The Institute (協会)

Anthony, I like that you have specifically focused this post on the idea that we need to cultivate appropriate aggression, not just aggression-run-rampant. I haven't read this latest book by the man with a Wild and Flowing Mane, but in some of his earlier stuff I think he could have been more careful to make this point more explicit.

I think part of the problem is that it is almost always easier to just cut something out completely than it is to find the proper amount. For example, many say Christians should never consume alcohol because of its dangers. For most people prohibition is easier than moderation (easier to practice and easier to teach). The same goes for aggression. It's easier to just cut it out completely than to teach people how to make use of it properly.

I do wonder though, do you think that women should also properly cultivate their aggression? If it's bad for boys to suppress their aggression, wouldn't it be bad for girls to do the same? Perhaps men in the church are just now going down the wrong road that women went down a long time ago. If that's right, then we should encourage both men and women to be ready and able to fight for justice.

Paul, thanks for the kudos. Actually, Eldredge made this point very explicit in Wild At Heart but people missed it completely because of preconceptions when hearing certain phrases. It was really a tragic misread that's had created all sorts of caricatures about the point he was making. It's a pretty sad example of "adventures in missing the point." Especially in chapters 8 and 9 of Wild At Heart--the whole chapter was explicitly about using aggression for good. I don't know how he could have been more clear.

But, is it ok if we focus on the real problem here? I'm not talking about aggression "in general" among the human race. I'm sure you could find lots of women encouraging women. Your questions are kind'a silly as if a "no" answer is even possible (yes, but different in significant ways). Again, it's men that are disconnected from the church and kingdom mission not so much women overall (America congregations are on average 39% populated by men).

So, if it's ok, we're just going to sit with the men's problem for the moment. Is it that bad that people aren't even comfortable talking men in accordance with their unique issues. If you want the discussion about women's issues you could probably google some keywords and find it. I haven't seen anyone talking the lack of participation by women, though? If so, send me the links.

But for now, we're addressing why it is that nearly 90% of boys raised in the church abandon it but the time they're 20 (often only to return because the wife or girlfriend brings him back).

This post in not about aggression "in general," but it's lack of it men--hence the book recommendations. I'm not interested in redirecting the conversation or talking about people "in general" here. There are many others doing that better than I ever could at the moment.

I appreciate the point, but I wish guys like you, Driscoll, etc. who talk about this issue would focus more on courage than "aggression." Courage doesn't need moderation. When I look at the Prince Caspian pic, or think of Aragorn in LOTR, I think of courage, not aggression. And PLENTY of men in America aren't passive, but instead are very aggressive, but lack even an ounce of true courage.

It's not just semantics, either. When guys who have been brought up by cowardly men (or only brought up by women) and don't have appropriate masculine resources hear what you are saying, I suspect many of them will say "Well, this is not for me." Even more, over time some may even begin to think they are gay and pursue that culture just to find acceptance.

If you haven't read Don Miller's To Own A Dragon, it is a must for this topic. He grew up without a father and explains how many of the fatherless hear calls about being "a real man" and decide they must not be real men.

Good points! Matthew if you've been following I've recommended the Miller before. Check the search engine (Oct. 2006).

About the cardinal virtues--prudence, temperance, fortitude (courage) and humility--especially courage is a different discussion than we're having here. We've got to focus on the assault against aggression. I don't hear parents screaming at their sons to stop being so "courageous" but you regularly hear "John, stop being so aggressive." "You're being to aggressive, Stephen."

Actually, courage does need moderation because of the Fall. All virtues need moderation because the definition of courage does not exist in a vacuum. Courage needs to be defined and directed just like aggression does. This is why courage has, for centuries, been a discussed cardinal virtue. There are things that may take courage to act but actions need to be withheld because of prudence, temperance, and humility. In one sense it is semantics because aggression is necessary to cultivate the virtue of courage and we need to talk about that directly.

shawn

sorry...that's supposed to be:

shawn: fracking clueless (BSG, anyone) about how to do this...and I'm about to turn 30.

Anthony, I think it's great to focus specifically on the men, I just think in doing so we shouldn't characterize femininity in an unhelpful way. Many times the issue is presented as "Men in the church today are too passive, they've come to be like the women." To me, that seems to imply that women's passiveness is okay. But again, I think it's a good thing to focus on the men here (especially since it seems to be mostly men that comment on this blog), which is why I made the point as an aside at the end of my comment.

Now that I think about it, I'm starting to wonder if it's right to say we should encourage aggression. I think it's right to encourage what I think you have in mind, but I don't know if that's aggression. The Oxford Dictionary defines aggression as "hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront", "the action of attacking without provocation, esp. in beginning a quarrel or war" and "forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests." I think that being aggressive may be appropriate when dealing with sin, but if little Johnny is ready to attack or confront his brother because Johnny doesn't want to share, then I'm not sure aggression is the right word to use.

If a mother told Johnny to stop being so aggressive when playing with his brother (and Johnny's actions match one of the definitions of aggression I gave), then isn't she right? If, on the other hand, a bully at school is picking on his brother, then Johnny is probably right to be aggressive in dealing with it. But so far, it seems like you would say the mother should not tell him to not be aggressive in both situations.

I think that Matthew may be on to something when he says the discussion should resolve around courage instead of aggression. It takes courage to read a paper defending the immorality of abortion at an APA conference, but I don't see that same act requiring aggression (again, using Oxford's definition). I admit this is just semantics here, but if we're using the wrong word to describe what we have in mind, then we should pay attention to semantic arguments. I think the antonym of passive is assertive, not aggressive. Would you be opposed to talking about assertiveness instead of aggressiveness?

Makes sense. I don't remember saying anything about what is means to feminine in the post, so I'm kind'a confused about the referent. The opposite of "aggression" is not "feminine" but passivity.

Also, the Oxford dictionary definition isn't really helpful at all because it doesn't give a context for how the word could be redeemed for the purposes of the Kingdom. Language is intend to serve the priorities of the Kingdom. Oxford doesn't get that.

Using the Oxford dictionary we might assume that "fight" is bad word too. Here's the definition of fight from Oxford: "1 take part in a violent struggle involving physical force or weapons. 2 engage in (a war or contest). 3 quarrel or argue. 4 (fight off) defend oneself against an attack by. 5 struggle to overcome, eliminate, or prevent. 6 (fight for) try very hard to obtain or do."

The Bible teaches to "fight the good fight of faith." It's doesn't say wrestle. Since philosophers tend of argue semantics alone (this is the basis of their entire vocation) I'm not interested in doing it here but I think that the word aggression is redeemable for Kingdom purposes just like most words like "fight," "flee," "hate," etc and should not be abandoned just because people don't have a personal preference for it.

Since we are deeply embedded in spiritual warfare the word "assert" doesn't seem to get at the need to "fight" or to put on battle armor (Eph 6). But again, boys are being told not to be "aggressive" so that's the word the needs to be addressed (redeemed) and not abandoned because some have used it poorly in the past (absus usus non tollit).

I think it's telling that some men can't even find space for a word like "aggression" to be used redemptively. Some guys can't even say it. This is fodor for a separate posting altogether. Why don't men like to use the word "aggression" redemptively? Hmmm, this may be a deeper problem than I originally thought.

If the word "fight" is not a problem why would the word "aggressive" be?

About Johhny I addressed this in the post when I said, "[boys] should be praised for being aggressive and discipled in how to properly wield it (Eph 6)." Instead of telling Johhny that "aggression" is wrong rebuke him for not properly using his aggression. "Johnny is great that you want to fight for stuff, but this is not the right time, and so on." There will come a time when he may need to wield aggression save a life, for example. I hope that if a burglar breaks into his house, for the sake of his wife and kids, that he's aggressive in protecting them. Again, aggression is not the problem. The word can be redeemed.

Ok then, maybe I'll just stick with this: parents should raise their boys to be "fighters" because it's good to "fight the good fight of faith." Is "fight" ok to use?

It's not what you said about femininity in your post, it's what seems to be implied about it in your post about masculinity.

Using 'fight' is just fine with me, in fact I think it is much superior to 'aggressive'. But notice that within the Oxford definition of fight there is nothing that is contra-Kingdom. There might be things one inappropriately fights for, but that is different. 'Fight' doesn't need to be redeemed because it can just be used. Within the definition of 'aggressive' there are elements that are contra-Kingdom (attacking without provocation, being overly assertive). So 'aggressive' does need to be redeemed. My point in bringing this up is that we might be more effective if we don't use words that carry with them definitional baggage. Instead of having to redefine words, why not use words that are more appropriate already?

If I decide I want people to truly give themselves away to the Kingdom, I could say "Let's all become prostitutes for God" because prostitutes give themselves away. I could seek to redeem the word 'prostitute'. But instead of bringing in definitional baggage, why not say "Let's all be selfless"? I don't need to redeem 'selfless', I can just use it.

Just to be clear, I think what you are aiming at is true and good. I'm just trying to offer friendly suggestions for making our pursuit of what we are aiming for more productive.

would you mind giving some practical examples of what you're talking about? of course I mean beyond being a soldier or police officer or CIA assassin.

I for one hate conflict. not that this is a good thing in me, but that's how I am. my 3yo son is the exact same way. I think I see what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure what it looks like.

if he's hitting his sister or the dog with a stick, I am going to stop him. I am going to tell him that's not loving or kind, and not how we are to treat others. but if he's whacking his stuffed animal with a stick, sure, go ahead and have fun.

We should probably be very careful about encouraging aggression. Paul's example of the Christian as soldier from Ephesians 6 uses not "Groo the wanderer," but the Roman soldier as an example.

As Ephesians makes clear, that infantryman tended to be tasked more with holding ground ("and having done all, to stand") than in aggressively taking it. Even his armaments--breastplate, shield, sword of about 18" long--were really more suited to taking blows than delivering them.

Now if we talk about defending others vigourously, then I'm with you 100%....I just don't know how much we can & should encourage aggression, Biblically speaking.

(on the other hand, it's the gates of Hell--defensive fortifications--that will fall to the Church, so aggression isn't completely out of the picture here)

Insanely aggressive. Somehow I don't think that's what the bible's talking about when it describes godly men.

> "forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests."

Isn't this largely what we are striving for? When our aims/desires/interests line up with Jesus' aims/desires/interests, then we need to forcefully and assertively pursue them.

IMHO, "aggression" is a better word choice than "fight" or "courage" for this (they DO have their place though as Anthony explained); there's a significant difference between telling an athlete to "fight and be courageous" and "be aggressive."

I grew up in churches which talked a lot about fighting and courage. A whole lot. But aggression? Aggression was bad; aggression wasn't nice. Fighting verbally against evolution was good. Having the courage to tell your coworkers you believe the Bible was good. But aggression? Aggression was bad.
There would be no encouraging the aggression needed to get out into a dirty world that's full of sinners (who are sinning!) and face temptations and love Jesus and join Him in building His kingdom amongst all this.

> "it's what seems to be implied about it in your post about masculinity"

Maybe you need to stick to books and not blogs if you want ample coverage of all the possible points people will raise...

I am aggressively digging this discussion.

I think the term "holy violence" sums up this whole line of thinking. Quoting from one of Spurgeon's sermons of the same name:

Oh, my brethren, what we want today in the churches is violence, not violence against each other, but violence against death, and hell, against the hardness of other men's hearts, and against the sleepiness of our own.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0252.htm

I'm in the airport but I can see that this is far, far more pathetic than I thought. The word "aggressive" has no space for redemptive usage because of "definitional baggage." For those who do not comment much pay attention to what you're reading here: "Christians cannot use the word aggressive at all in any positive connotation." Really?? Wow, wow, wow. Amazing and sad.

Kyle, thanks recognizing and understanding the genre you're reading. You get the fact that a blog post is never a fully developed treatise on anything, EVER--which allows for implications and tangents to be a function only of the reader's imagination rather than what is explicitly stated. You're a rare reader.

This so depressing when a contextless word like "aggression" has no place in Christianese. Is Podles a prophet? Unbelievable. People won't believe this. This is flat out depressing. Wow.

Anthony,

In the same comment that you chide people (appropriately) for reading implications and tangents into your original post, you greatly overblow and misrepresent the sentiments of the other commenters. You put in quotes: "Christians cannot use the word aggressive at all in any positive connotation." But come on, no one ever said that. Certainly, Paul didn't say that (which is whom you seem to be responding to). All Paul and most of these others did was ask if there were more helpful ways to get at the same ends that you were originally aiming for. If you disagree that there are more helpful ways, so be it, and say so. But there's no need to go nuclear when someone fires a volley of bb's. That's a little too agressive! (Little joke)

Anyway, back to the point at hand. I mostly agree with you. One point I agree with in particular is that boys (and all children) should rather be redirected toward righteousness, rather than simply telling them what not to do. So, rather than saying, "Johnny, don't be so aggressive with your brother," say, "Johnny, God gave you that aggression to fight for your brother, not against him." Of course, you have to make your instruction age-appropriate, but the point is that God wants us to be actively (aggressively) righteous, not just timidly (passively) avoid sinning. He wants us to build the Kingdom, not just flee from the world.

Kyle,
I think it's funny that the definition you posted includes "overly assertive". Doesn't "overly" usually mean too much? Over-weight = too much weight. Over-budget = too much cost. Why doesn't overly assertive mean too much assertiveness?

And again, my only point about femininity is that in trying to address one problem we shouldn't inadvertently create others.

Anthony,
I am really shocked and surprised at the tone of your comments. As I said in one of my earlier posts, "I think that being aggressive may be appropriate when dealing with sin." I never concluded that Christians shouldn't be aggressive or use the term. Instead I suggested a potential alternative that may avoid confusion. You then respond by saying my sheer suggestion is "pathetic" and then completely mischaracterized my position.

What I find most surprising is that I agree with you that men are too passive. I thought you would at least have the intellectual integrity to address the argument I gave for using different terms to express the same end-goal.

I have always thought this is a place where fellow Christians can freely propose ways to accomplish similar goals without being ridiculed for their efforts. That is obviously not the case. Because it is now clear to me that minor disagreements with you is not acceptable, I no longer see a reason to continue commenting on your site. I am saddened by that because I thought over the years we had begun to develop some sort of a friendship, but I do not think this is how friends respond to one another's ideas and suggestions. Perhaps I'm too feminine to handle your aggressiveness, even if I'm not, I'm sure you'll still find something to poke fun at. I'll see you in June at Acton University.

Ok, now I'm at the hotel...nick, yeah great point about the Johnny (that's what I meant to say...you said it much better.

And, my previous comments were not just about Paul. I, admittedly, was blindedsided by the fact that people would object to the word "aggression." I've read that evangelicals can't handle concepts like that without rejection it outright. So the see several people incapable of seeing any good use for the word has really floored me. I'll have to think about this a lot more as to why the word "aggression" makes evangelicals so uncomfortable. I just wasn't expecting it, that's all. Like I said, I need to think about this some more...thanks for comments

Sorry, Paul I wasn't just talking about you which is why you weren't referred to personally. Like I said to Nick, I still can't believe that people so strongly reject the idea that the word aggression could be used when I originally said, "aggressively pursue righteous, etc." I just didn't expect that idea of a man aggressivley pursuing the good could not be good. I was just blind-sided be people's problem with the word "aggression" as I used it in the brief post. I'm still amazed by and don't quite know what to make of it. I'll need to get some counsel on this one.

I also don't remember saying pathetic had anything to do with "Paul." What's pathetic to me is that many people don't have space for the word "aggression." Encouraging boys to aggressively pursue the Cross is questionable? What? So I've been informed that evangelicals can't handle language like that but I just didn't expect to see the whole thread as is. What does it mean that the word "aggression" can't even be directed at righteousness as I discussed.

This has been the most surprising thing I discovered recently. The discomfort with the word "aggression" is so unexpected. I don't know what to say.

I didn't mean to come across as "ridicule" but it was response while sitting in an airport on a delayed plane trying figure this one out. I'm going to have to send some emails on this one because I wonder if the uneasiness with the word aggression is cultural or something. I gotta research this further...if the dissenters of the word "aggression" when I said "aggressively pursue righteousness" represent the average evangelical's view point, I've got a lot of rethinking to do. I just don't get it, that's all.

I missed your point about aggression and and still can't see where you said that cause I'm using my phone for this. But again, I don't see how it's ok for aggression to be used regarding sin but not ok for pursuing righteousness, fighting against injustice, etc which is point of my comments. I'm confused for sure and tired

Ant,
All I am going to say is thank you for pointing out this...

"Also, the Oxford dictionary definition isn't really helpful at all because it doesn't give a context for how the word could be redeemed for the purposes of the Kingdom. Language is intend to serve the priorities of the Kingdom. Oxford doesn't get that."

It seems this blog's readers/comments consistently bring out the "dictionary" to prove points when in my mind this is ridiculous! For example: A couple weeks ago we were talking about racism and someone broke out the dictionary... What?! To hell with the dictionary and all it's lack of context within it's definitions!

Maybe I am wrong for thinking this but at least someone is feeling me. Thanks for putting into words would I could not a couple of weeks ago on this blog when it came to the defintion of racism.

Thanks for being aggressive!

Holla!

So true, what your saying Anthony. When I'm out in public, I'm amazed at the number of feminized young men I see, and it concerns me. Watching the John Wayne movie "McClintock" last year, I was amazed at how far we've come in our culture. In the movie, his character actually spanks his wife in full view of the whole town! She actually responds positively to this! I thought of this when you mentioned above men fighting for their wives hearts. Also, I'm a fan of the show "John and Kate plus 8". They have 8 children, the show follows them around showing real life. In one episode, they're shopping with the whole family, when Kate is very controlling in the store, embarrassing John. When they get outside, he tells her straight up that she embarrassed him, making him feel like he was her pet dog or something. What he said next was so cool, he was fighting for her heart. He told her he was embarrassed for her also because people in the store saw something in his wife that's not true of her. He was strong, honest, not afraid to confront her, yet pointed out to her how she acted covered up her beauty.

Lack of aggressiveness, in this world which is filled with evil, injustice, and oppression, is a failure to properly love and carry out our purpose as redemptive agents. If we are not tuned into being aggressive against sin and evil then we will be lulled to sleep by our own idolatry and the Enemy himself who is apparently prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8)!

Great post, Anthony

I have so many thoughts, but right now they are very disorganized. haha. I may post later when I get them into a communicable form. I think you are on the right track here, Anthony. I will say that.

re: the debate about "courage" vs "aggression."
I wonder...isn't courage rightly applied aggression? Which means, there is no debate, really...just a need to note what rightly focused aggression is. Just a thought.

Fred Rogers was an ordained presbyterian minister. (I don't know if it was PCUSA) I believe the world saw humility, and dubbed him as passive or even effeminate. Which I believe is a misnomer altogether. I don't believe a guy has to beat his chest to prove he's masculine, and I hate to quote Jaleel, some think I'm soft just because I'm humble. FYI.

Actually, DonaldH, anyone who promotes the stupid idea that a guy has to "beat his chest to prove he's masculine" is obviously retarded in his thinking anyway. Why would anyone be in favor of acting like an animal. Who is even suggesting something that dumb? We have completely lost our imagination when the only model of humility is soft-spoken grown men, wearing cardigan sweaters who has small children come over to his house. I think Paul and David in the Bible were both humble but obviously wouldn't fit today's model. We are so confused on what that word means. We confused attitude with disposition and temperament. Phil. 2 has a great definition of humility. It does not describe a personality type ("type B, ISTJ, etc.) but strangely evangelical can't seem to make that distinction. So sad.

And yes he was VERY PC-USA.

We confused attitude with disposition and temperament.

That is a very insightful statement.

drama/anthony...i'm afraid I've confused them, as they're all close enough in my brain to be synonyms (not that I'm a fan of niceness, btw, just not quite getting that point)

I'm not saying that there's one model of humility.

My statement was the "world" was usually meant the non-christian world, not the believers.

I'm not saying the psychological approach (everyone's special) that Roger's employed was accurate or even biblical.

I'm certainly not on expert on psychology or the temperment. And I'm not saying that's where you're going with your disposition and temperment comment either BTW.

Beating the chest as you know as merely an analogy. In no way was I implying that literally. Nor implying that statements about agression were implying that. Agression helps in the proper context. I get that.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that's where you are Eldredge was coming from.

I'm not even in disagreement with your post. (Although I think Eldredge's writings lean toward some mysticism)

I just stated a facts about Fred Rogers. I'm not a "Mr. Rogers" apologist.

That's why the Jaleel point was meant to be humoruos. You know, Whodini's Jaleel, a line from 5 minutes of Funk.

I thought he might have been PCUSA too! Thanks.

here's a good article about such things:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/27.48.html

bobw, that article is absolutely horrible.

Pay attention. I'm writing a series against his fictions here: http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/04/23/masculinity-caricatures-part-1/

His piece is so, so bad.

so just b/c some one takes another side they're "absolutely horrible" ?!?!? what's up with that crap? come on man!!!

...

(that's me trying to be insanely aggressive here in blogland...how did I do?)