Christianity - Feminine or Masculine. Masculine

[castus]

There has been quite an evolution of Christianity, particularly in the US over the past 100+ some years, and more so in modern times: that the Church abroad has morphed into a feminine vibe. Much of the body, the congregations, you will find so many with a passive approach spun by ignorance - rather than by real understanding of their own belief. It seems, there are so many under a false dichotomy in some fashion; making things out to be one or the other in an over simplified fashion.

 

For example, Paul in the new testament advocated for submission to the authorities, but with further consideration of the context of the passages, I don't believe this should be taken so absolutely, or was meant to. Alas, a lot do.

 

Going a bit further on this tangent, the particular problem here revolves around logically qualifying an authority - somehow. If we don't, it digresses into some kind of reducto ad absurdum; where in this case, criminals can claim to be an authority that must obeyed - missionary or otherwise. Then there is the whole difference of killing and murder, which the Catholics really screwed up, and has vexed many unnecessarily. These are just a few things that puzzles many within Christianity, and even outside of it. People in general have not read the Bible in context. This actually goes back for millennia. It's a problem recognized within the Bible (the fallen nature) but no less resolved by just acknowledgement.

 

The problem with this absolutism sets the tone for bad behaviors - what we've been seeing now. So much of the Church service itself, and the newer songs, are done in a light that seems quite counter to what actual Christianity paints.

 

It's effeminate/feminine manifestations proliferate the literature and has digressed into mere fancy tribal music ( God is good, God is great, I want to touch your face God, repeat x10).

 

You really don't see many strong positions made by the leadership that could distinguish local community problems, nor do you see many songs that have some sort of real substance/ impacting meaning, or draw a triumphant/victorious tone; there is more crying/screeching than their is really rejoicing most often.

 

Simply put, the air in the Church is fake, lacking authenticity by so many, and riding on, or fearing, civil government in so many ways. It really is no wonder that so many younger males are not attracted by such an environment. I honestly can't blame them. I'd suspect, even some of the 'fundamentalists' who start their own home Church isn't necessarily devoid of this mood. It is all over the map, and has been so, again, for quite awhile.

 

I recall reading about post civil war history, up to the point of prohibition, and that's where I see where the change may have taken root in US societies, then of course as we know, later reinforced - progressively. It was by instituting national prohibition that provided a clear sign in history, that the country had a fever. Whatever happened to the idea the self-government was eroding, as was the vigor that distinguished US men at this time. The Church was returning to a form of papacy that ended up later, falling the other direction - to where instead of the Church wagging the dog, it eventually started becoming the government. What the Church was renown for doing, widows, orphans, voluntary giving, the government would slowly overtake, but ignored the voluntary aspect, and demand. 

 

I'm not sure if the fall of masculinity can be pinned on just one thing, but I do see some correlation here; that when the government is lawless, it's because of men failing to be what God (or if an atheist, merely just intended) intended them to be; that at least, they are made to be decisive, noble and martial. Qualities associated to being masculine.

 

Christianity, if actually read in context, reveals that it is out of love for God and our neighbor to do good for them, and this actually is quite a masculine thing! Though the apostles led a specific role, where their path wasn't meant to be carved for self preservation they still wore a strong bearing - being daring and bold. Often the apostles where beaten, in general, in the face of extreme adversity, and still kept going on. The endurance they had is a testament to the resolve the men, and how the Church should aspire to it, not necessarily as a missionary, but at least emulate as much as possible - having endurance; long suffering. Even Paul I think made strong words against effeminate behavior.

 

Anyway, this illustration of biblical masculinity looks a certain way; that much of our culture, and ironically the Church, is particularly lacking. We are, we will, pay for it.

[AccuTron]

"For example, Paul in the new testament advocated for submission to the authorities, but with further consideration of the context of the passages, I don't believe this should be taken so absolutely, or was meant to...."

 

Would you elaborate on this point?  I'm really curious.

 

 

"...So much of the Church service itself, and the newer songs, are done in a light that seems quite counter to what actual Christianity paints."

 

As an outsider, ever since leaving the Catholic church in the 1950's, could you elaborate especially about the songs?  Oops, I see that you did in one paragraph...confirming my suspicions...that it's all about feeling groovy, and nobody say anything that might actually require spine or moral core.  Which, sad to say, sounds very feminine, which is a major point you make.

 

I'm reminded of one time being inside a local church for an evening vocal performance.  This church is very old in town, maybe over a century by now.  (Okay, that's old by US standards.)  I was struck, even stunned, by the altar area.  There was a Christian cross in there somewhere, I'm sure.  But what I mostly saw were two gigantic wooden carvings of reared up horses on the wall behind, I think the emblem of an early English king, maybe a Scot.  Begging the question of who is really being worshipped.

[shirgall]

I'm reminded of Robert Graves's King Jesus and his assertion is that the establishment of Christianity removed the feminine tone of the church and restored a male-dominated one.

[Mister Mister]

Just as a brief tangent, I wanted to respond to this line "I'm not sure if the fall of masculinity can be pinned on just one thing, but I do see some correlation here; that when the government is lawless, it's because of men failing to be what God (or if an atheist, merely just intended) intended them to be;"

 

Government police/warfare state can bring out the worst in masculinity, in the same way that the welfare state brings the worst out of female nature.  Male nature is to be competitive, to jockey for position, to accumulate resources, and so on.  The natural limits on this are other men: if you set yourself against too many other men, or pick a fight with the wrong guy, you fail.  At the same time, men need to cooperate to some degree to accumulate resources.  The State takes away the natural limits and consequences to aggression, and allows men to accumulate resources not through cooperation, but through intimidation, coercion, and fraud.

[AncapFTW]

There has been quite an evolution of Christianity, particularly in the US over the past 100+ some years, and more so in modern times: that the Church abroad has morphed into a feminine vibe. Much of the body, the congregations, you will find so many with a passive approach spun by ignorance - rather than by real understanding of their own belief. It seems, there are so many under a false dichotomy in some fashion; making things out to be one or the other in an over simplified fashion.

 

For example, Paul in the new testament advocated for submission to the authorities, but with further consideration of the context of the passages, I don't believe this should be taken so absolutely, or was meant to. Alas, a lot do.

How do you know what their beliefs are?  Maybe they are ignorant of parts of the Holy book of the religion they converted to, but just because they don't believe the same way you do doesn't make them no longer christian.  You don't believe it the same way as every other Christian and there are views that people in ancient times held that you don't.  For example, the OT allows slavery and Jesus even defends it, but you don't believe that it is ok.

 

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", plus passages about submitting to rulers because God placed them there, etc. seems to make a strict adherence to this belief incompatible with the idea of Anarchy.

[castus]

 

"For example, Paul in the new testament advocated for submission to the authorities, but with further consideration of the context of the passages, I don't believe this should be taken so absolutely, or was meant to...."

 

Would you elaborate on this point?  I'm really curious.

 

 

And

 

 

How do you know what their beliefs are?  Maybe they are ignorant of parts of the Holy book of the religion they converted to, but just because they don't believe the same way you do doesn't make them no longer christian.  You don't believe it the same way as every other Christian and there are views that people in ancient times held that you don't.  For example, the OT allows slavery and Jesus even defends it, but you don't believe that it is ok.

 

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", plus passages about submitting to rulers because God placed them there, etc. seems to make a strict adherence to this belief incompatible with the idea of Anarchy.

 

Context is king.

 

Most believers read through the eyes of someone else, which can be okay to an extent, but when it runs directly counter to the essence of the text, its a foul in practicing the doctrine.

 

Now, regarding this comment by Ancap - " just because they don't believe the same way you do doesn't make them no longer christian". Some believers are capable of false doctrine, some, more on solid ground - being more consistent with the source material. Surely you would agree that some could call themselves Christian and my not really be Christian? That's mentioned in the Bible in a few different ways I believe.

 

And, before i get to civil government and Paul, I'd like to tackle that OT reference too - regarding slavery: The Israelite's were called to be a peculiar people. 'The Law' was to set apart the Israelite's and distinguish them from the peoples in the surrounding lands, which were very very... bad. They were so superstitious it was reviling to a level that many in the modern era probably couldn't fathom (sex worship, child sacrifice, confusing blurred lines about sex in general - at least that's how it seems from the inverse clarifications of the Law). It was sooo bad during this time, that God wiped out entire peoples that, I'd argue, was more out of act, sort of like a mental quarantine - suppressing the 'thought virus' of superstitious ideology (which such essence is still manifested today, even among intellectuals I wager). So, even though Christ is derived from the same personality of the old testament, the Law, is actually written in a context, for a particular people and for a particular time. Oh and the The Law was actually condensed to: "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."" Galatians 5:14).

 

The concepts from OT law still has some fine application in civil government but not entirely - it wasn't meant to be. I could elaborate further but I'll stop and bring it back to slavery: do you suppose there is such a thing as good slavery?  Hark! What do you call prison What do you call POWs. Or...

.

There's even slavery after conquest that I'd argue can even be justifiable as well, particularly if the state you're at war with was the offender - in which case recompense is due. Some times that has to translate into hard labor. As a Christian, we are called to forgive yes, but that's something at an individual basis - not a civil government view necessarily. Consider the problem we have particularly with restitution abroad, that it is so common for criminals to pay some artificial price imagined by the state (thus not really balancing out justice the way it really should), than any real consideration for the offender to pay off the debt (and/or to the individual or society)? In this, slavery I'd say is particularly just.

 

Now in regards to Paul, AncapFTW, you forgot the other half to 'Render Caesar', which is pretty important: but Give God what is Gods. Not only is this important, it finishes a logical perspective: some things the state has authority of, and some things it does not. It's power cannot be absolute. Paul even did not condone to absolute obedience either (He even got arrested multiple times for preaching - which I imagine was from him ignoring the law), but he did emphasize respect for the authorities - respect for good government (not necessarily bad government). The 'authority' is not a concept here purely either, but can only be a person in a legitimate role as an authority (agent). Furthermore, Paul was a missionary, and thus it would stand to reason, not all people are called to be missionaries in the same way, or at all in a literal Christian sense. Paul did advocate the people to emulate him, but he was not so daft in that same passage to claim everyone should be an apostle - he actually recognized it therein.

 

Please understand, by no way am I holding a new unique argument, or some new radical stance; this has been around for ages, but the view has been eroded by, well, laziness and I guess... evil. Johnathan Mayhew (1750) wrote a sermon called "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers". One particular part of this work illustrates the problem with taking the extreme dichotomy so many infer with Paul:

 

.....

 "I now add farther, that the apostle’s argument is so far from proving it to be the duty of people to obey, and submit to such rulers as act in contradiction to the public good, and so to the design of their office, that it proves the direct contrary. For, please to observe—that if the end of all civil government, be the good of  society; if this be the thing that is aimed at in constituting civil rulers; and if the motive and argument  for submission to government, be taken from the apparent usefulness of civil authority, it follows, that when no such good end can be answered by submission, there remains no argument or motive to enforce it; if instead of this good end’s being brought about by submission, a contrary end is brought about, and the ruin and  misery of society effected by it; here is a plain and positive reason against submission in all such cases, should they ever happen. And therefore, in such cases, a regard to the public welfare, ought to make us withhold from our rulers that obedience and subjection which it would, otherwise, be our duty to render to them.

 

If it be our duty, for example, to obey our king, merely for this reason, that he rules for the public welfare, (which is the only argument the apostle  makes use of) it follows, by a parity of reason, that  when he turns tyrant, and makes his subjects his prey to devour and to destroy, instead of his charge to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to resist; and that according to the tenor of the apostle’s argument in this passage.  Not to discontinue our allegiance, in this case, would be to join with the sovereign in promoting the slavery and misery of that society, the welfare of which, we ourselves, as well as  our sovereign, are indispensably obliged to secure and  promote, as far as in us lies.  It is true the apostle puts no case of such a tyrannical prince; but by his grounding his argument for submission wholly upon the good of civil society; it is plain he implicitly authorizes, and even requires us to make resistance, whenever this shall be necessary to the public safety and happiness.  Let me make use of this easy and familiar similitude to illustrate the point in hand—Suppose  God requires a family of children, to obey their father  and not to resist him; and enforces his command with this argument; that the superintendence and care and authority of a just and kind parent, will contribute to  the happiness of the whole family; so that they ought  to obey him for their own sakes more than for his:  Suppose this parent at length runs distracted, and attempts, in his mad fit, to cut all his children’s throats:  Now, in this case, is not the reason before assigned, why these children should obey their parent while he  continued of a sound mind, namely, their common good, a reason equally conclusive for disobeying and resisting him, since he is become delirious, and attempts their  ruin?  It makes no alteration in argument, whether this  parent, properly speaking, loses his reason, or does while he retains his understanding, that which is as fatal in its consequences, as any thing he could do, were he really deprived of it. This similitude needs no formal application." .....

 

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/discourse-concerning-unlimited-submission-and-non-resistance-to-the-higher-powers/

 

Essentially, yes, obey authorities, but those who are really an authority. I could claim to be an authority but it doesn't make it true. I could hold up a badge, but it doesn't mean anything once confirmed - qualified. That qualification, recognition of the law, is one that eventually reverts back to the basic fundamentals of self-evident things - that government can do certain things, but it cannot legitimately violate its own purpose, and it remain the authority - legitimately.

 

Granted, there is also the compounding problem where the majority of the society may agree with an illegitimate authority, in which case, becoming a martyr may prove to be more effective, and perhaps even the only weapon available. Ultimately though, for the Christian, we are called to act out of love, which means things like wielding the sword - physically, mentally & or spiritually.

 

Really, unlimited obedience to government is counter to God/reason. You can thank Catholics amongst other delusional cultural influences over the ages as to why this rational view is so obscured.