for me to run into people that I really respect who think this book is one of the best books they've ever read. If any of you have read any of my other persnickity posts on WAH (click on the Wild at Heart category link), you'll know I disagree with much that Eldredge puts forth in this book. But I usually don't say anything negative about it to people I know who like it - what's the point in arguing?

I remain baffled that so many people find this book so revolutionary and edifying.

Mr. Challies continues:

Some of the greatest concerns are:

• Open Theism - Though Eldredge denies he is an open theist, the evidence does not support his claim. Time and time again he speaks of God in ways that can only be explained if you hold such views. "God is a person who takes immense risks? (p. 30). ?It?s not the nature of God to limit His risks and cover His bases? (p.31). ?As with every relationship, there?s a certain amount of unpredictability?. God?s willingness to risk is just astounding?. There is definitely something wild in the heart of God? (p. 32).
• View of Satan - Eldredge views Satan as the one who is to blame when we sin. He seems to believe that we are little more than victims rather than being fully, 100% responsible for our own sins.
• View of Jesus - According to Eldredge Jesus failed at something he attempted. When He encounters the guy who lives out in the Gerasenes tombs, tormented by a legion of spirits, the first rebuke by Jesus doesn?t work. He had to get more information to really take them on? (Luke 8:26-33) (p. 166). This, of course, is a complete misrepresentation of what happens in that passage.
• Use of Scripture - Eldredge does what is becoming all too common in the evangelical world these days. He uses verses and passages from the Bible without giving any context simply to make it sound like this is a Biblically-based book. Time and time and time again he assigns meanings to passages that are completely foreign to their true sense. At one point Garry Gilley says about the particularly ridiculous interpretation of the book of Ruth, "after all, no one else, to my knowledge, in the history of conservative biblical exegesis has ever come up with it before." Eldredge seems to make up meanings as he goes along.
• Revelation - Eldredge says that God talks to him directly. He also speaks to him through movies, books and so on.

I could go on, but really, what's the point?

I know how you feel, Tim.

If you get a chance you might want to motor over to The Dawn Patrol and check this post about her recent run-in with James D. Watson, discoverer of DNA and chilling eugenics advocate.

"They say I'm a killer," Watson went on, his tired eyes taking on fire. "It's those right-to-lifers."

"They say I'm a killer," he repeated, "and everyone's afraid of offending them." He was still looking at the other scientist. The scientist, whom I know didn't share his views, maintained an attentive silence?partly, I believe, out of gentlemanly respect, and partly out of not wanting to put gasoline on a fire.

But I had nothing to lose. So I took a deep breath, adjusted my jaw so it was back in line with my upper lip, and said, in the gentlest voice I could muster, "I'd love to know more about why you feel that way, as I'm a right-to-lifer myself."

Watson looked me in the eye and told me he was qualified to advocate in favor of mothers choosing to abort "unhealthy" children because he wished he could have aborted his own son, who is mentally handicapped.

[This comes via The Fireant Gazette]

So it's about 1:30 am, and I am in the ER with my dad watching ESPN Sportscenter, a pleasure nary received in my cable-deficient home. (actually, my dad is zoned out on pain killers - minor infection, not too big of a deal). So a story about Cincinatti Bengals Quarterback Jon Kitna comes out of the box. I assume that none of you had heard the news, otherwise I would surely have seen a post.

It seems that Kitna, the quarterback for the past few years, has suddenly found new life in his game. He is now in the running for a pro-bowl selection and a far outside shot for MVP. In years past, he has helmed a lowly Bengals team, but the franchise is now in the hunt for the playoffs, a seemingly overnight sensation. According to all the Bengals receivers and his other teammates, Jon Kitna is the reason for the turnaround.

So what spurned this breakout success?

A friend of Jon's gave him a "self-help" book after the third game of the season. The Bengals were 0-3 at the time, appearing to carry on the tradition of being the worst team in the NFL. Kitna reads the book and has a revelation of sorts. The team has gone 7-2 since he read it. Following are Kitna's quotes from the report (as I remember them):

"After I read it, everything cleared up for me."
"It's like a light has been turned on."
"For the past three years, everything has been happening so fast around me. Now, it's like everything is in slow motion - playing out before my eyes."
"Everything is just easier for me now."

What miracle, self-help book became the catalyst for an entire NFL team's turnaround? What legendary author showed Kitna the light thereby casting a strange twist on an otherwise predictable playoff picture? What on earth could possibly have turned this relative nobody into a relative somebody?

I have three words for you.


Wild At Heart.



* 3:45AM - I found an article about this subject in the Cincinatti Post. It appears that Jon discovered his wound. It was given him by Coach Holmgren.

Bird has actually corresponded recently with Wild at Heart author John Eldredge! Bird sent Eldredge an e-mail, expressing his concerns about the importance placed on men to find a "wound" in their lives, typically one left by their fathers. In a matter of hours, Eldredge responded. Needless to say, we Thinklings were surprised, pleased, and appreciative.
Here is their exchange:

Mr. Eldredge,

I don't have a "wound," as your book, Wild at Heart, defines it. My dad is a good guy; I'd even say he's a nice guy - but he never wounded me. I believe your book says that "nearly all" wounds are given to a son by his father. Are the majority of fathers really that bad? Are they really so bad that their sons would carry a father-given wound into their adult life?

I recently met with a group of guys who are presently studying your book. The topic of the evening was, "the wound." All of the guys in that group had, what I believed to be, legitimate wounds given to them by their fathers. When I suggested that I didn't have a wound, a few of the guys pressed me, asking me specifics about my dad and what he did and did not do with me when I was growing up. I mentioned to them that he was never a real stereotypical male: he didn't really watch sports, he didn't work on cars and he didn't hunt and fish. One of the guys in the room piped up, "Maybe that's your wound, that he never did those things with you?" Hogwash! My dad doesn't have to fit into a stereotype, and he doesn't have to enjoy stereotypical male hobbies to be a good, God-loving, family-oriented father.

I'd love to hear your opinion on this since I've read your book and I still have many questions about this issue in particular. Don't you think it's dangerous for men to start looking for wounds that quite possibly aren't there?

"Bird"
Waco, Texas

Great question, Bird. Lemme try and offer a few thoughts...

First of all, everybody is wounded in some way. This is a fallen world full of fallen people. To say we've come through life without ever being wounded is to say we were raised in Eden. However,
I think you're right - I don't think we need to go on some witch hunt for a "wound" we are completely unaware of. I'd simply ask Jesus, as the Psalms say, to "search me and know my heart - show me Lord, the important wounds of my life, that you might be my healer." Then leave it to him to bring up.
Also, there may be other, more significant wounds than the "father wound." A good friend of mine remembers a dedfining moment in gym class, when his coach shamed him openly in front of the other boys. To him, that shaped his life more than any father wound.

The point is, Jesus offers to heal the brokenhearted. I think its safe to say that none of us are fully the men or women that we could be. We all carry some sort of brokenness, one way or another. It might show itself in a fear of intimacy, or an issue with anger, or maybe a defensiveness about us. You might ask the people that know you well, "What am I like to live with - really?" All we can do is ask God to reveal where our brokenness lies, and be willing to accept it when he shows us. But I wouldn't chase a father wound you don't think is there.

John

Bill has explored the Eldredgian derision of Mr. Rogers elsewhere; namely, in the Top Ten post Is Being Mr. Rogers Bad?. That post, though, dealt more I think with the issues behind Eldredge's definition of wildness and the "warrior" mentality.
My wife brought home the latest issue of Stand Firm last week, only because it had John Eldredge's Gandalfian mug staring back from the cover. The article once again trots out this "Don't be like Mr. Rogers" hooey, and this time I thought I'd actually respond to the superficial claims superficially.
Here's what Eldredge says:

The incarnation of grace and love isn't Mister Rogers with a beard. He is more like Maximus in the movie Gladiator or William Wallace in Braveheart.

There's no real elaboration on this claim, so I'm not skipping any context here. I personally find this statement profoundly stupid.
Regardless of what Eldredge "really means," I'd like to just examine this comparison he's making.

First, Maximus. Maximus was a pagan soldier in a violent army. I'm not sure "turn the other cheek" is even in this guy's vocabulary. When faced with death, did Jesus pick up a sword and say "bring it on"? Did he assemble his disciples to "fight back"?

Secondly, William Wallace. Here's a noble guy, yet also a violent warrior. When faced with the oppression of his people and the occupation of his land by the English, his natural response is to stage a bloody revolution. Jesus, on the other hand, taught his followers that the kingdom was within them. He in fact surprised a good many of his followers, because they actually expected the messiah to bring literal and violent revolution, overthrowing the reign of Roman occupation. They would have dug William Wallace. Needless to say, Jesus was no William Wallace.

Finally, Mr. Rogers. Hmmm. A Christian man -- a minister, actually -- who "suffers the little children to come unto him." Sounds familiar . . .