Men Know They Are Looking For Something
A recent New York Post article made headlines with the title, “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine’ Orthodox Christianity in droves.” Of course, this is no shock to Protestant pastors like myself. We are well aware that many young men have left Protestantism for Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
It is not hard to understand why. In a day when modernity tramples upon history and tradition, Orthodoxy and Catholicism offer a return to the past. Both churches tout the tradition of the apostles with their claim of “apostolic succession.” Both churches hold worship services that look and feel older, like something out of medieval Europe.
Orthodoxy, in particular, has a masculine feel. Their priests often have big gray beards. And unlike the typical Roman Catholic priest, most Orthodox priests are married (as they are free to marry prior to ordination). While Roman Catholicism has its liberal factions, Orthodoxy seems to be more courageous in opposing modernity. In fact, Orthodoxy claims to be the church that has not moved beyond the seven ecumenical councils. Orthodoxy can rightly claim to be traditional because they are in a sense stuck in the ninth century.
There is much to commend in Orthodoxy. However, Eastern Orthodoxy has significant flaws as well. I know because I grew up in a Greek Orthodox church. Yet like many Orthodox Christians, I was almost entirely unfamiliar with the Bible. I was surrounded by icons but did not really know who that man was on the cross. I did not understand that Jesus was the God-man come to die for my sins. I left Orthodoxy as a teenager because I was converted while reading the New Testament and came to Protestant convictions.
Now, I realize Orthodox churches vary in practice and teaching. But I do not think my experience is an anomaly. Eastern Orthodoxy places tradition alongside Scripture and does not view the Bible in the same way as Protestants do. From this flow various theological errors, such as Orthodoxy’s veneration of icons and the dismissal of justification by faith as “Western.” However, this view of tradition also explains why Orthodoxy doesn’t change. The Orthodox love their tradition.
Yet I would contend that Protestants also love tradition, or at least they should. Historic Protestantism is rooted in tradition so far as it accords with the Word of God. During the Reformation, the Protestants looked to the Bible as the highest authority because it is breathed out by God (sola scriptura). Yet in interpreting Scripture against their Roman Catholic opponents, Protestant theologians consistently appealed to the church fathers, especially Augustine.
Reformed theologians like John Calvin and the Westminster divines were highly-trained scholars, and that meant they were steeped in church tradition. Of course, tradition is not all good. Jesus warned against the man-made teaching of the Pharisees, saying, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition” (Mark 7:9). Jesus was following the prophet Isaiah, even quoting him—“But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Mark 7:7; Isaiah 29:13).
Religious traditions contradict one another and thus cannot all be true. (For example, you cannot just follow the “church fathers” because they differ on many doctrines.) And religious traditions often contradict the Word of God. When this is the case, man-made tradition is to be discarded in favor of God’s commandments. Tradition is an inevitable part of being human, and we must not reject it all. We should not uphold tradition for tradition’s sake, but we should seek to uphold a God-informed and father-honoring tradition.
Which brings me back to the appeal of Orthodoxy. We live in a day and age where modern academics, politicians, and religious leaders are destroying our traditions. They tear down our statues. They erect ugly buildings. They whitewash our history. We are in a battle for the future, and that means we are in a battle for the past. Young men and women need history. They need tradition. They long for it.
But where will they find such tradition? Unfortunately, most Protestants have ignored or outright rejected their own tradition. They have spurned their history. And thus, they have little to offer modern man looking to lay down his roots.
Many of the men leaving Protestant churches are not leaving “traditional” churches (despite the title of that New York Post article). For the most part, they are leaving anti-traditional Protestant churches for Orthodoxy. These are churches that don’t even call themselves “Protestant” but prefer the nebulous term “evangelical.” They use the labels “non-denominational” or “Bible church,” which signal they are completely detached from the Protestant Reformation. All the confessions and catechisms that came out of the Reformation, and all you have is a ten-point statement of faith? These are churches that meet in buildings that look like shopping malls. Where pastors share stories in t-shirts behind music stands instead of pulpits. Where women lead various portions of the worship service. Where a rock band plays love songs to Jesus. Where a concert has replaced prayers and Scripture readings and corporate confessions.
This is not historic Protestantism. But neither is the church that has the forms of liturgy and traditionalism without the doctrine of the Reformers. Anglican and Lutheran churches with traditional garb are not traditional if they are egalitarian or pro-LGBT. Presbyterian churches are not traditional if they cater to progressive culture and politics instead of preaching convicting, Bible-saturated sermons.
What men need is a masculine Protestantism. They need churches led by male pastors and elders, steeped in biblical liturgy, upholding historic confessions (like the Westminster Confession of Faith), proclaiming the gospel, and teaching the whole counsel of God. They need churches that courageously uphold the Bible’s teaching on male headship, support traditional families, promote godliness and oppose wickedness, and encourage men as they seek to carry out their God-given duties in a world that hates them.
Men don’t always know what they need. But modern men know they are looking for something. They want tradition and grounding. And Orthodoxy and Catholicism will win the day so long as Protestants continue to spurn their tradition. So this is my plea for my Protestant brethren—stop trying to be modern and return to the glorious doctrines of Scripture as taught and applied by our Reformation forefathers. Protestants have much to offer. We have a rich tradition. Start embracing it.
Image Credit: Unsplash
Whitewashing Church history is what conservatives who object to the tearing down of statues of Confederate generals because they do not want to adequately face the failures and atrocities that were practiced by either the nation or the Church. Though its solution is wanting, Post Modernism is right objecting to much in that history. But because it relies on an outcome-based truth system, even what is merely coincidentally associated with those atrocities is tossed with actual contributions to atrocities.
Perhaps the above article could make a better case if it were to say that the Church needs Protestant Putins. After all, isn’t the portrayal of Putin the epitome of masculinity. Just think of the money that will be saved by these Protestant Putins on clothes–no more shirts. And Putin has and exercises real power–such as invading another nation without provocation and harshly punishing dissent at home. And after all, in contrast to Jesus’s response to the request made by James and John, it is masculine to lead; it is feminine to serve. Isn’t that the crux of the male-female relationship according to traditional Protestantism?
And we should also forget what Paul said about the Gospel becoming more real in the presence of human weakness, we need a powerful Protestantism which could only start with a power hungry Protestantism.
It’s not that American Protestantism doesn’t have flaws, it has many. But doesn’t traditional Protestantism have many flaws as well? Does today’s Protestantism need testosterone supplements to be more in line with being Biblical or with being traditionally Protestant?
Here is Curt Day, the continual critic, builder of nothing. Your religion is self-loathing with a Christian veneer.
For all your fussing about people not engaging your arguments, you hypocritically do not engage with the thrust of this article, but instead chimp out about Putin and your own preconceived conclusions. Sad!
Yep. Rinse and repeat for nearly every article. Clearly does not agree with the overarching principles of this website and yet chooses to engage and critique them all in bad faith.
I wish he was trolling, but I’m afraid he’s not clever enough for that.
Andrew,
All your responses are aimed at discrediting rather than any rational exchange. And so you say this or that about me but you don’t address any specific points I make.
Let’s take the first paragraph of my response. Do you disagree that those conservatives who object to the tearing down of confederate statues are objecting because they have whitewashed American history?
Or take the second paragraph? If we need a masculine protestantism, why isn’t that similar to asking for Protestant Putins since Putin has portrayed himself as the epitome of masculinity? We should note that Putin also belongs to the Orthodox Church and has supported laws, including laws limiting the outreach of evangelical churches, that favor the Orthodox Church.
Let me restate the third paragraph in this way. Do you find it odd that Garris carefully qualifies or use of tradition but doesn’t carefully qualify how we need Protestantism to be more masculine?
See, if you trying to discredit without addressing individual points, you’re responding irrationally. And in doing so, you are saying more about yourself than about anyone you are responding to.
I do not answer fools according to their folly, nor do I cast pearls before swine. Perhaps you are not worthy of any credit.
Andrew,
Aren’t you aware of how Matthew 5 warns us against calling people such names?
Plus, your answer is an easy out. Just call someone a fool and you have given yourself an excuse. But that doesn’t change the kind of answers you give. You are answering irrationally.
As a same sex attracted person who is married to one wife of the opposite sex for almost 39 years and refuses to identify as a “Gay Christian,” I’m fully aware that there are those who would say my faith is “self loathing with a Christian veneer.” I don’t agree with them.
Seems like Curt Day is your “continual” thorn in the butt, but why? And who are you to know his religion and to presume he loathes himself? Could you be actually projecting yourself on someone who shines a light into your darkness?
This article suggests that many younger men are trooping back to orthodoxy and ancient traditions. Fine! We don’t know every young man on earth to postulate that. We are not the Omniscient. And just because a few young men worship in the altars of trumps and putins hoping to fake some olden day macho, they are still beached like dying whales because there is no room for patriarchy today. You think your daughter will defer to you and ignore what the order if the day goes? You think your wife will remain your humble servant? You think Taliban will hold Afghani women from education for ever and ever more?
As a person with “ same sex attraction” (and no I will not identify as a “gay Christian” ) I would be rather pleased if Protestant men all started imitating Putin and going around without any shirts! But that’s a sinful thought, and I’m just admitting to it, not defending it. (For the record, I’m a Side C; I don’t have the “gift of singleness,” whatever that is, and I’ve been married to the same wife of the opposite sex for almost 39 years. I only need ONE wife anyhow.)
Excellent article. I would like to see a part 2. How can pastors encourage their congregations to begin embracing the rich protestant tradition? How can elders encourage presbyteries to do the same?
Keep up the good work.
Well said! Enjoyed reading that.
What would you say to churches that are conservative in every sense of the world but egalitarian when it comes to leadership? Can those churches properly lead men or is that simply not attainable? Asking for a “friend.”
You had me until “like the Westminster Articles of Faith” part. The reformers were a great START but it only OPENED the door for a RICHER theology than Augustine (who brought gnostic fatalism into the Catholic Church and then the first Reformers KEPT it!) but rather it was the dissenters like Molina and Spinoza that managed to bring richness into church theology, even while the Vatican tried its best to quench it. So the GREATNESS of the Reformers was that they ASSERTED SOLA SCRIPTURA, which introduces alternate interpretations apart from Augustine and others.
But I digress on your digression, you are CORRECT that masculine protestants are sorely lacking, but being a “bible church” or ‘non-denominational’ is not anti-masculine, nor is it an indicator of “liberalism”… the KEY to a RUCH CHURCH is the EMPHASIS on a SOUND EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLE, and holding the BIBLE, not ‘confessions’ to the HIGHEST authority, as you also mentioned in your article.
typo in RUCH… meant RICH.
Robert,
I very much appreciate your 2nd paragraph
Robert, Garris would likely be in agreement most of what you have said.
How did Augustine bring “gnostic fatalism” into the church? And explain about Molina. And Spinoza wasn’t a Christian at all, at all. He helped start a lot of the rot that has overtaken us.
The writer is aware that there is a fly in the house. But the writer is swatting in the kitchen, while the fly is in the bedroom.
What I mean by that is that none of this is false, per se. Particularly the church website or the linked article on knowingscripture.com. However, truths in the abstract aren’t helpful. One must apply them to the situation at hand. The blueprint for growing in maturity and knowledge of Christ is clear – but one’s areas of growth is key and that is anything but clear.
My concern with this teaching is it completely ignores the massive sins of abuse and Christian nationalism that are dominating the church. Every single week an erstwhile faithful minister falls, as it is revealed that he was not above reproach. Instead of following the scriptures, the church becomes wrapped up in the details around his innocence or guilt.
But the Bible leaves no room for that. Accusations from one woman are to be tossed aside. But there is no room for leaders who are not above reproach. That verse is, indeed, tossed aside, as we debate her testimony vs. his.
Similarly, Christian nationalism focuses on things other than the gospel that saves us and others. It doesn’t further the kingdom one bit. It encourages following a leader who could not possibly be any more hostile to the Christian faith, while actively repelling people who might otherwise come to saving faith.
This website loves to ignore both of these things. But it does so at its peril. Eternity is at stake. Quotes from church fathers and big words will not save the authors of this website. Rather, their fruit will be the evidence of their salvation. As it stands, their trees have not yet borne fruit.
I think you’re missing his overarching point and bringing into this article your own frustrations. Wanting a more “masculine” Christianity does not mean wanting a more “abusive” Christianity that denies the accusations of women. Historical Christianity has always believed this which is why the author didn’t feel the need to go out of his way to qualify his article. That’s a ridiculous response that indicates you didn’t actually read the article and simply came to it wanting to find fault. It’s borderline slander.
It’s also a massive category error to equate abuse and Christian nationalism. The former is clearly a sin and for one, can lead to jail time, while the latter is… a really vague term that can mean all sorts of things from teaching your kids Christian ethics, to wanting to rebel against the State and overthrow the government. Is that a sin?
Do the 10 commandments speak to the sin of wanting to live in a Christian country and desiring your neighbors to have the blessings those bring? Or course not. That’s lazy thinking that again indicates you came to this article wanting to find fault and condemn.
If you are familiar with David’s comment history here, it’s almost a given that he came here wanting to find fault and condemn.
Ah I am not. But unsurprising.
He’s similar to Curt but meaner and more aggressive in his tone.
Veneration of icons is a theological error? Something tells me that the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 A.D. would have come to that conclusion if it were true. That they came to the exact opposite conclusion and endorsed icon veneration convinces me that it’s the Reformers who were in error on icons.
What we’re not allowed to do is treat the picture of something or someone as if it actually were that something or someone.
Looks like you are encouraging a return to patriarchy. Touting tradition and disparaging women in church leading roles. Returning to exclusivity and turning your back on people you see as undeserving of inclusion in the service of God.
This bullshit here: What men need is a masculine Protestantism. They need churches led by male pastors and elders, steeped in biblical liturgy, upholding historic confessions (like the Westminster Confession of Faith), proclaiming the gospel, and teaching the whole counsel of God. They need churches that courageously uphold the Bible’s teaching on male headship, support traditional families, promote godliness and oppose wickedness, and encourage men as they seek to carry out their God-given duties in a world that hates them…..is exactly what the enlightened church is trying to escape
“Masculine Protestantism” could only be desired by men who are butt hurt that they are no longer exalted for being male and are no longer in charge.
The fact that a return to this kind of dark age thinking is desirable does not bode well for our future and is very dangerous and very sad.
A return to religion….is not a return to God