There's a lot of conversation among evangelicals about manhood and womanhood. What strikes me is how little of the conversation is rooted in anything the Bible says--because the Bible does not say much about what it means to be a man *in distinction to being a woman* & vice versa
There's a culture of machismo in some corners of evangelicalism that dresses up "traditional" (1950s) masculinity as "Biblical": Men must be physically strong, assertive leaders, breadwinners, protectors, etc. Go read @kkdumez book.
Thing is, all these notions of "traditional" masculinity mostly don't come from the Bible; they come from culture and biology. Testosterone makes muscles grow and tends to incline people to stronger feelings of aggression, competition, and drive. These traits get called "manly."
So the evangelical model of traditional masculinity commits the classic "is-ought" fallacy: it takes the raw data of nature and turns it into a moral imperative.
That's just wrong on its face for all the reasons Hume said like three hundred years ago.
Much of traditional masculinity is just a baptized version of cultural stereotypes rooted in premodern life.
In fact, the Bible tells us to resist our fallen and sinful nature and cultivate humility, patience, and selflessness.
"Men should be manly men" isn't in the Bible.
The better proponents try to link traditional masculinity to certain virtues, such as protecting and serving, showing courage, etc.
Of course women can also practice these virtues--which illustrates how hard it is to say anything about manhood *distinct from womanhood*.
This isn't a commentary on complementarian theology, and I am not arguing that there are no meaningful differences between men and women--there are lots!--but pointing out that most of the ways we turn those differences into cultural norms and moral rules aren't in the Bible.
If there is an essential model of "manhood" to which we should aspire, it probably isn't *cultivating* aggression, drive, and competitiveness, but learning how to cope with what's already there, how to channel it, put it to good use, not abuse it for selfish gain.
Last point: I'm fairly terrified to share thoughts like these because it is such a minefield and a sensitive topic. If you think I've said it badly or you feel hurt by something here, I invite you to tell me directly. I'd prefer that to what's more typical on Twitter.
Ok, I have another take on the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Considering I recently wrote a book on just war, I should say something about the moral aspect of the conflict.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that deliberately murders civilians and says it wants to destroy Israel.
Verdict: unjust, **no matter what you think of the Palestinians' cause**.
This isn't hard, people.
If you sympathize with the Palestinians, you should hate Hamas. Hamas is the greatest enemy of the Palestinians. It hijacked Palestinian autonomy for its jihadist ideology and made it essentially impossible to support Gaza without being complicit with terrorism.
Jesus movies generally don't work. Growing up I watched Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth," (1977) and the old-Hollywood big-budget "King of Kings" (1961). Never thought very highly of them. They make Jesus look stoned or boring.
There's a real challenge presenting Jesus in a dramatic narrative. It's hard to give him a character arc. Arcs depend on overcoming weakness, flaw, or failure. See also: Paradise Lost. God shows up and turns the tide of battle without effort. It's not dramatically satisfying.
So years ago I remarked to a friend that the real way to make a Jesus movie was to make the movie about Peter. Peter works better as a main character because he is us: relatably flawed, entirely and only human, and sometime a little dumb.
"You're not allowed to condemn one bad thing unless you condemn all bad things in the order and with the intensity I prefer," is another bad take.
I've seen a lot of "If you didn't condemn the riots last summer, I don't want to hear about the Capitol riot." For the record, I did condemn the riots (and the police brutality) last summer. But so what if I didn't? So what if we choose different battles to fight?
I used to get upset when people didn't care about my pet issue--the war in Afghanistan--as much as I did. It took me years to make peace with the fact that most of you don't care and never will, even though it is literally a matter of life and death. It still hurts a little, tbh.
When I studied terrorism in South Asia, I ran across a lot of literature on "de-radicalization." One thing I recall is that de-rad program were most successful when they were locally driven and involved religious leaders. In other words....
Imams who didn't believe in terrorism were the best at teaching young men to not be terrorists. They taught a version of Islam that did not lead to violence. These programs worked better than government-run programs or attempts at "modernization" whatever that is. That means....
Applying that insight to today: Christian pastors have a special responsibility and burden. They have a unique role in "de-radicalizing" the people in their pews. They need to teach the difference between Christianity and Christian nationalism.
This rings hollow unless it's accompanied by a recognition of, and repentance for, how we got here. Trump's defenders, like Mohler, defended, justified, and explained Trump till now but draw the line at rioting. Maybe the road that led to the riots needs reexamination.
To put it another way, if you argue, as Mohler did, that Christians should vote for Trump with full knowledge of Trump's character and record, then you own the consequences. Pleading ignorance ("I didn't know he'd incite a riot") rings hollow because we warned this would happen
People who study politics and history for a living *knew what Trump was* from the beginning. He's a demagogue. We are not surprised by this and we warned you about it *years ago*. Trump has never shown much regard for the constitution, and today was only the latest proof.
I see folks are ranking Star Wars again. So let me step in here and help you out.
Here is the definitive ranking of Star Wars.
Now, to do this right, we can’t just rank the Skywalker saga. We have to include the spinoffs. The cartoons. The TV series. Yes, the holidays specials. We’re going to do pretty much all of it, folks.
I will not be ranking animated shorts: Forces of Destiny, Galaxy of Adventures, Blips, Rollout. I’m going to skip the Droids and Ewoks cartoons (1985 - 87) and most Lego Star Wars content. We have to draw a line somewhere.