I carry “The Godly Man’s Picture” with me when I travel on business and can’t wait until my boys are old enough to read it.

-Bryan

I reccomend “The Goldy Man’s Picture, Drawn with a Scripture Pencil” by Thomas Watson…..

great book on Manhood….

shaan

Manly Dominion, by Mark Chanski published by Calvary Press

My real question to the leadership at GCC is what position do “feelings” have in the church for men? Most men I run into seem emotionally illiterate. This significantly impacts personal relationships. How can one deeply love God and others as we should in ALL forms of Christian truth communication when a man has not confronted his heart issues in Christ?

Does God take away all past personal issues when coming to a saving knowledge of Christ? If a man had a father who was an alcoholic and beat him with a tire rod, will he not have troubling issues relating to God and others? Does this experience magically go away at salvation? Why is it that so many “men” I’ve encountered in ministry at GCC seem scared to death to deal with what’s inside their heart relating to emotions? How many secrets are swept under the carpet with wives who have ulcers and children who act unloving towards others in a self-righteous manner?

I went to Grace Theological Seminary and saw many of these same traits as well. What’s the deal with all of this? It seems to me that it takes real courage to deal with inner pains and emotions rather than to pretend they don’t exist, or worse cast them onto others in the name of leadership.

Just my take.

Your clarification, while excellent, was really unnecessary. Your initial post was very clear. If anyone truly misunderstood, it’s due to them reading into the text rather than out of it.

Also, those of who listen to or read Phil regularly know he would never insult women or biblical feminity as Grace alleges.

Thanks for covering this topic. As a woman, I see this as a huge problem in today’s churches.

Regards,
Pam

Thanks for your comment. Since I was the note-taker here, perhaps I can respond on a couple levels.

First, Phil took pains to clarify the fact that his message was not attacking biblical femininity. His first point of clarification made this very clear (more clear than even my notes reflect). Phil would never devalue what God Himself sets forward as the high calling of women (in passages like Proverbs 31 and Ephesians 5).

Second, it must be remembered that Phil was addressing a group of men. Biblically, men are called to be masculine, not feminine. Phil’s words were intended not as an attack on femininity, per say, but as an attack on men who abandon their masculine role for a feminine one. (Phil clearly said the primary fault here lies not with women, but with men who have abandoned their God-given responsibilities.) Since God has given men and women distinct roles, it is inappropriate for either gender to abandon the role God has given to them or to usurp the role of the other.

Third, Phil was correct in noting that God designed the church to be lead by men, not women (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:8–14). This may run counter to the thinking of our culture. But biblically it is in keeping with the way in which God designed the roles of men and women (cf. Gen. 2:18; Eph. 5:22–33). Ontalogically, women are absolutely equal to men (in terms of essence, worth, and value), but functionally they have different roles. By God’s design, men and women complement one another perfectly when they embrace the different roles that God has given to them.

Thus, when the church becomes characterized by culturally effeminate themes, to the exclusion of biblical masculinity, it indicates that something is very out-of-balance. This is the problem Phil was pointing out. And the solution is for men to start fulfilling their God-given responsibilities–to start acting like men.

Anyway, I hope that helps clarify Phil’s point. I can assure you he was not being prejudicial against women. And I do apologize to Phil if my notes conveyed something other than what he was truly saying.

Thanks,
NB

“Feminine” equals “wishy-washy.” Bad preaching is “effeminate.”

A “feminine” approach means “a bad, compromising approach.”

“By every statistic that you could use to measure the evangelical church today, churches are becoming more and more dominated by feminine themes: personal relationships, emotional hurts, etc. As these trends have grown over the last two to three decades, real men are becoming less likely to become part of the church.”

So, if men are attending a church at is dominated by these feminine themes, they’re instantly ruled out as being a “real” men? I thought that real men wouldn’t be intimidated by anything, including those ghastly feminine churches.

I’m sure that many people will come to defend the article, and I have no problem with saying that churches are compromising and weak in many areas. But to call this a “feminization” of the church, as though female values are somehow wreaking the church is purely and utterly sexist.

Good, firm doctrine is “manly”? What? What? So, good firm doctrine is manly, but compromise is female and womanly?

I don’t even know how to express fully what I felt about this article.