Men's Meeting - 15th June 2008

Husbandry: The High Calling of Loving our Wives and Raising our Children
Eph 5:22-33. …For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, of which he is the saviour...

Introduction.
Let's get one thing straight: marriage is not for you! It's purpose is not for you and your wife.
Marriage has a purpose that is greater than you, greater than your wife, even greater than the sum total of your lives together. Marriage is not for you!
This is important: today marriage is thought of in terms of what will I get out of it? Am I being fulfilled? Does this relationship meet my needs? If not, why can't I find one that does.
Much Christian teaching goes on about fulfilment and wholeness and leads us down the same track: marriage is really for me.

Worse still, modern marriage has almost obliterated roles – husbands are rare -males in the house are common. Increasingly the role of a father and husband will have to be redefined afresh. This will effect how we have to disciple men.

Also, Christian men are meant to be nice, sweet, understanding, gentle, responsive guys. The model is feminized.

Right back in the beginning (Gen 2) God created Adam then Eve: God gave Adam his place and calling then God created women out of man as a " helper suitable for him". Calling, then marriage. The marriage enables the calling. Marriage is not for you!
Our marriages are for the world, for the church and for the future:-

- for the world: because they demonstrate to the world the life of the gospel in concrete reality. A happy, bustling Christian household is a tremendous witness.
- for the church: households form the church, Church leaders must be leaders of households;
- for the future: children, thought of biblically, orientate us towards the future. The Bible urges us to consider our grandchildren, not only our children.

Eph 5:22-33. …For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, of which he is the saviour...
What this shows us is that Christian Marriage is different all the way through. It is not so that the shell is different in a Christian marriage, but the nut inside is the same for Christian and non-Christian alike.

How? Because Paul roots husbandry in Christ Himself. Christ and His Bride are the model – the model is in what God Himself has done.

What does it mean to be a husband?
vv. 22ff. …For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, of which he is the saviour...
Remember that God commands us according to our weaknesses – if something is stressed in relation to a man or wife/woman, then there is a point being made:
When God ordained man to be head in Gen 2 he was talking about initiative

(1). men initiate, and

(2). women complete and glorify -
A man wants to build the house, the woman wants to make it into a home. Men start, women complete and perfect.

Douglas Wilson summarises the main features of both as follows:

Masculinity Femininity
Authority Submission
Sacrifice Obedience
Responsibility Gratitude
Initiative Responsiveness

Look how these characteristics work off of each other: he leads, she follows; he sacrifices, she obeys etc.. Masculinity and femininity are complements, not opposites.

Paul explicitly says that Christ is the Head of the Church, and the husband is the head of his wife. Headship is therefore basic to loving our wives!

What does this really mean in practice?

1. Headship means we must be men who exercise godly authority.
We must be like Christ, men of wisdom, knowledge, courage and faith! That is, like Christ, we need to be men who are worth following: test, do our wives look at us and think I love submitting to and following that man?

Being head means being responsible for our wives, not being "the boss": in v28. I think we get to this: husbands ought to love…as their own bodies… i.e. your wife is part of you – you are one flesh…
This means we are responsible for the spiritual state of our wives: e.g. if my wife were to backslide, it is my responsibility as her husband…
This means we are to lead our wives and families:
Leading means that you initiate, and you shoulder the responsibility, i.e. the big male temptation is passivity – it’s the sitcom image of men - the inhabitant of the sofa.
It means we will lead with the children – with discipline, instruction?
It means we know the sins and weaknesses of our children and are we actively addressing them. Or do we leave it all to our wives?
It means we will lead daily family worship/prayers in our homes. This is our opportunity to teach our family. To initiate family worship in your home will require planning, and change – even repentance.
It means we will lead our family/wife in decisions, consulting with her in all things, giving her freedom and responsibility under your headship.

2.Headship is through self-giving, sacrificial love!
v25. …Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up..
That means humility giving ourselves – being willing to serve, not dominate, our wives.
When you come in from work and the children are being put to bed, what do you do? You die: forget your tiredness, change that nappy, read that story, pray with that child.
It means getting up in the night when kids are ill.
It may mean forgoing that opportunity for the sake of your wife and family.
It means always making the first step to resolve differences and problems – initiative. Not allowing stalemates and the sun to go down on your anger – either with children or your wife.

3.Headship means we nourish, protect and bring our wives to holiness and maturity.
vv26-28. …That he might sanctify and cleanse through the washing of the Word…...
We are to provide for our wives, but not just the grocery bill – what about her mind, heart, also sexually: as a women, wife and mother – to present her holy to God.
This requires communication, intimacy and time. WE can become too busy for our marriages.
This means the following: pray and read the Bible together. Feed your wife with the Word of God – talk about it. Read books. Make sure she has the time to read and pray herself.
Resolve problems with her through the Scriptures – e.g. problems with your children, your relationship, her struggles. Test: does your wife go elsewhere for this - friends, counsellors
Communicate deeply. Do you organise so that there is time for real conversation - or does the TV rule? Develop mutual understanding together.

Conclusion
Objection: If we emphasise this, won't it detract from the gospel mission? Answer: No! Your marriage is for the gospel; every marriage should be revelation of the Gospel. Don't under estimate the power of a Christian marriage and home,

J. R. Miller (1882), "Homes are springs among the hills, whose many streamlets, uniting form like great rivers society, the community, the nation, the Church. If the springs run low and the rivers waste; if they pour our bounteous currents the rivers are full. If the springs are pure the rivers are clear like crystal; if they are foul the rivers are defiled. A curse upon homes sends a poisoning blight everywhere; a blessing sends healing and new life into every channel.
Homes are the divinely ordained fountains of life..."

Further Reading:
Douglas Wilson: For a Glory and Covering. (Canon Press)
Phil Lancaster: Family Man, Family Leader: Biblical Fatherhood as the Key to a Thriving Family. (Vision Forum).

Village Atheists: Responding to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris

Ps. 14:1 The Fool has said in his heart, "there is no god"...

Introduction
Not everyone you meet can be slotted into the usual evangelistic model – what do we do with people who are not even at the stage of talking about Christ, salvation or the Bible? For example, imagine the conversation below.

C: "Could I talk to you about Christ and the gospel?"
A. "Well, I don't believe in God, in fact there is no god, but thanks anyway."
C. "Oh, but in the Bible we read..."
A. "Don't you listen, there is no god..."
C. "So you won't be coming to Christianity Explored.... " nervously backing away.

The flat denial of the existence of God has to be tackled. Therefore, 1 Pet. 3.15 tells us: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.."
We do need to be able to answer the current objections against the Christian Faith.

I have chosen three men and their books: the latest effort from the "new atheists", Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, or as Robert Hutchinson has called them, the "Village Atheists".

These three men are passionate about atheism. But why this passion?
All three are concerned about the growth of Christianity and Islam: something's up. They don't like it. There is a problem: they are not winning.

I am going to work through the main arguments form Dawkins' book and weave in the other two as we go.

1. What's new? Answer: not much really. There isn't anything that is particularly new here. It is the tried and tested arguments from the armoury of atheism:-
- you can't prove the existence of God;
- look at the OT with its laws;
- look at the horrible things that "religion" has brought about;
- science has made religion redundant and is answering all of the big questions.

2. Also they lump all religions together – all religions are bad. How is it that false medical treatments can be used to prove that genuine medical treatments are to be avoided? Because Islam is off the wall, does not say anything about Christianity.

1. Getting Our Own Heads Straight
It's important we understand the basic starting-point of the person with whom we are talking.
With the Village Atheists, it is the assumption of starting from a neutral position, an objective enquiry.
Dawkins: "I shall suggest that the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis like any other. ..If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally in his favour." ( p. 50)
Here is the suggestion of objectivity – the impartial scientist. But we know that no one is impartial, and that all of our perspectives are limited and subject to change.
As Christians, we claim that the evidence/appearance of design is part of God's self-revelation – but Dawkins has already filtered it out because it does not fit with his worldview.
Now, you have to address this first, otherwise you will miss the point. But by taking this turning, they have already revealed their true colours:-

1. we are going to view the facts from our own perspective first of all;
2. we are going to be unaided judges of truth;
3. we are going to evaluate God by our criteria;
4. the facts are the material world around us, of which we are a part.

We have to challenge this overall direction at the beginning because if someone is thinking like this, then no amount of "facts" to the contrary will shake their confidence. The atheists use the facts against God;whilst the Christian sees the facts as the revelation of God. Each wears different glasses.

There is no neutral ground where we can meet. Otherwise we would be suggesting that you find god through unbelief. If God is God, then there is no neutral zone – there can be no accurate view of any evidence apart from God's view. Objectivity is "God-jectivity. Thus all appeals to "the facts" fail, and you get the kind of conversation below.

C: "Did you know that the evidence for the historical Jesus is greater than that for the existence of Julius Caesar?"
A: "That's all very well, but it doesn't prove He's the Son of God or the Saviour of the world."

"Build up arguments " fail: starting from ground level and gradually building the case for "a god", then "The God", then the Bible, then Christ.... and so on... All of these credit the atheist with too much. They all try to prove the existence of God by agreeing to lock Him out of the room. In fact, to work as if god did not exist is an impossibility, how in God's world could you start without God?

All three authors proceed on the basis that they can autonomously look out on the world and, against their own criteria, decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence of the existence of "a god". For them, human reason is the measure. In fact, Hitchens says that we are not evil, rather "the human species is, biologically, only partly rational"(GiNG p. 8). If only we were more rational. For the same reason Sam Harris titles his opening chapter, "Reason in Exile".

So if "reason" is the big help we are looking for, let's look at rational argument for minute. "Reason" proceeds on the basis of certain rules and principles of thinking that cannot change – e.g. the rules of logic. The rules of logic must be real. But, first, what is thinking, according to the evolutionist? An evolutionist has to say that it is chemical process in the brain. Or as Douglas Wilson says, "On atheistic principles, expecting to find a correlation between "truth" and the chemical activities of the cerebral cortex in some people and the outside world is more than a little bit like astrology."

Now what? If reason is authoritative how does that help? Did it evolve? Yes? So it might evolve further? Is it a construct of my mind, then how do I know it is true? We are only chemical reactions in progress you know. Evolutionists appeal to reason and rationality, but can offer no basis for that rationality.

2. The God Delusion

1. Things hot up straight away, in the first chapter,

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (p. 31)

This is a heavily moral judgment. As an evolutionist, Dawkins must account for his abhorrence of all of the above because to exercise a moral judgment, you have to justify that moral stance. But can evolutionary biology provide such a foundation? What do the Village Atheists believe?
- they believe that billions of years ago the universe started with a big bang – a random event in the very dim and distant past.
- they believe that everything since then has been an accumulation of beneficial random events, part of the result being that an Oxford professor now rants against god from his computer keyboard.
- they also confess that we are biological machines in toto. Crudely, we are a bag of chemicals.

But what basis for ethics is there here? We are still lacking the answer to the question: why? Why would homophobia, or genocide be wrong in his random universe? Who cares? Why get worked up? If a few million bags of juice die, their feelings are just electrical pulses and pain is well, a break in the circuit...?

2. Then in Chapter 2 we are led to the main thesis of the book:
"This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution." (p. 31)

All this does is tell us that creativity sprang out of random chance processes in a meaningless, chance universe.
Dawkins argues that design comes out of evolution, it is not what goes into it. The problem with this is that the process itself (natural selection) is a random, chance process. For example, a similar line of argument would be: the BMW wasn't put together by chance, the factory machine/robot directed the process, but the factory got there by itself, by chance. Or one could argue, the library wrote itself, the stage produced the play and so on.
This is just moving the problem around, shuffling the cards one more time.

3. Chapter 3 is about arguments for the existence of God. We ought to agree with quite few a points here. Many of the proofs for the existence of God are just not up to scratch. e.g. the teleological argument, the cosmological argument and more..

4. Chapter 4, Why There Almost Certainly is No God
Dawkins starts with Sir Fred Hoyle's Boeing 747 from a scrapyard analogy which expresses the improbability of the chance appearance of this world/universe.
"Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater then the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."
Dawkins then denies that he has to answer the charge of a chance universe. The creationist is: "somebody who thinks that natural selection is a theory of chance whereas – in the relevant sense of chance – it is the opposite." (p. 113).

Let's explore this chance thing a bit further.

Darwinists believe that the world, the universe and everything sprang from a random event billions of years ago. Ensuing random events led to the appearance of life. More random events, mutations and chance combinings, led to you and me.
Cornelius Van Til said that this problem of Chance as an explanation was like a man made out of water, in a world of water, with a ladder made out water, trying to climb out of the water.

Dawkins does not face up to how big this problem is. He tends to speak of natural selection as a purposeful process, but is unable to explain why this would be the case in a chance universe.

Finally, if the appearance of design is not evidence of design, then what would design have to look like to be evidence of design? If the answer is always, "no it's not design , it just looks that way", when could appearance ever lead us to the conclusion of design?
"Dawkins has created himself an argument that can never be falsified: he has created a circle of argument that always proves itself and is never open to the conclusion he always wants to exclude.

5. Chapter 5, The Roots of Religion
Dawkins writes, "Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant, and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates, waste . . . If a wild animal habitually performs some useless activity, natural selection will favour rival individuals who devote the time and energy, instead, to surviving and reproducing. Nature cannot afford frivolous jeux d'espirit. Ruthless utilitarianism trumps,, even if it doesn't always seem that way" (p. 163).

In the end it boils down to religion being an accidental by-product of evolution (see p.188).

He also explores his own meme theory (pp, 190-206). To explain how ideas develop, he posits the existence of "memes" which transmit ideas – as genes replicate and transmit data.
Douglas Wilson hits the nail on the head,
"He offers an evolutionary explanation of a particular form of intellectual development, serenely unaware of how that explanation applies just as much to him as to anyone else. The thought never crosses his mind. But I can't fault him for this really. If he is (accidentally) right, there is no such thing as a mind to cross."

6. Chapter 6, The Roots of Morality: why are we good?
One of the great challenges for the evolutionist is to explain:-
1. how can we derive any kind of ethic/morality that applies any further than me;
2. what is that morality in the first place; and
3. altruism, doing good for no personal gain or return.

Of course, the problem runs much deeper: in a random universe, or in a world governed by natural selection, how can one derive moral standards that apply to everyone?
Did they evolve? Then they are in process, they might be different tomorrow or the day after.
Are they relative and just conveniences for the moment? Then who decides and how? This is the road to a tyranny of the powerful elite over the rest of us.

How does Dawkins explain altruism? He gives us four reasons:-
1. genetic kinship;
2."the repayment of favours, and the giving of favours in anticipation of payback..";
3. acquiring a reputation for generosity;
4. the "benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakable authentic advertising".

None of these are altruistic – they all hold a self-ward glance...
Again with everything is stripped of its meaning: why would we write poetry about a biological urge in a random universe? Why write a symphony or a novel?

7. In Chapter 7 Dawkins addresses The Bible.
As with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchins we have the same arguments:-
1. look how horrible the OT is;
2. we don't much like the NT either;
3. religious people, Christians too, are all hypocrites.

We could attempt the same kind of argument on a Darwinist: "Some Darwinists are moral hypocrites and have lied to advance evolutionary science, therefore all Darwinists are necessarily liars, Darwinism tends to untruth and therefore Darwinism itself is false". This illogical argument is the same type of argument as the one constantly regurgitated by the Village Atheists.

The big problem for the Village Atheists is that millions died during the 20th Century at the hand of atheistic regimes: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China.
The Communist Black Book estimates estimates up to 200 million died. All three "explain" this as ideologically driven, i.e. religion. (p, 272) – these tyrants were more like religious zealots!!
"But this leads to a good point: we are all religiously driven. Dawkins and the Village Atheists all show the same zeal, passion and commitment of any fundamentalists.
Our basic commitments are all "religious" in that the final authority for our life and actions is our "god".

Finally, Dawkins comes to us with 10 Secular Commandments (p. 263) plus his own extra four.
"but this laughable – why these? They are nearly all informed by Christian/Biblical morality. They are not self-evident, as there are human cultures that have not held to them.

8. Chapter 8, What's Wrong with Religion?
Again this ground is covered by all three writers: religion produces tyrants, hypocrites, oppressors and so on. We largely agree with the details, but that is because we have a transcendent, ethical standard with which to judge the actions of men in the past.
Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris all fail to distinguish religion, true and false.
All make the false claim that "Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument" (p. 308).

9. Chapter 9, Childhood, Abuse and The Escape From Religion
All kinds of abuse, child abuse, mental abuse are laid at the door of "religion". However, on p. 341 Dawkins breaks out, (as does Hitchens) in praise of the Authorized Version of the Bible, as well as Shakespeare (p. 344).
"..an atheistical worldview provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education".
What has captured his imagination here? Beauty! So how does one account for beauty and its appreciation in a random universe?
Francis Schaeffer: speaking to a young married couple, he said, "when you hold her in your arms tonight can you live with the fact that what you feel for your young wife is just a chemical process, an electrical impulse?"
The same applies to our appreciation of beauty. In a "chance universe it is quaint, but meaningless.

Finally, Dawkins believes it is abuse to describe a child as a "Christian child" or a "Moslem child". Parents ought not to be able raise their children in their own faith. We must protect the children from this.
But this simply raises the question: so who will decide how and what the children learn? The scientific elite? Are they free form bias and indoctrination?
Here we see some worrying totalitarian tendencies.

Conclusion
In Scripture we learn what the the heart of atheism is Ps 14:1 The Fool has said in his heart, "there is no god"...
Romans 1 reminds us that the existence of God is revealed in all things, all aspects of reality, including ourselves.

Our job is to point people back to these arguments politely, calmly and sanely. I have argued that without God no meaningful debate, thought or science is possible. Or as Cornelius Van Til said, " I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else."

Further Reading and Resources:-
Alister McGrath: The Dawkins Delusion.
Douglas Wilson v. Christopher Hitchens at http://www.christianitytoday.com/
Douglas Wilson: Blog and Mablog http://www.dougwils.com/ and search for "The Odd Delusion".
Cornelius Van Til: Why I Believe in God. http://www.reformed.org/and search for "Why I Believe in God"

Why Men Hate Church: The Feminization of Christianity.

Introduction
The problem of men and the church was noted in the 19th Century, by the great preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, "There has got abroad a notion, somehow, that if you become a Christian you must sink your manliness and turn milksop."
In fact, almost every denomination has more women in membership or attendance on a Sunday than men.
Also, in the same way boys are more likely not to continue in the faith than girls.

Then we have the extreme end of the problem. Our bookstpores abound now with gender neutral translations of the Bible; female ordination and leadership is almost universally accepted; and the feminization of culture is so well advanced that men are exhorted to find their feminine side.

So this leads to the two questions:-
Where did all of this begin?
And, more specifically, what kind of Christianity have we been presenting to men, that fails to draw, involve and inspire them?

I. How did Christianity become feminized?
Let's look at three strands:-
(1) Leon Podles (The Church Impotent) traces the problem back to St. Bernard of Clairvaux (12th Century).
And here is the problem: the Bible teaches that the church corporately is a bride (Eph 5) in respect of Christ, but St. Bernard moved the emphasis from the body as bride to the individual soul as bride, with the result that we are all brides, and Christ is our lover! Therefore piety becomes romantic, sentimental and for men it meant adopting a female stance as a man towards Christ! There are obvious homosexual overtones here. This tendency became particularly marked in hymns and songs, for example, St. Bernard's, Jesus the very thought of Thee with sweetness fills my breast..
St. Bernard wrote, "Thank you, Lord Jesus, for your kindness in uniting us to the Church you so dearly love, not merely that we may be endowed with the gift of faith, but that like brides we may be one with you in an embrace that is sweet, chaste and eternal" (Podles, p. 104) Podles adds, "Having established the principle for the use of such language, Bernard then elaborated. He referred to himself as a "woman" and advised his monks to be "mothers" – to "let their bosom expand with milk, not swell with passion" – to emphasize their paradoxical status and worldly weakness." (p. 104)

Moreover, the idea of Jesus as "bridegroom of the soul " appeared in some of the later Puritans, Jonathan Edwards and Charles Wesley, e.g. "Jesus Lover of my soul, let me to Thy bosom fly .." A proliferation of women hymn-writers in the 19th century made this worse: Anne Steele, Francis Ridley Havergal, right down to this new song, Draw Me Close To You

Draw me close to You
Never let me go
I lay it all down again
To hear You say that I'm Your friend

You are my desire
No one else will do
'Cause nothing else could take Your place
To feel the warmth of Your embrace
Help me find the way
Bring me back to You

You're all I want
You're all I've ever needed
You're all I want
Help me know You are near

Notice there is no mention of God or Christ, and your wife's name could be inserted anywhere!
Today the music to some of the modern songs is more like a love ballad, together with the trivial and trite.

(2) Effeminate views of heaven and the future: "heaven above" replaced the Resurrection and New Creation.

e.g. Francis Ridley Havergal(1836-79):

Golden harps are sounding, angels voices sing,
Pearly gates are opened, opened for the King;
Jesus, King of glory, Jesus, King of love,
Is gone up in triumph, to His throne above.

Pleading for His children in that blessèd place,
Calling them to glory, sending them His grace;
His bright home preparing, faithful ones, for you;
Jesus ever liveth, ever loveth, too.

In this hymn we have an ascended, but powerless Christ! He is "up there" where we are going! He's King, but King of heaven only! The hope is not a renewed creation/resurrection, but heaven above.

(3) Our language and vocabulary changed:
Christ as Lord and King, becomes Jesus as Friend; the Church is replaced by an over emphasis on the Family; fellowship becomes sharing; covenant is replaced by relationship; King of kings becomes "personal Saviour".
With the demise of Calvinism in the 17th-18th Century the emphasis moved away from the sovereignty of God, to an excessive emphasis on inward matters:
Ann Douglas: "the undeniable fact remains that God, far from feeling any need for appeasement, is wooing man, drawing him by a display of affection and conciliation" (p, 125).
Salvation has become a display of love that will draw us to an already accepting God! The God of wrath has vanished!

II. Some Basic Pointers:-
Let's begin by surveying the "masculine shape" of the Bible:-

i.God reveals Himself to us as "He"; God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are "he" – never "she", he is
never gender neutral no matter how hard we try by re-writing our Bibles.

ii.God came in the flesh as a Man to save us, and to be the New Adam (Roms 5) – not the new eve;

iii.Christ chose to found his Church on men, the Twelve Apostles;

iv.Jesus' own strategy was to disciple twelve men;

v.The men of the Bible are real men: Ehud, Joshua, Daniel David, etc. Moreover, in the Gospels Jesus is clearly manly and aggressive, whilst gentle but firm.

vi.In the NT, the people of God are addressed as "brothers", not "brothers and sisters"; believers are "sons", not "sons and daughters". The church is a basically a masculine community, even though corporately it is the Bride (feminine) of Christ.

vii.The whole church at Corinth is told to "Be men of courage.." (1 Cor 16:13)- masculinity is an ideal for the whole congregation.

These points should lead us to the fact that masculinity is vital issue to the faith and to the Church.

III. Retrieving Biblical Masculinity
Gen 1-2. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth ...
In the beginning, God gave Adam and Eve a mandate, which we usually call The Cultural Mandate:
1:28. ".. fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then in chap 2, Adam is created first and given the first stage of that mandate: to guard and cultivate the Garden-Sanctuary;

Only then he is given a wife, Eve, to be helper in his task/calling. That task is to go out and raise a family and turn the "raw" world into a civilization, through work and culture-building.
This points to the key differences between men and women:
+ women are to be oriented towards the home and towards her husband in his calling, thus filling the earth. Women more oriented towards the domestic.
+ men are to be more oriented towards the world and the mandate here... Men are geared towards conquest and dominion.

In Chap 2 the pattern for marriage/men is laid out: 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh...
Each man has to leave mother, father, family and start a new unit – forcing the man out form under mother.. to a new responsibility and leadership/calling.
All of this emphasises that a man's calling is one of responsibility, world-focus, dominion oriented, leadership of his wife and family, and conquest.
Adam ( and all men after him) was meant to be a prophet (who acted in terms of God's Word), a Priest (who guarded God's Sanctuary-Garden and his wife [from Satan]); and a King to rule the world under God.

What do we need to do with this?
* We need to teach and live the covenant Gospel: that Christ died, rose again and ascended to restore us to our proper calling in the world as men;
* We need to live the fact that our calling is a fight, a struggle and a war with our own hearts, with sin, Satan and the world.
* We need to step up to leadership, starting in our homes and around our tables: leading in Bible instruction, discipline and correction, a well as setting direction...
* We need to question everything in modern Christianity that compromises Biblical masculinity – we need to abandon the Titanic Strategy of "women and children first".
e.g. the day the churches gave wives a vote in the church meeting, what did they do?
* We need to make the Psalms our standard for prayer and worship – there are no trite ditties, effeminate or sentimental songs. But there are battle songs, pleas for godly vengeance on the wicked, as well as prayers of trust and confidence. We need to question all seeker-friendly, consumer church...

Conclusion
Men's Ministry looks to become the next church growth fad, but it runs much deeper than that. It is not a technique, but a question of how we see Christ, the Gospel and our calling.
Leon Podles: Jesus is the embodiment of perfect masculinity in that he descends into death and hell there to confront and conquer them and return to His bride, the Church, as King and Spouse. But if a man in his own power tries to descend into hell, he finds there only a defeat, and is taken captive by the power of darkness he wishes to conquer.(p. 195)


Bibliography
Harvey Mansfield: Masculinity, Yale Uni Press
Leon Podles: The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity.
David Murrow: Why Men Hate Going to Church.
Ann Douglas: The Feminization of American Culture.

Articles:
Steve Schlissel: Feminism : The Eve of Destruction (http://www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/Docs/Feminism_The_Eve_of_Destruction.htm
Douglas Wilson: http://www.credendaagenda.org/

Church Effeminate
In reading a few books, in preparation for a men's talk on the above topic, the authors address the problem of the why the churches have not attracted men and they make many fine points. Effeminate worship, gushy music, female-centered piety are all at fault. But they start out with something like this: "men it's not your fault, the church has failed you, you are victims of what the church has become... no wonder you hate it..."and so on.

In other words, the first thing they do is place their male audience as victims, passive and helpless, wronged by another. Ironically, their first step in addressing an effeminate church and an impotent faith is itself effeminate and impotent.