“Os Guinness sounds like he’s succumbed to the feminist agenda to de-masculinize him. Gentleness? Civility? Read Randy Stinson’s article here for information about masculinity” would have accomplished what you were trying to say.

It’s okay that you missed the point. You got stuck in the details and in the particulars and whiffed badly on what Stinson’s main message was. Namely, that men should not be preoccupied with themselves to the point of such self-absorption that they lose their biblical masculinity.

And there are times when tough-minded leadership is needed, and in those situations, feminized, gentle pleas for civility undermines the leadership needed.

For example, General Patton. He was a tough-minded leader. So was Winston Churchill.

you are the definition of the saying, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”

That said, Mr. Stinson goes far too far here.

As a percussionist, I work with my hands. If I don’t worry about things like hangnails and dry skin, I put being able to provide for my family at risk (a percussionist in pain isn’t a percussionist at his top capabilities). Also, as a musician that plays weddings, I MUST look as good if not better than everyone else in the room, save for the bride and groom. I’d better know how to tie a tie, shine my shoes, use an iron, know which shoes to wear with which suit, and many other such things that I assume Mr. Stinson would claim makes me less of a man.

Granted, I realize that an article like this is meant for mealy mouthed NASCAR fans to poke fun at sissy man city folk, but still, it’s annoying as all get out.

You really should change your handle to…

“one trick ponies who focus only on complementarianism might unite and divide, but they also get old really fast.”

Richard John Neuhaus: “‘A Gentle Plea for Civility’ perhaps, although ‘A Poignant Plea for Acceptance’ might be more accurate. … The affirmation of liberal political pieties will not earn the signers and exemption from the disdain in which evangelicals, along with other serious Christians, are held by those whose approval these evangelicals so earnestly seek.”

I wonder if Os Guiness has been feminized. The writer below posits that American men, by and large, have been feminized:

“Having been recently introduced to Tony Glenville’s 2006 Top to Toe: A Comprehensive Guide to the Grooming of the Modern Male, I was reminded once again how determined our culture is to make men more like women. Now I realize that certain things are important to properly present oneself. I take showers, have my hair regularly cut, generally wear clothes that match, have some nice suits and ties, shave regularly, and even wear men’s cologne on occasion. I know that there are certain fabrics that are cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. But the overemphasis on these types of things has encouraged a softness that is neither attractive nor helpful in terms of cultivating the characteristics that men need in order to honor their biblically sanctioned roles.

For instance, Glenville advises, “A special occasion calls for special treatment, and taking the time to visit your hairdresser, go for a massage, and have a facial scrub will all add to your confidence.” In another section, he tells us, “At sporting events, whether cheering your team on or participating yourself, the wrong footwear can completely skew an outfit.” I wonder if Chipper Jones knows this? Here’s one of my favorites: “After work, before bed, when stressed, or simply as a pick-me-up before a party, the slow pampering of a bath is special.” In addition to this, one finds out the essentials of the bathroom which include moisturizer, eye cream, manicure kit, pedicure kit, body moisturizer, and body scrub. Can you imagine our great grandfathers talking like this? Exchanging tips for dry skin and split ends? With regard to hands Glenville notes that, “Caring for your hands is not a question of vanity or fussiness, it is common sense. Boardroom or factory, dinner table or diner, your hands are much in evidence at work or at leisure and are able to communicate a great deal about your approach to life.” Indeed!

Granted, the book has some helpful tips. Knowing how to put on a tie is important for a man to know. Caring for shoes is also needful. But so much of the instruction tends toward an unhealthy, hyper, self preoccupation. The roles to which men are called are stifled and hindered by such tendencies. In fact, self absorption is the enemy of true biblical masculinity. The leadership to which men are called is for the good of those whom he is leading. A self absorbed man will lead for his own good, his own self aggrandizement. The role of protector to which men are called is for the well being of another. A self preoccupied man will let others be harmed while he fends for himself. The role of provider to which men are called is for the welfare of others. A selfish man will provide for himself at the expense of others.

Men reading Glenville’s book will only be encouraged in their sinful tendency to look out for themselves. If men are focused on such trivial things as dry skin and pampering themselves with long baths, it will be all the more difficult to expect them to lead, provide, and protect. There may be a day when Lowes and Home Depot have entire aisles dedicated to moisturizers and skin creams for that weathered carpenter. There may be rows of scented bubble bath for that overworked mason. But if the church continues to follow the culture, we will have plenty of “Top to Toe” men, able to shop with the best of them at Bath and Body Works, but unwilling and unable to fulfill the Gospel demands that require toughness, self sacrifice, and self-neglect. We do not need prettier boys. We do not need softer men. What we need is a church culture that will call boys and men to lives of self sacrifice as exampled by the picture of Christ in Ephesians 5 who loved the church and gave himself for her to his own neglect and sacrifice. What we need are pastors who will boldly preach about and press for an ethos in their churches that expects this type of behavior from their men. What we need is a church culture that will require boys and men to do hard things, to cultivate toughness, resilience, and courage, top to toe.”

From: Randy Stinson

I agree with Fr. Neuhaus’s critique of “An Evangelical Manifesto”. And I agree with Denny’s critique of the Manifesto as well.

And I respect the drafters of the Manifesto who said that their document definitely does not represent all Evangelicals. And Neuhaus is right: their theological statements were rather unexceptional.

If you think that abortion will go away because of politics alone, then I guess ignorance is bliss.
Politics can’t eliminate drunk drivers and yet we still have laws for that as well (as well as murder, theft, etc.). Criminalizing abortion would accomplish the same things for abortion as criminalizing murder (i.e. there will be those who do it regardless).

The core is Denny’s quote:

“The Manifesto effectively de-prioritizes the abortion issue and no longer treats it as a transcendent moral concern.”

He didn’t say abortion is the only concern. But it’s been reduced to just another concern.

It’s funny how the things that evangelicals think make good politics very easily coincide with the Republican National Committee’s platform. Being that environmentalism doesn’t line up with the fat cat party, it shouldn’t be an evangelical concern.
As a matter of fact, I’m waiting for Denny to post something along the lines of “Off-Shore Drilling is the Christian thing to do!”

saying that nothing else should be, or that people aren’t really Christian if they put other things on that platter is equally wrong.

No one said there aren’t other concerns, but (reduction alert!) alluding that abortion should be treated the same as car emissions is absurd.

Plus, why does it seem that so many times if one posts a belief and defends it is so often met with the just-because-I-don’t-believe-it-doesn’t-mean-I’m-not-Christian argument. Denny certainly didn’t say that, never alluded to it. Even Neuhaus’ quotes above don’t say it (I’d like to read the full article, too bad). So slow the “everyone…decrying this manifesto is doing exactly that” train. I would say that someone saying reducing abortion to “just another issue suffers from confusion regarding the issue (abortion here). I would say that a deluding influence has taken over them. But I don’t see myself or anyone else saying (for instance) Paul holds to the C.Man. He’s unsaved. Perhaps I missed it, though.

If Neuhaus is annoyed at the Manifesto’s assertion of theological identity over political identity than that says more about Neuhaus than the Manifesto. Neuhaus sees the evangelicals as a political voting block more than a theologically equipped force of Protestantism and for good reason. Evangelicalism has been diluted with all sorts of followings after culture, and its priorities in politics are no exception.

As a signer of the Manifesto I am glad to see Emergents, fundamentalist Southern Baptist, politically conservative and one-issue voters vehemently attack it. Evangelicals have a social and theological identity that transcends those things and it cannot be owned by any of them.

As a signer of the Manifesto I am glad to see Emergents, fundamentalist Southern Baptist, politically conservative and one-issue voters vehemently attack it. Evangelicals have a social and theological identity that trancends those things and cannot be owned by any of them.