The evangelical church in the US needs to do a better job reaching men. And just as we are willing to play loud rock music to attract a younger crowd, or pretend we like hip hop like John Piper (as long as it's drowned in Reformed theological references), we also need to be able to meet men where they are. Many US American men are going to be stereo-typical. That's the truth—like it or not. They're going to be beer-drinking, sports-loving, less-in-touch-with-their-feelings. Let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't generally true.

It is also a fact that Mark Driscoll, like him or not, has massive appeal with a large and growing number of young, evangelical men in the US. He may be brash, he may even be vulgar at times, but he has met these men where they are and delivered faith in Christ to them.

I certainly do not agree with Driscoll on much. In fact, I get the feeling he's a little too threatened by these "effeminate" worship leaders. (Methinks he might protest a bit too much.) Nevertheless, I want to address the backlash against his tweet, as well as the backlash against the backlash.

Recently Mark Driscoll tweeted, no doubt insensitively, requesting stories from followers about "effeminate" worship leaders. The reaction from women and feminists of both genders was immediate. Champions of the theoretical kinder, gentler manhood condemned Driscoll's comments and called him to account. A clear example was Rachel Held Evans' response. In it she accuses Driscoll of being a bully. Enter Anthony Bradley. Bradley then responds to the response with his own correction. He accuses Evans of libel—saying also that because of the oral culture of the New Testament libel is the same as slander.

So I guess you call this post a response to the response to the response. I just have a few thoughts:

1) Men Should be Men—And Men Should be United with Christ

Since becoming a follower of Christ, I have certainly grown emotionally. Thank God he provided me with his Spirit to guide me into other-focused love and nonviolence, and with godly men who could model Christian manhood before me. I have learned not to fear searching my emotions, allowing God to heal me emotionally, and to seek emotional health. Nevertheless, manhood does not get swallowed up in Christ.

"The center of the self—a center that is both inside and outside—is the story of Jesus Christ, which has become the story of the self. More precisely, the center is Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected who has become part and parcel of the very structure of the self. What happened to the self in the process of re-centering? Has the self simply been erased? Has its own proper center been simply replaced by an alien center—Jesus Christ the crucified and resurrected? Not exactly. For if Christ "lives in me," as Paul says, then I must have a center that is distinct from "Christ, the center." And so Paul continues, "And the life I now live in the flesh I live…" By the process of de-centering the self did not lose a center of its own, but received a new center that both transformed and reinforced the old one. Re-centering entails no self-obliterating denial of the self that dissolves the self in Christ and therefore legitimizes other such dissolutions in the "father," the "husband," the "nation," the "church," and the like. To the contrary, re-centering establishes the most proper and unassailable center that allows the self to stand over against persons and institutions which may threaten to smother it."

- Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, p.70-71

Christians are still both male and female—not some androgynous gender amalgam. Christians retain their particularity even after being united with Christ. Christians are still African, Korean, US American, rich, poor, short, tall. You and I can hope and pray that men will forsake the destructive and sinful stereo-types of manhood that lead to abusive, violent, and emotionally unhealthy behavior. This is a noble hope. But we also need to be willing to walk along-side men who haven't arrived yet.

I vividly remember when singing songs to God felt too feminine to me and though I loved God, I couldn't bring myself to join in public worship with my brothers and sisters. I wasn't rebuked for impiety; I was unconditionally loved and men modeled a manhood that was courageous and kind before me. I slowly saw that it was insecurity that prevented me from expressing myself to God. I was freed from that particular obstacle. How many of today's feminist Christians would just call that version of myself a sexist Neanderthal?

The evangelical church in the US needs to cultivate a missional spirit toward men—not a "missionary" spirit. Men don't need to be "fixed." Men need to be united with Christ.

2) A Public Error Gets a Public Correction

Driscoll's error was insensitivity. His tweet was inappropriate, and he admits it. And he acknowledges that the correction he received was good and helpful. Rachel Held Evans was right to respond to a public message with her own public message. A public error gets a public correction.

3) Jesus Spoke Harsh Words of Rebuke (It's in the Bible)

Bradley isn't entirely correct. Yes, we need to offer each other love, but we also need to correct error. These two aims are not mutually exclusive. Let's not forget that the embodiment of love—Jesus—rebuked the Pharisees (religious leaders) with seemingly harsh language. Let's not sweep that fact under the rug because it doesn't fit into the culture in which we live—a culture that exalts tolerance at all costs above all other virtues. Jesus was willing to rebuke those he loved and for whom he would give his life. Jesus was willing to divide families over faith. Jesus was willing to draw a line in the sand—on this side is Truth, on the other side is Falsehood.

I can already hear the objection: "But, but that was Jesus. He's God. He can do that. We can't." Jesus' disciples don't agree. Paul certainly followed his Master's example. He rebuked hypocrites—even if they were apostles. He confronted falsehood. And Stephen also carries on the tradition of using harsh words with religious hypocrites.

Conclusion:

Mark Driscoll can be an insensitive jerk at times. And I certainly don't agree with much of his theology. But Driscoll understands one very important thing the church in the US is ignoring more and more: Men and Manhood matter. I applaud Driscoll for this recognition.

Should Evans have publicly rebuked Driscoll for his insensitivity? Yes.

Should Bradley have publicly rebuked Evans for publicly rebuking Driscoll? No.