I have been reading this book called “Man Enough” by Nate Pyle because I have been doing a personal study on the manhood and masculinity of Jesus. This book came up as a direct reference to that subject. However I have been a bit disappointed since the author is Egalitarian.

The book begins with his personal struggle of trying to prove himself as a man. This seems to be the premise of his book instead of an objective study from scripture about manhood. Essentially he argues that there is no one way to express masculinity. I somewhat agree, but not the way he is advocating. Tanner Guzy, Author of the Appearance of Power, suggests there are three arch types of masculinity that most men can identify with: Refined, Rugged and Rakish. However, this author is satisfied to settle for no objective standard of masculinity.

He does rightly pointed out how Jesus pretty much offends everybody by not fitting into anybody’s stereotype. Jesus shows humility and submission and an unwillingness to fight which may be considered not masculine by some. But he makes a stretch to emasculate Jesus’ righteous indignation at the temple when he overturned the tables and when he is portrayed as a conquering warrior in the book of Revelation:

However, a closer look reveals that the rider’s robe, as described in verse 13, has been dipped in blood before Jesus even encounters his enemies. This has led many to argue that the blood on the robe is not the blood of Jesus’ enemies but is his own blood.

Our culture celebrates this Jesus, but some in the ancient Roman culture interpreted the indignant anger of Jesus in the temple as an effeminate characteristic. 21 In fact, Marcus Aurelius, the emperor-philosopher, wrote, “In moments of anger, let the thought always be present that loss of temper is no sign of manliness, but that there is more virility, as well as more natural humanity, in one who shows himself gentle and peaceable . . . Anger is as much a mark of weakness as is grief; in both of them men receive a wound and submit to a defeat.”..Men don’t need to learn how to fight, how to be wild, or how to kill a bear to become manlier. Holding Jesus as our example, we see that men need to learn how to be humble and serve others. And honestly, imitating the humility of Christ, being willing to be seen as a lesser man in the eyes of others, takes an incredible amount of courage.

He goes on to say something about what it would be like to act like Jesus in marriage. The idea of mutual submission has always been something I’ve heard preached but, I do not tend to agree with this anymore.

Jesus, in becoming human, emptied himself. This does not mean Jesus emptied himself of his divinity. Quite the contrary. But to be fully human, Jesus needed to subject his divine prerogative to the limitations of humanity. Thus we see Jesus limited in things like knowing when he will return and being able to do only what he sees the Father doing. What would it look like for men to willingly empty themselves? To give up their position to another? To stop requiring other men to prove themselves? For husbands to serve their wives in a relationship of mutual submission?

Jesus never submits to his church, although he does serve her and give himself for her good. To answer his question, what with mutual submission look like? It would look like a dead bedroom.

He straight up denies that there is a crisis in masculinity in our society:

Many would have us believe there is a universal ideal of masculinity, that there is one way to be a man in the world. These same people are the ones who would have us believe that masculinity is under attack in America. They feel as though men can no longer be men but are being feminized by the world around them. Anyone who is deemed too feminine —liberals, women, homosexuals, educated, Europeans, stay-at-home dads —are pegged as the enemy working for the destruction of not only the American male but American society as a whole. Listen to them long enough, and you might be tempted to place manliness on an endangered species list because of the threat it faces.

My take away on this book is that it is profitable to read it simply for the sake of understanding the beta arguments. He does challenge some of our cultural definitions of masculinity and compares them to the counter cultural examples of Jesus. However, he fails intentionally to define masculinity in a way that makes it distinct from femininity.

Better book that I’ve read is called: “ The Masculine Mandate” by Richard Phillips. I think it’s more faithful to scripture and it defines masculinity apart from femininity from the book of Genesis at the very creation when God made male and female. Has anybody else read this book or have any other thoughts?