Cultural Engagement – Theology Leadership

The topic of masculinity seems to have surpassed the gospel itself as the emphasis in some corners of Christianity.

Many of the podcaster theologians advocating what they refer to as “biblical masculinity” would try to revoke Jesus’ man card. Jesus turning over tables is a paradigm to be emulated. Jesus weeping must be some kind of Greek verb snafu that short circuits that paradigm.

Those within that same camp would bypass passages that don’t fit their preferred definition of manhood, not unlike Thomas Jefferson’s edited Bible. Humility, meekness, gentleness, and compassion are relegated to tertiary characteristics in today’s “Christian man,” or so they’d focus.

Much of what I see in the category of biblical masculinity is nothing more than a combination of stoicism, pompous pietism, and syncretism. Syncretism comes in merging male stereotypes with scriptural principles to create an orthopraxy after our own image. Throw in some shots from Canon Press, flamethrowers, and bloviating and you have the recipe for pseudo manhood.

Men are not two-dimensional creatures who merely reproduce and make all the decisions with cold hard logic. Why? We were created in God’s image (imago Dei) and as such have a complex interplay of emotions, intellect, drive, desire, logic, and will. Christ was like us in every respect, yet without sin. We are like Christ in His humanity, yet with sin. So, God’s word points us toward what it means to be complete. That has less to do with our man cards than it does being killed by the law in our sinfulness and resurrected through the transformation of the gospel into the very image of the God-man.

Let’s be clear: Scripture gives us specific principles on manhood and womanhood. Our uniqueness is to be celebrated and maintained in obedience and accordance with Scripture. Nonetheless, the Bible is not primarily a book about how men should behave as men. It is a revelation of God who sent His only begotten Son to redeem all of humanity. Jesus Christ was the perfect man, full of grace and truth. It seems absurd to think that our growth in Christ should be best attained by relegating Christ to second place behind our pursuit of the spirit of the age, no matter how many Bible verses we pluck out to bolster it. Indeed, our sanctification has more to do with Christ in us than with our own pursuit of strategies, regardless of how many biblical terms we pack into them.

Pursuing manhood is not the ultimate goal. We must pursue Christ. In so doing, we will become men that love well, stand firmly, grow in wisdom, and exhibit courage that comes from supernatural transformation, not watching YouTube videos of jackasses for Jesus. The central message of Scripture is the redeeming work of Christ, not a 21st century construction of being a man. Making manhood the metanarrative is myopic. Pursuing Christ overflows into the God-given, Spirit-empowered vocation we are called to fulfill as men.

Christian nationalism and Christian liberalism have several things in common. I’m unable to fully address the nuances and slight variations of versions across the spectrum in each of these categories, but suffice it to say that there are underlying commonalities aiming at impact in opposite directions. Both sides likely have objections ready; however, I’d like to offer a few heart checks that highlight how each miss the central mark of Christianity in similar ways.

Defining Terms

Reaching an agreed upon definition of these terms may be impossible, but I must at least establish the basis of each for my ensuing critique. For the purpose of this article, Christian nationalism is understood as a movement that believes and works toward state embodiment and enforcement of Christian moral vision. Christian liberalism is understood as the reframing of Christian ethics and belief to align with modern philosophical and cultural sensibilities instead of historic orthodoxy. These working definitions will serve as the basis of the engagement that follows.

Behavior Modification

In the final analysis, both Christian nationalism and Christian liberalism are aiming at steering the Christian ethic in a practical, particular direction. One points toward an ethic of traditional, conservative values while the other to relativistic, progressive philosophies. Repeatedly in scripture, we see that God is not concerned only with what we do, but also the heart with which we do it. Amos 5:21-24 highlights God’s deep displeasure when God’s people do exactly what He commanded with no regard for His righteousness, Isaiah 66:1-5 reminds us that the Lord esteems the contrite and humble in obedience flowing from delight in Him, and Psalm 51:16-19 is a Davidic testimony of broken and contrite hearts preceding right sacrifices. Our faith should unashamedly impact our personal and societal ethics, but we must not rush past orthodoxy on our way to orthopraxy. The holistic nature of our belief and the reverent posture of our hearts should overflow into behaviors that align with God’s word and mission. Our being drives our doing, not vice versa.

Naturalism in the Name of Christ

Christian nationalism works to accomplish its aims through political maneuvering. Christian liberalism seeks to advance its cause through political maneuvering. What each bypasses is the supernatural power of the gospel through Jesus Christ to resurrect the dead and bring salvation and sanctification to helpless sinners. What of the power of the Holy Spirit to convict, the promises of God to work through word and sacrament, and the good news of Christ to bring us to new life and sustain our faith? Must we rely on the levers of political power to change society into the image of Christ? Will we place our trust in the swinging pendulum of politics or in the eternal, steadfast power of our Heavenly Father? We must be careful of what we accomplish apart from Christ in His name. Through sheer determination, we can move the ball forward on our cultural aims apart from Christ. That should give us sacred pause. Political involvement and the pursuit of justice are not discouraged, but they must never supplant the church’s mission with mere cultural influence.

Christ as Adjective

When “Christian” functions merely as a modifier of a political vision, Christ is subtly reduced from Lord to instrument. Sure, “Christian” is used to differentiate between forms of societal practices like marriage, but what is in view here is the idolatrous nature of making Christ a mere descriptor of our true pursuit of philosophical and political paradigms. Whether Christ is viewed as the manner through which culture can attain a certain conservative threshold or through which progressivism can make inroads to the intellectual and practical aspects of faith, both are making Christ a means to an end. Christ is the alpha and the omega (Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13). He is the beginning, the means, and the end. He is no mere adjective (Colossians 1:17-20).

Law and Gospel Conflation

Both Christian nationalism and Christian liberalism conflate the law and the gospel by collapsing those categories into measurable human metrics instead of biblical frameworks of governance and faith. The law exposes our sins. The gospel cures our sins. Both movements tend to treat our ability to follow the law as the cure. If the gospel is the same thing as the law, then why didn’t Christ simply come down onto a second Mount Sinai with more tablets and graver consequences? Instead, Christ came not to deliver a second Sinai but to ascend Mount Calvary as the perfect embodiment of all Sinai demanded. Yet He was slain because we sinners could not live up to the law’s demands. This allows us to look with joyful expectation toward Mount Zion on account of Christ’s mediation of the new covenant (Hebrews 12:18-24).

Clarity on the Lesser of Two Evils

Does one of these two lean more toward a robust Biblical understanding of life, conception, marriage, identity, and a host of other contemporary issues? Absolutely and unequivocally, Christian nationalism tends to align with a biblical ethic on those issues much more consistently. Nonetheless, there are underlying weaknesses and dangers. My critique of both movements is a call to repentance of neglecting the gospel, relegating Christ, and making things happen in our own strength.

Christ is the eternal Logos through whom we receive grace and truth (John 1:1-17). He is the exact image of the glory and splendor of God and He upholds the universe by the word of His power (Colossians 1:15-19). It is the Son of God that unlocks our understanding of the law and the prophets (Luke 24:25-32 and 44-49). Christ and Him crucified is the clarity Paul offers in His proclamation to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:18-25 and 2:1-5). The teachings, parables, and miracles of Jesus were recorded that we might believe and have life in His name (John 20:30-31). The church accomplishes its mission most faithfully when it makes Christ the focal point in word and sacrament. When such a biblical and Christ-centered emphasis is in place, the effects supernaturally ripple into society with the right heart and focus. The church doesn’t change the world by grasping for power but by operating in the power that God gives when following His word, His way personally, corporately, and societally.

I unashamedly stand on a conservative foundation, but that doesn’t mean that my conservatism should take precedence over Christianity. When you reduce Christianity to behavioral outcomes, a matter of human willpower, or a modifier attached to a political objective, then what you have left is not Christianity at all. We can dress the culture like a Christian and slap a name tag on the outer garments, but only faith in Christ transforms individuals from the inside out who fulfill their vocations and impact society through the ordinary means of our extraordinary God.

Tag: Cultural Engagement