Jordan Peterson Church

Jordan Peterson’s Church Advice Is Mostly Right

Mark Tooley on July 19, 2022

Canadian pop public thinker Jordan Peterson, a non-Christian, has of course generated controversy with his recent video message to churches urging them to appeal especially to young men. Here’s his most cited quote:

The Christian Church is there to remind people, young men included, and perhaps even first and foremost, that they have a woman to find, a garden to walk in, a family to nurture, an ark to build, a land to conquer, a ladder to heaven to build, and the utter terrible catastrophe of life, to face stalwartly in truth, devoted to love and without fear.

Christian critics rightly respond that churches don’t build ladders to heaven but point to the ladder that God in His grace lowers down from heaven to undeserving humanity. Peterson is a classicist and a stoic who extols traditional heroic virtues. He’s not a theologian who offers insights about Christian salvation.

But Peterson does offer insights about what Western culture needs from churches, which includes firm guidance, direction, purpose, hope, especially for directionless young men. This cohort, at best, can become permanent basement dwellers in their parents’ home, inhabiting an internet-focused and cannabis-fueled alternative reality. At worst, they become drug dealers, cult members, extremist political fanatics, gang members, serial impregnators of random women, or suicidal shooters. Directionless young men are a bane on every society. Peterson is right that they merit special concern by churches. So he counsels:

To the churches…Protestant – you’re the worst at the moment, Catholic, Orthodox, invite young men. Put up a billboard, saying young men are welcome here.

Peterson’s words are relevant for all American Christianity. They seem especially pertinent for new church movements and denominations, such as the Global Methodist Church (GMC), which is emerging from the splitting United Methodist Church. If it is to survive and succeed, the GMC, unlike liberal Mainline Protestantism, must target young men, many if not most of whom have little to no exposure to institutional Christianity. Peterson advises:

Tell those who have never been in a church exactly what to do, how to dress, when to show up, who to contact and most importantly, what they can do. Ask more, not less of those you are inviting. Ask more of them than anyone ever has. Remind them who they are in the deepest sense, and help them become that. 

Here is Peterson’s key phrase: “Ask more of them than anyone ever has.” This wisdom has informed every long term successful religious movement in history. Christ Himself declared: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Every compelling religious figure, whether saint or rogue, has understood that ambivalence, low commitment, ambiguity and minimal expectations are the death of any spiritual community.

We have seen the painful results of churches that obfuscate about doctrinal and moral standards, that don’t expect regular attendance and financial commitment, that stress superficial welcome and inclusion over content and purpose, that imagine their mission is affirmation over salvation and transformation, that draw no lines and have no boundaries, except against persons who do have boundaries. During the recent pandemic thousands of these churches, far exceeding the requirements of public health, closed for many months and sometimes years, effectively telling their members that church is less important than shopping or vacations, sports or hobbies. Some excused their prolonged closures through internet “worship” as though it were a long term adequate substitute for the incarnated Body of Christ.

Many, perhaps most, of these low commitment churches will never recover or, sadly, even survive. A church that can close for a year or two years is clearly not urgently needed or even relevant in a busy world. Oddly, many of these churches that are so ambivalent about doctrine, public worship, and personal ethics are outspoken and exacting about politics. To them, Peterson says:

You’re churches for God’s sake. Quit fighting for social justice. Quit saving the planet. Attend to some souls. That’s what you’re supposed to do. That’s your holy duty. Do it now, before it’s too late. The hour is nigh.

Christians are of course concerned for justice on earth as they pray “thy Kingdom come.” But Peterson is right that the chief concern of the institutional church is the salvation of souls, transformed lives and the pursuit of holiness absent which nobody sees God. Only personal experience with God can revive and sustain the churches. Peterson seems not to have had any such personal transformative encounter himself with God but he maybe recognizes the imperative and power of such a meeting.

As to Peterson’s appeal for churches to reach young men, here is my prayer. I hope my corner of USA Christianity, which is traditional Methodism, including the GMC, will focus particularly on reaching Hispanic young men and the young men of immigrant communities. Dying Mainline Protestantism has largely ignored non-Anglos and consequently is comprised almost exclusively of older white people. I pray the GMC and other churches recruit young Hispanic preachers trained in Wesleyan doctrine to plant thousands of new congregations where the Holy Ghost is present and recognized.

Such churches, and all vital churches, will recognize another insight from Peterson’s video. He warned against young men and others who object to churches based on what they personally believe. Set aside what you think you believe and your accompanying egotism, he said. You are not the focus of the universe. Or as Christ admonished: Let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

  1. Comment by John Kenyon on July 19, 2022 at 1:39 pm

    Jordan Peterson is not a pop thinker, but otherwise this is an ok take on him. The challenge is to preach and teach, “Let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” The US military does a better job at casting issue than churches that serve the eucharist as a free ticket to heaven. What did Jesus mean?

  2. Comment by Bates Estabrooks on July 19, 2022 at 1:54 pm

    Churches need to place an emphasis on male leadership, and the sacred responsibilities that go with it.

  3. Comment by David on July 19, 2022 at 3:05 pm

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/millennials-are-leaving-religion-and-not-coming-back/

  4. Comment by John Kenyon on July 19, 2022 at 4:44 pm

    With respect Bates Estabrooks, you not only need to read the bible to see the failure of male leaders in Judeo-Christianity and the worth of many women leaders, you need to stop running naked, and I too, before the clear demands of the new covenant we cut in the body of blood of Jesus Christ.

  5. Comment by David Virtue on July 19, 2022 at 5:15 pm

    Peterson’s take is a perfect example of works righteousness without the gospel. It looks and sounds fine but it is not first and foremost the proclamation of Good News. Sad.

  6. Comment by Roger on July 19, 2022 at 5:27 pm

    The Church has to do a better overall outreach and create a church family atmosphere. Pastors have only a few members they rely on for administration, regardless of Church organization. Transparency is the key. Recent Polls say only 17% of homes with children engage the Church. Also for Chjurch goers, only 1 in 6 reads their Bible at home on their own. 29% never read it al all on their own. The overall Church is failing in Leadership by Pastors and Laity. Today, we have so many outside Church distractions, it’s hard to get someone interested in attending your Church.

  7. Comment by Tom on July 19, 2022 at 5:51 pm

    Preach the gospel. Our church just added 20 new members last month, and only 2 were over 37.

  8. Comment by John Kenyon on July 19, 2022 at 9:50 pm

    Well, Beav. Looks like you’ve got the pro-men, pro-Calvinist, pro-family crowd on your side. Cool. Who wants to commit their lives and property? Sounds like the right formula for the Global Methodist Church. Love ya. Wally (btw you might want to check out Christianity in the nations where Christians stake their lives and lose them).

  9. Comment by Loren J Golden on July 20, 2022 at 12:04 am

    With all due respect, Mr. Kenyon, but Scripture does not record “many women leaders” over against “the failure of male leaders.”  Nearly all the Old Testament prophets were men, including all who prophesied to the nation as a whole (Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.); the Aaronic priesthood was exclusively male, as were the anointed kings of Israel and Judah (Athaliah, the only reigning queen, was a usurper); and the twelve Apostles were all men.  The only “woman leader” who seems to fit the bill is the Prophetess and Judge Deborah, but as Piper and Grudem have pointed out, “The period of the judges is an especially precarious foundation for building a vision of God’s ideal for leadership.” (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p. 72)  And as Calvin wrote (Commentary on I Tim. 2.12),
     

    If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah (Judg. 4.4) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy.  Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound.  Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.

     
    The “ordinary system of (Church) government,” according to Scripture, is by men appointed by God.  Elders (or bishops; Paul uses the two terms interchangeably) and deacons are required to be “the husband of one wife” (I Tim. 3.2,12, Tit. 1.6; Gk. μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα), distinct from “the wife of one husband” (I Tim. 5.9).  And lest there be any confusion, Paul, in the passage immediately preceding the giving of the requirements for officers in the church in I Timothy 3, wrote, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.  I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.  Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (I Tim. 2.11-15)  By placing this passage immediately prior to the passage where he outlines the requirements for office in the Church, Paul is clearly indicating that the offices of elder and deacon are to be reserved solely for men who meet the requirements for these offices.
     
    That being said, and to your point, there are many examples in Scripture wherein godly men have had a colossal moral failure, especially in their leadership of women.  And I can think of no clearer example of this than David, in his seduction of Bathsheba.  First, David was where he was not supposed to be: “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle…David remained at Jerusalem.” (II Sam. 11.1)  He sent Joab and his army, but he himself stayed at home.  He did not exercise leadership over the men under his command.  Second, because he was at home, David saw from his roof a woman bathing on hers and was taken by her beauty (II Sam. 11.2).  Consequently, he lusted for her in his heart and abused his authority by sending for her.  Further, she was no ordinary woman; she was the wife of one of his mighty men who stood by him when he was on the run from King Saul, Uriah the Hittite, and the daughter of another, Eliam the son of Ahithophel (II Sam. 11.3, 23.8-39).  Complicating matters, her grandfather, Ahithophel, was one of David’s most trusted counselors, who defected to his son Absalom during the rebellion (likely because of David’s abuse of his granddaughter) and hanged himself after Absalom spurned his wise counsel (II Sam. 15.12,31, 17.1-23).  These were men to whom David owed a great debt of gratitude, and who would be greatly offended by his wicked treatment of Bathsheba.  David suffered a colossal failure of moral leadership, which had “given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme” (II Sam. 12.14 NKJV).
     
    David’s sin deserved death, as he himself admitted (II Sam. 12.5).  Yet, the Lord had found in David, “a man after my own heart, who will do all my will” (I Sam. 13.14, Acts 13.22), and “David…served the purpose of God in his own generation.” (Acts 13.36)  David repented of his sin, and the Lord spared his life (II Sam. 12.13).  And because He spared his life, David gave us the perfect picture of what it looks like for a godly man to grieve his sin and repent of it (Ps. 51).
     
    God uses the brokenness of godly men to lead His Church.  This is not to say, that men in office in the Church should continue in their sin and abuse their authority, for the Lord Jesus flatly condemned this attitude when He saw it in His own disciples.  “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.  It shall not be so among you.  But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mt. 20.25-28, Mk. 10.42-45, Lk. 22.25-27)  And giving us the perfect picture of what this servant leadership looks like, He washed their feet—a task typically performed by the lowliest of servants (Jn. 13.1-15).  It is this sort of leadership that He expects, not only in the Church, but also in the Christian home.
     
    Which is why it is so imperative that the officers of the Church be godly men.  Young men in particular, as Mr. Peterson hinted at, need not only to see this example in the Church, but also to be trained by those same leaders to emulate it in their own homes.  “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” wrote the Apostle Paul, because a woman cannot give a young man the leadership that he needs, regardless of how gifted and talented she might be.
     
    “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Eph. 5.25)  “Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” (I Pet. 3.7)  In this age of morally weak or absent fathers, there is a crying need for older godly men to disciple young men in how to grow in godliness.  (And no longer being a young man, I feel the Lord convicting my heart of this need, even as I write these words.  Who, after all, is discipling the young men who one day will be calling on my daughters, teaching and demonstrating to them how to be a godly man?)  And if for no reason but this alone, the earthly leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ need to be godly men.
     
    “I am writing these things to you so that…you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.” (I Tim. 3.14-15)

  10. Comment by David on July 20, 2022 at 2:24 pm

    Let us not forget the prophetess Huldah. When King Josiah want to inquire of the Lord, he sent a delegation including the High Priest to her.

    Ancient Greek culture that lingered on into the New Testament period treated women in a manner rather similar to that of today’s orthodox Muslim countries. From an early age, they were covered from neck to ankle. Women lived in the back of the house and did not receive male visitors or attend parties. The females one sees cavorting on vases were hired for the occasion. A common expression was, “A virtuous woman is one whose very name is unknown outside the house.”

  11. Comment by Loren J Golden on July 20, 2022 at 8:16 pm

    David,
     
    I did not forget Huldah.  She prophesied to the king (via his envoy), not to the nation as a whole.  Her words spoken in judgment against Judah simply reiterated judgments pronounced by other prophets, and are quite brief, in comparison with the others (II Kg. 22.15-20, II Chron. 34.23-28).
     
    In addition, you will kindly note that of the six cases of prophetesses in Scripture (discounting Noadiah, who is accounted a false prophetess; Neh. 6.14), not one of them prophesied without the named authority of a man with spiritual oversight over her (Ex. 15.20, Judg. 4.4, II Kg. 22.14, II Chron. 34.22, Is. 8.3, Lk. 2.36, Acts 21.8-9).
     
    “Ancient Greek culture that lingered on into the New Testament period treated women in a manner rather similar to that of today’s orthodox Muslim countries.  From an early age, they were covered from neck to ankle.  Women lived in the back of the house and did not receive male visitors or attend parties.  The females one sees cavorting on vases were hired for the occasion.  A common expression was, ‘A virtuous woman is one whose very name is unknown outside the house.’”
     
    First one moment, you point out a positive example of a woman ministering in the name of the Lord, and then the next, you cast aspersions on how women were treated in the New Testament, implying that the Church simply adopted the cultural mores of the Gentile culture around them and suppressed women.  Do the Biblical examples of Dorcas (Acts 9.36-42), Lydia (Acts 16.11-15), Priscilla (Acts 18.2-3,18,26, Rom. 16.3, I Cor. 16.19, II Tim. 4.19), Phoebe (Rom. 16.1-2), and many others (Acts 21.9, Rom. 16.6,7,12,15, Phil. 4.2-3, Col. 4.15, II Tim. 4.21) not suggest otherwise?  Or the Apostles’ specific commands, as to how husbands were to treat their wives (Eph. 5.25-33, I Pet. 3.7)?  The inconsistency in your statements is ludicrous.  Actually, I really think you’re trying quite hard to be a contrarian—too hard, in fact.  I think you should not try so hard, and just take the Bible seriously.  You might just find that you enjoy life more that way.

  12. Comment by Rayman on July 21, 2022 at 11:20 am

    Former Catholic now atheist comfortable in my own skin.
    Got my “education in facts” in school, went into the medical field; experience, reading and reflection got me my “de-education in faith.”
    As a kid Sundays, white shirt, tie, suit, wool “scratch pants,” listening to monsignor drone on, sometimes in the language of the old country. Long, stuffy, repetitive, boring high mass. Underlying threat and fear modus operandi of Christianity.
    No talking to us kids, no meet & greet, no BBQs, no church fair. All strangers. No community.

  13. Comment by Loren J Golden on July 21, 2022 at 10:49 pm

    Former Methodist, realized I needed to grow in my faith, but not under a pastor who did not know Jesus; now Evangelical Presbyterian, where I belong.
     
    God my education in facts in school, went into the engineering field.  Experience, reading, and reflection got me my education in faith.
     
    Formally dressed for church, not so much anymore.  Listening to the pastor bring the Word preached week in and week out, soaking it in, letting it convict me, letting it nourish my soul.  Love and hope in Jesus the modus operandi of Christianity.
     
    Engaging with fellow believers, breaking bread together, praying together, studying the Bible together.  All brothers and sisters.  Good God.  Fantastic community.  Unshakable faith.
     
    I am loved.

  14. Comment by Clayton Newberry on July 22, 2022 at 2:02 am

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been doing this for decades now. We give more to our young men (and young women) than any other denomination– and by several orders of magnitude ask more of them in return, and even get the results Peterson is talking about. What other church can raise its young men with the expectation that they will live worthy enough to represent the Church and the Savior after high school in missionary service, AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, to a place far from home NOT OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, with no dating, no sports, no movies, no internet– only community service and gospel proselytizing– FOR TWO YEARS? This is the expectation upon every young man growing up in the Church. They sign up by the thousands, and ever afterwards most of them call it the best two years of their life. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If you want a Church that takes care of its young people– and its older people– look no further.

  15. Comment by Loren J Golden on July 22, 2022 at 8:18 pm

    “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.  But even if we or an angel from heaven (Moroni fits the bill) should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (Gk. ανάθεμα).  As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1.6-9, emphasis added)
     
    Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, claimed to have received a direct revelation from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, both of whom ostensibly appeared to him simultaneously and told him that all Christian denominations were wrong, inasmuch as the Scriptures they possessed were fraught with errors, some of which were typographical and others misinterpretations and mistranslations, often for selfish reasons.  Subsequently, Smith came to believe that God had called him to be His prophet, and on that basis to “correct” and add to the Scriptures, ultimately adding or modifying 2427 verses of Scripture.  Among his additions was this little gem tacked onto the end of the Book of Genesis (quoted from Blue Letter Bible, “Exposé of Mormonism,” Chapter 2: The Bible):
     

    And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you, for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be like unto you, for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.

     
    Smith had the temerity to emend the text of Scripture, in order to add a prophecy claiming divine sanction on his ministry to “bring (the Lord’s) people unto salvation.”  The Lord Jesus, on the other hand, wrote no Scriptures, nor did He or His Apostles emend any of the Old Testament Scriptures, saying, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Mt. 5.17)  Again, “Scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10.35), whereas Smith that the Scripture was, in fact, broken and had to be emended.  And the Lord Jesus had no need to emend the text of Scripture to say that He would save His people from their sins, for an angel of the Lord announced this to His adoptive father Joseph in a dream (Mt. 1.21).
     
    As a result of Smith’s additions and revisions, his followers are taught that Christ’s death atoned for most sins for all people—a universal atonement, of sorts.  Contra Scripture (Is. 53, Rom. 3.25, 5.8-9, Heb. 2.17, I Jn. 2.2, 4.10), Mormonism teaches that Christ did not bear the wrath of God on the Cross as punishment for our sins, but rather His suffering, partly on the Cross, but more especially in His agonized prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, atones for sins in some mysterious way, but not all sins.

    Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ.  If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent.  Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood atone, as far as possible, in their behalf.  This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the church. (Quoted from Joseph F. Smith, Doctrine of Salvation, Vol. I, p. 135)

     
    The aim of salvation in Scripture, as summarized by the answer to the first question in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”  Scripture does not elaborate beyond this, emphasizing that we will be with the Lord, enjoying fellowship with Him and our fellow believers for all eternity.  Mormonism does not dispute this, but adds elements to it that contradict Scripture.  The ultimate goal of the Mormon is to achieve eternal life in the Celestial Kingdom, where “we will live as gods and live with our spouses and continue to procreate.” (Kevin DeYoung, “Mormonism 101”)  This flatly contradicts what the Lord Jesus said in answer to the Sadducees, who had approached him asking whose childless wife would a woman be among seven brothers who had successively married her before dying.  He said, “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Mt. 22.30, Mk. 12.25, Lk. 20.35)  Likewise, the Apostle Paul affirmed that marriage in this world is dissolved upon the death of a spouse (Rom. 7.1-3).
     
    What I seek in a church, first and foremost, is that it unashamedly preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ—not “a different gospel,” such as the “social gospel” of Theological Liberalism, nor the “gospel” ostensibly recovered by Joseph Smith in the 19th Century—and teaches the whole counsel of God, as given to us in the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New—without adding anything to it or subtracting anything from it, in violation of Scripture (Dt. 4.2, 12.32, Prov. 30.6, Rev. 22.18-19).  Such, however, cannot be found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

  16. Comment by Stephanie Jenkins on July 23, 2022 at 9:55 am

    I have thought for a long time that the emphasis to incorporate women into roles in the church has gone overboard. Particularly, in the Episcopal church, it seems to me most of the leaders are women now and they are angry and progressive. There should be a balance of both and neither should be so angry about social justice issues. Leading people to Christ should be the number one mission of leaders.

  17. Comment by Search4Truth on July 23, 2022 at 1:56 pm

    Anyone interested in the research that shows that when you convert the child, 8% of the time it brings in the family. When you convert the mother, 24% of the time it brings in the family. When you convert the father, 74% of the time it brings in the family.
    Just wondering?

  18. Comment by Chet Klinger on July 23, 2022 at 3:01 pm

    Many churches have men’s groups. Mostly fellowship. Some in Bible study. Others in mission. Some churches have no men’s groups. Many died off when the men died, or left, or stopped coming back. Thriving churches have thriving men’s groups. Not just some guys gathering in the kitchen or at some local coffee shop. Thriving churches are intentional about engaging men – in prayer in every aspect of their gatherings and in private at their homes. In Scriptures, with Bible study, on-line, in person, on Sundays and other days of the week, reading, analyzing, being open to council of the Holy Spirit. In Outreach Missions, in the field, around the campus, building up, tearing down, serving the community in youth programs, elder care, scouting, and missonary work. In service within the church, singing, ushering, maintenance, parking assistance, technical support. In fellowship, sharing their triumphs, tribulations, trials, and temptations. In support of the church and Men’s associations financially. In training, coaching, growing to be better disciples. Many churches have some of this. A church and its leaders may be as intentional in one, two or three of these areas, as they are with ministries to women, children, music, and worship. Most aren’t with respect to men. To be intentional in all these areas requires lifting up the men in the church beyond the shadows of the backrooms of the church. In its newsletters. In its announcements. In on-line postings. Recognizing men for their service to the church and their community. In 2005 (Thomas Nelson, Inc), David Murrow published a book, “Why Men Hate Going to Church”. The book compares churches which are more comfortable to women more than men, pastors who like to be admired by women than men, and men who would prefer to follow Jesus as a leader, not a lover. Many tips on how a church should look to a man who walks into a church for the first time. Flowers in the men’s rooms? Or something more manly. Some churches make men want to flee as soon as they enter. Or stay outside while his wife and kids “go to church”. The key is, “how intentional are churches at engaging men who are there?” Some men fall through the cracks or are ignored while attending services. Some clergy are intentional about engaging a new man. Others aren’t. For many men, especially as they get along in years, church is, or should be their second home, not the local bars or clubs that spend more time on the things of this earth rather than in heaven. As men grow in years they start losing something along the way. A spouse. Their health. Their jobs or careers. Their meaning or purpose. Being with other men such as this, wrapped in prayer, scripture, mission, fellowship and service to the church keeps their eyes upon Jesus and the things above as the world around us grows strangely dim.
    As the Bible says, the glory of young men is in their vitality, virility and vigor, and the glory of aging men is in the talent, experience and wisdom they gained through years of enduring trials, tribulations, and triumphs. Churches need to hold onto both, nurture both, and be intentional about engaging every man it makes connections with. And churches can learn from trying to put new wine into old wineskins, better to keep the old wine in the old skins which won’t leak and are aged to perfection, and start the new wine in new wine skins so they can grow together without leaking. Churches can also learn to prune the branches that no longer bear fruit and help the vine produce better fruit.

  19. Comment by Loren J Golden on July 23, 2022 at 3:10 pm

    Scripture bears this out, S4T.
     
    “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’  And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.’” (Acts 2.37-39, emphasis added)
     
    There are recorded in Scripture five household baptisms: The households of Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16.14-15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16.25-34), Crispus (Acts 18.8), and Stephanas (I Cor. 1.16).  With one exception, these were all men—fathers and husbands.
     
    And with respect to the third of these five examples, the Scriptures record:
    “When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.  But Paul cried with a loud voice, ‘Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.’  And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas.  Then he brought them out and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’  And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you, and your household.’” (vv. 27-31, emphasis added)
     
    When a man has a strong faith in Christ, lives his life according to that faith, howsoever imperfectly, and leads his family out of the strength that he draws from that faith, his family sees the difference that his faith makes in him, and his wife and children, more often than not, will want what he has.
     
    Yet if a man merely claims to have faith in Christ, yet does not live his life according to that faith, but follows in the ways of the world, his family sees that his “faith” is making no positive difference in his life, and his wife and children will not want what he claims to have but patently does not.
     
    Like it or not, God appointed the man, not the woman, to be the head of the household, just as Christ is the head of the Church (Gen. 3.16, I Cor. 11.3, Eph. 5.22-24, Col. 3.18, Tit. 2.5, I Pet. 3.1-6).  He has the tremendous privilege and the great responsibility of loving and protecting his wife and children, of leading them in the ways of the Lord, and of representing Christ the Lord to his wife and God the Father to his children.  And if he abuses or neglects his responsibility, he will have to answer to their Heavenly Father for how he misled or mistreated them, for “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10.31)
     
    Thus, it is so crucially important, as I have stressed above, for the godly men of the Church of Jesus Christ to discipline young men, leading and instructing them in the ways of the Lord, that they should know how they ought to love and protect their wives and children, teaching them how to lead their families in the ways of the Lord, how to represent Christ to their wives and God the Father to their children.  And if the godly men of the Church, rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the unchanging truth of the inerrant Word of God, neglect this great responsibility, who, then, will lead and instruct them?

  20. Comment by BG on July 24, 2022 at 10:54 am

    One day while attending my local Methodist Church I realized looking around the congregation that there were no boys who were jocks. There were no boys with any strong masculine appearance. It became apparent that the church had diminished the regard for strong male role models and that no young person aspiring to a strong role model was probably shown acceptance in youth programs. Those programs probably praised a more passive role for males. When high school graduation came around I noticed that all the boys graduating were aspiring to lesser male careers. It was clear that the masculine boys had gone somewhere else to church. With the split, I hope the GMC will make a point to recognize and encourage traditional male roles for our young boys. They need it.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.