Joshua Benton

Bill...thank you for your response. One of the reasons behind this blog post is trying to define what a man of God is. As stated in the post, there are many different views that are out there about being a man of God. Yet with these mixed messages, we leave the faith formation of men in the cold. The emphasis in this post then is how can we help men grow in the faith outside of "I'll know it when I see it"? Leaving it just to "I'll know it when it I see it" does not give direction to help men grow in the faith. The purpose of this blog post is to begin helping giving direction in faith formation in men. 

Bonnie... Thank you for your insights. As you point out, yes, there are cultural influences in how we see gender roles in the church. I agree that there has been an abuse of power over the years by men. With this being a 700 or so word blog post, there is limitation. Parts that were cut from this blog did attempt to balance some of the gender roles in our church today. Yet we have to be careful in pushing various cultural concepts of gender roles onto the church. Just as years gone by the machismo of male authority was pushed into the leading of the church, today there are struggles with pushing newer thoughts of gender roles into the church as well. We need to be careful and discerning as the pendulum swings.

I agree that in many ways Jesus did show a variety of aspects that are in need for men today. Yet focusing on just Jesus meek and mild does a disservice to men today in their faith development. I believe the role of anyone in power and privilege is to empower others as Jesus empowered his followers. God made us in His image, both male and female, yet, I believe, the pendulum has swung the other way (as Bly and many others both secular and Christian, philosophers and psychologists, since have pointed out) and placed a blueprint on masculinity that goes against how men are hardwired. Men process emotions, experiences, thoughts, and ideas different than women. And that is okay. One is not better than the other. To point to Jesus and show just one side of Him as how men ought to live their faith does a disservice to the Gospel message and the Second Person of the Trinity.

As much as Jesus is shown in the Gospels to be in touch with his emotions, He also acted out in anger such as cursing the fig tree or clearing the temple. He is depicted as a mighty warrior in Revelation. God Himself is not only depicted as a warrior in the Old Testament but refers to himself an describes Himself as such. As men are made in the image of God, we must not deny the masculinity in which men are hardwired with.

When men are not allowed to be men of faith they then are not equipped to fully empower and disciple younger men in the faith. Instead of helping form the faith of the next generation of Godly men the same roadblocks are passed along and then men become more lost. Men need to be allowed to be men in their faith for there is a masculine side to faith as there is a feminine.

I want to be clear, I am not pushing for a complimentarian view of gender roles. I am egalitarian in my view of gender. I also know that being wired differently is okay and should be accepted not forced to be what it is not. I believe that many fear taking steps backwards when discussing what masculinity means. I firmly believe that we do a disservice to men in their faith when we neglect that part of faith they are hardwired for in connection to God's ability to be a warrior, protector, fighter--as long as we fight for the right cause and empower others in doing so. To neglect this does not allow men to truly grow in their faith but instead hinders them and does not allow them to reach their full potential in which they were created for to serve with and along side women who are also made in the image of God.

Ron...Thank you for bringing up Wild at Heart. I have found that book helpful in many ways save for his stance on ADHD (being ADHD myself, I think he's totally wrong and ignorant of what it is, though the book was written when ADHD still was being debated). This blog post came about as part of my research in a doctoral class I'm taking right now on the book of Judges. I am working on a Bible Study on what it means to be a man of God (and what it doesn't). There are a plethora of books out there that struggle with what it means to be a man of God, with Wild at Heart being but one of them. I believe it is a counter argument against some thoughts in gender studies that attempt to create what Robert Bly refers to as "soft males" in Iron John. Bly is not insulting men who go this direction but he states that there has been something lost over the years. In my research, I have come to find that the majority of books written since the mid 1990's on being a man of God quotes Bly, either positively or negatively, but still they quote him. What I took away from Wild at Heart is that it is okay to be a guy.

Bonnie.. I appreciate your reflections on how Wild at Heart has been received by those you've spoken with. I can see that you are passionate about this. Every book will always have its plusses and minuses. I see that gender roles and stereotypes are very important to you. The concept of what is healthy and unhealthy in a book needs to also be seen through the lens of how it is interpreted and implemented. Wild at Heart and other books in this vein attempt to engage this discussion of gender roles which has evolved over the years. A different point of view might be offensive and demeaning to those who hold an opposing view. Wild at Heart and other books were written because the opposing point of view was seen also as demeaning and detrimental to the faith development of men.

A question might be brought up: How can we affirm our genders given to us by God in such away that it allows strong faith formation while not derogating the other gender?

You had mentioned a book in an earlier response, what other books might you suggest which counter the arguments seen offensive in Wild at Heart yet also affirm and assist men in growing in their faith?

Thank you for your thoughts and comment. Being in the CRC for just over 20 years, I've come across many people who feel bad that they don't have a Road-to-Damascus story. And in feeling bad, sometimes even look down on themselves as not being good enough Christians or something, like to be good enough they need some awesome story. And I think this is partially why many have been gravitating towards focusing on the older brother more so than anything else. I like the idea of changing the title to the Parable of the Gracious Father. That really shifts the focus. Both sons are offered grace and invited to the party. Both are to be part of the celebration. And we are to join in on this celebration and join in the mission of God.

Thanks again for your comments.

Thanks for your comment and reflections, Scott. You are very correct in that this parable has a number of layers and there is much you can point out with this parable. Sadly, with blogs, there are only a limited amount of space. I think part of what inspired this post for me was recently hearing it preached and then a conversation I had with my wife and others afterwards about how this parable has been interpreted and how it's been used over the years in different ways. Thank you again for your insight.

Joe.. Thank you for your thoughts and comments. With a blog post there is but a limited amount of words that might be used in speaking of one particular opinion on a topic. Yes, I will admit, there are in ways I painted things in broad strokes and things aren't starkly one or the other (as Scott shows eloquently above). Tim Keller's The Prodigal God is the oft quoted source for the interpretation to which I mentioned above concerning the older brother. Because my understanding of Keller's argument and thesis is based solely on the interpretation and telling of those who have used him as their source, I can only take the logical conclusion of their reasoning and evidence concerning focusing on the elder brother in such as way as that they then are identifying with the pharisees. If Keller is correct in his assertion (again, I haven't read his book so I do not know the full thesis) and the target is the Pharisees and teachers of the law, then identifying oneself with the target audience and hence the elder brother gives a bit of legitimacy to being a Pharisee, which, I believe, leads to insular thinking. Again, I have not read Keller's book, I have only seen the fruit of this particular interpretation. 

That being said, Luke 15:1-2 does state that the Pharisees and teachers of the law were muttering against Jesus' choice of diner guests, but v1 also states that the tax collectors and sinners were gathering around to hear Jesus. As Scott states above (dude is from the Center for Excellence in Preaching and knows his stuff so I'm deferring to him her eon some things) there are multiple audiences here. We also have to take into account the third audience of this trifecta of parables--the intended audience of Luke. Luke wrote to a gentile, mostly Greek, audience. In understanding it from this different scope, I would say that the emphasis really isn't towards the elder brother as Keller would state but the fact that a gracious God comes running out to greet his lost son. I can't quote chapter and verse, but I remember Phil Yancey had a wonderful discussion about God' grace in the Parable of the Prodigal Son in his book What's so Amazing About Grace. 

I would say that in this understanding the fact that, yes, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees that we are to have a reckless abandon of love for the lost. As well though, we see that here is the statement to us all that we all were once sinners and are welcomed home by a God who has gone forth searching for us, leaving all behind. In this same light though, we need to see this as the Good News preached to those outside of the faith hearing about the grace and forgiveness given by God as would the original intended Gentile/Greek audience. 

I lean a bit toward's Joel Green and some others that in the prior parable, the shepherd leaving the 99 behind wasn't so much as leaving the pharisees behind to find the one per se, but the great economical and labor intensive cost the shepherd was willing to pay in order to find that one lost sheep. This same reckless abandon is seen in the celebration by woman when she finds her lost coin. Yes, it was a chunk of money, yet she spends more money to celebrate finding it. And finally, not only did the father go out to meet the younger son as he returned (as did the shepherd go out looking for the lost sheep) he also threw a huge shindig that involved a fatted calf (good eats...and he celebrated like the woman and her lost coin). For Keller's interpretation to work, it then must ignore most of the rest of these parables and the others throughout Luke and the original intended audience. 

Again, thank you for your thoughts and comment. Hope this wasn't too long and convoluted of an answer.

(and I think I just wrote another blog post). 

Christy, thank you for your reflections. I think the same is true for the mega-church pastor to the small rural pastor, from one who pastors a 2,000 member congregation with multiple staff to one who does it all (including the bulletin) in a small church. I think you are right in that it is personal for each pastor. My concern is more for the burnout of pastors more so than the pay for pastors. As I wrote, I've never met a pastor who went into it for the money. To expand on that, I've met people who've left lucrative businesses and jobs in order to be paid far less in order to serve God. Burn out in pastors can lead to a loss of kingdom focus as the spiritual leader of God's people. Please continue to keep pastors in your prayers, from the mega church to the small church, that they still keep the focus on serving God where they are at. Thanks again. 

Roger, yes, real world application is important, thank you for bringing that focus in. Pastors though are more than just a lawyer, mechanic, maintenance worker, etc. A pastor is one who is called to be the spiritual leader of God's people. A pastor is called to lead God's people, to be the shepherd of Christ's flock. There are many ways one might live in reckless abandonment for Jesus in being kingdom driven. I think of my wife's grandfather who passed away in 2002. Decades ago, he was serving in his church and felt a call to move forward to serve full time. He sold his business (some of the story says he actually gave it away to a returning war veteran) and started planting churches in the Chicago area. He planted them in numerous areas, two of them are still around today--Immanuel CRC in Burbank, IL and Hammond CRC in Hammond, IN. His kingdom driven focus in preaching the gospel led to many people coming to faith. He wasn't a person driven by a paycheck but rather driven by a vision to see people come into the kingdom. Both his sons became pastors both with a kingdom focus. Reckless abandonment in serving Jesus can manifest itself in so many different ways. Many pastors try to live their own reckless abandonment, and get shut down because it's different, or it's not how the church has always done things, or it's not what they've paid the pastor to do. I understand the need to exercise caution at times. This blog post more so wants to focus on burn out in pastors and how to help pastors retrieve that kingdom vision they once had. It is also to encourage the church to look past roadblocks and to dream together with the pastor into new ways of doing ministry in serving God's kingdom. The real world is that too many times people act in fear rather than in faith in kingdom work. I wonder if my wife's grandfather used caution instead would the churches he planted and the people God reached through him would be around today? It's amazing how many lives one person touches when they focus on the kingdom of God... Pastors get brought down many times and told to just do the work rather than look forward towards the kingdom. Pray for your pastor and your church that the kingdom of God might be preached and lived. Pray that your pastor continues to be driven by a desire to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in reckless abandonment because that's how Jesus did it for us. 

Marlin...Good questions. I know Faith Alive has Elder and Deacon Handbooks which are helpful in many ways. I myself learned about leadership through hardknocks, big mistakes, and lots of books. Courageous Leadership by Bill Hybles is a good one as is Leading From the Inside Out by Samuel Rima. One issue which needs to be looked at is the fact that the business culture has become so entrenched in our culture that it is hard to look at things otherwise. One big thing is that many churches use Quick Books for finances. Yet Quick Books lists profit and loss. A church isn't called to make a profit but to be one. Also look at how church budgets are laid out. They are generally laid out as what the item is (i.e. Sunday school curriculum) how much is budgeted and what the actual is. And the list goes on. What if the budget was listed not by just basic things but by what ministry it is part of. This shows that the priority isn't money but ministry. So instead of just listing Sunday school curriculum with outreach and the building fund, separate them into faith formation (Sunday school), The great commission (outreach) and hospitality (building fund). Just how you list things shows the priority we place on things and how we view it. If we shift from a business mindset which tends to manage things to a ministry mindset which tends to join God in mission, we can begin to change what our focus as the church is. My original draft was about 400 words longer than what is above. 

The installation/ordination of Elders and Deacons states the gifts needed and responsibilities for both offices. Yet these are largely ignored because people become focused on funding, on landscaping, on keeping people happy. This is now managing not ministry. Even just going through the charge to Elders and Deacons with your elders and deacons might help in basic training. Also reminding them that money is a tool to do ministry not the goal of ministry. Yes, lights need to stay on, heat needs to be pumped through vents, the pastor needs to be paid, etc., but these are all tools to do ministry not to goal of ministry. 

I would say that training begins by going back to the basics. When I was in football and the game went bad, we practiced in pads the next practice. This meant we went back to the fundamentals as the foundation of our practice and our next game. The best way to train is to go back to the fundamentals. Even if they've been an elder or deacon for decades, it never hurts to go back to the fundamentals and get a refresher course. You'd be amazed at how much people don't realize the importance of being a deacon outside of taking offerings and landscaping. Hope this answers some of your questions. Keep 'em comin

Greg...

Thanks for your comment. I totally agree with supporting missionaries at home and abroad, especially now that they must do a lot more fundraising. The problem is that there are many who are more complacent to just give to missionaries than be one as well thinking they've met their responsibility which they are called to. Missionaries need our support and I gladly give to their work wherever I can both in money and in time. I think the word used now is "glocal"--be both globally and locally focused in missions. Hmmm... that might be my next blog post.