It is undoubtedly true that today's young men need
encouragement and in many cases a bit of a 'push' toward adulthood. Lingering
adolescence has led many to say (and not without reason) that 30 is the new 18.
In other words, many young men are not ready to start adult life until an age
that in past generations was already seasoned adulthood, usually including a
family, house and probably something akin to journeyman status in a career.
The reasons for this are many and they're worth exploring.
It's an undisputed social problem and one that Church should be on top of. It's
bad enough that in the wider society many twenty-five year old males are still
sleeping on their parent's sofa and staying up all night eating junk food and
playing video games, but this sort of thing should not be happening within the
Christian community.
To be fair, many Christian intellectuals are addressing this
problem and they are to be lauded for doing so. However, I have noticed a trend
and trajectory in the discussion of 'manliness' that I find problematic.
Repeatedly I hear examples given with regard to manliness and masculinity that
are tied to the warrior ethos. Specifically I keep hearing allusions to the
2003 film Master and Commander. This
I believe is a mistake and represents what for Christians should be called an erroneous analogy.
The exceedingly well done Napoleonic era naval film struck
many because of the role played by boys and young men. This was the British Navy.
Officer careers often commenced at a very early age. Your life was given to the
sea and the responsibility of leading a ship was so great that the training
began very young. These midshipmen were in what was effectively a mentorship
programme that at a later time in the 19th century was replaced by
formal education at a naval college, the model that is used today. But
undoubtedly it can be said that many an 18 year old midshipman in the 18th
and 19th century would have already been well seasoned in
leadership, responsibility, battle, hardship and even autonomy. In an era that
lacked youth culture, young people grew up early.
As we can all probably attest with regard to parents or
grandparents, times were different and often young people were forced to
venture out into life to support their family or make their way. My father quit
high school in the 10th grade and went to work because his family
needed the money. My mother-in-law left home at fifteen and worked and lived at
something akin to a boarding house/restaurant while she finished high school
and then went on to nursing school. We know these stories and while we wouldn't
wish such hardship on our own children we acknowledge that such hardship built
character. There's a good and bad side to such stories and experiences and many
reflective parents today struggle with such questions... not wanting to throw
their children to the wolves and yet at the same time afraid of coddling them.
As a parent of teens and young adults I can say that it's not easy. In our case
financial limitations helps to make the decision for us in some respects.
But I do wish that Christian leaders would cease and desist
in utilising the 'Master and Commander' analogy or any other appeal to the
warrior ethos.
Let's be candid. The British Navy was a wretched and immoral
institution that kidnapped (or 'pressed') people and forced them into service.
It was the bastion of a large immoral empire that was guilty of murder and
theft on massive scale. The Navy was party to this theft as it supported the
projects, goals and agenda of empire. And perhaps what should offend us more is
that these acts were done under the pretended auspices of morality and honour
and worse, it groomed young men to follow in this path and to embrace its
ideology and ethos.
I remember watching the film and thinking about the role of
young men but also how rather sick and disgusting it all was. It struck me as a
bit sad, but in no way did I equate such expressions of 'manliness' with
Christianity. Biblical manliness should never be rooted in the warrior ethos.
But what about the Old Testament warrior-saints someone will
certainly ask. This is where hermeneutics and typology play such an important
role. Old Testament warriors were sacral, fighting righteous wars of the Lord
in an epoch in which blood and sword combat was right and proper because it was
part of a larger typology pointing to the Warrior of the Lord, the Captain of
Salvation, the Conquering King. They were not fighting for king and country or
for glory and honour but for the Heavenly King and Kingdom. All other wars were
unrighteous, murderous and part of the fallen worldly order.
The literal Holy Wars of the Old Testament do not exist today
outside the Spiritual Realm... where indeed we are in fact warriors engaged in
combat, not in a temporal battle over symbolic treasures and bits of land...
but the eternal battle of the ages for the Kingdom and the larger eternal
cosmos.
Old Testament warfare operated on the principle of Intrusion,
the Judgment that is normally restrained by God's Common Grace was by Divine
command effected or implemented by God's agents. They were quite literally
agents or vicegerents of Christ. In other words, His typological proxies
implemented on an earthly scale the Judgment that was due and foreshadowed the
eternal Judgment that was to come. Only God can bring to bear the judgment and
doom that is due to men. Only then was it righteous bloodshed. This type of war
has no analogy in the New Covenant order, wherein we are called to the
principle of nonresistance and to bear the cross.
Even those who had killed in the Name of the Lord were still
tainted and required to go through a time of purification (Numbers 31.19). In
other words even such obedience-rooted battlefield glory was still tainted,
polluted by the stain of sin. This also tells us that such acts were part of
the temporary order that was the Old Covenant, the order that passed away with
the Resurrection of Christ. We are called to a higher ethic, to heavenly
citizenship and though few seem to understand this... we're called to imitate
Christ and follow his martyr road. This is actually the antithesis of the ethic
and ethos of the warrior... at least the warrior as understood by the world,
the type of warriors that fought Napoleon and are depicted in the Master and
Commander film.
On the contrary, Biblical manliness is rooted in work,
responsibility and Christian leadership, in other words, piety. Would anyone
accuse an Amish man of being effeminate or lacking in manliness? And yet this
manliness is produced in a way wholly divorced from the warrior ethos.
We are all soldiers of a type but the weapons of our warfare
are not carnal.
And truth be told, we ought to be careful in appealing to the
previous generation. Growing up 'young' can build character but it can also
breed bitterness and foster error. A young man on his own, with money in his
pocket, thrown to the wolves (as it were) can get into a lot of trouble and
quickly at that.
There's an order to things. It's not easy. In fact it's
terribly difficult. Don't throw them to the wolves but don't pamper them
either. I have been conscious of this since 'day one' and yet as I am even now
dealing with young adults... I must confess that I find it much harder than I
had anticipated.
I want my sons to be men but I don't ever want them to equate
manhood with the warrior ethos. It's hard thing in our culture where both the
warrior ethos (with its values of pride and vengeance) and sodomite effeminacy
seem to be the two models so many look to, the two alternatives. We must
heartily and vigorously reject both.
I heard one preacher argue that young men should be saving
their money so that they can get married and buy a house.
Saving money is a good idea and yet it also has some dangers.
Once again the ethics of the New Testament prove difficult to apply in the
industrial age, the age of capitalism where cash is paramount. What's laying up
too much? At what point does saving money lead to an abandonment of trust in
God for daily bread? Do we take the Sermon on the Mount seriously or not? I
think so and therefore we must ask at what point does it (saving, investing,
finding security in property) become tantamount to seeking the things the
Gentiles seek after and not living by faith... that God will provide for today?
I don't know. I don't believe there is a pat answer. Once
again wisdom is what is required and all too often wisdom defies any kind of
formulaic or categorical answer.
So while my kids are saving money from their work, am I
encouraging my sons to save money for a down payment on a house? I have mixed
feelings. Those that are destined for marriage are wise not to wait too long
and thus there is a degree of prudence in preparing for marriage, yet there's
no need to rush. Not everyone need follow the middle-class pathway with its
expectations... which includes home ownership. I understand the concerns in
this regard, and the many (but largely bogus) arguments with regard to
stewardship but I've also had to re-think and reconsider a lot of these
paradigms. I certainly would not equate the middle-class path with masculinity
and manliness. I appreciate the point being made by the preacher mentioned
above. His push to save is primarily about responsibility and growing up and to
a certain extent I would agree with him. But my point is this, even such
concepts as responsibility are not so easily defined. We ought to be careful.
In the end we do need to encourage our young people to grow
up and certainly our young men need to be encouraged toward a path of
manliness. Our culture is at war with the concept. But even in admitting that
we also need to proclaim that not all historical and cultural analogies are
helpful or even valid.