[REBLOG] Jesus Was No Girlie

Another excellent blog post from the “man with no uncertain trumpet”, Monsignor Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington.

This time, Monsignor Pope’s attention is focused on the image of Jesus that was smuggled around in the Seventies, and that still influences the Sixty-Eighters and other pot-smokers today. In those years – and whilst I was a child, I got my share of those years – Jesus was generally portrayed as a kind of a whimp, a girly boy unable to exert or project any form of manliness, a mixture of hare “krishna” follower and Gandhi with, later, the addition of a dollop of Nelson Mandela. Victimised, but as meek as a sheep; bullied, but always answering with a smile, and unable to threat or harm, this is the Jesus we had brought to us as an example. “Peeaace” and “luuuuv” were everywhere, and not a whip in sight.

Well, one only needs to read the Gospel to get a completely different picture of Jesus; a man who never said things half, and never minced words; a man able to openly defy his opponents in public, in times when conflicts were carried out rather less nicely than today, and “being hurt” had a different meaning than today; a man whose followers went around armed with swords, certainly not for aesthetic reasons; a man able to free himself from the grasp of multitudes desirous to apprehend him, which can’t have been accomplished without a towering presence and an extremely commanding, charismatic, utterly manly attitude; a man able, alone, to throw away from the temple an undefined, but certainly not little number of moneychangers out of the sheer fury of his action, and the might of his whip. On this occasion, the contrast between the calm preparation of the whip and the explosion of irresistible physical power gives a wonderful example of the manliness of Jesus’ behaviour.

No, this was no pink-shirted, manicured, anti-wrinkle-lotioned, tubular-jeans-wearing metrosexual; this was a real man, oozing masculinity in everything he did. Try to imagine the scene of St. Matthew’s conversion and tell me whether it is compatible with anything else than the most commanding authority. Then try to imagine how Gandhi or Deepak Chopra would have tried to achieve the same result, and you’ll know the difference.

You see this everywhere in the Gospels, as the words and gestures of Jesus are always accompanied by an undercurrent of sheer authority, a commanding stance, the attitude of one who knows that he will be obeyed everytime he wants. Even scourged almost to death, Jesus talks to Pilate from a position of utter power, and leaves him in no doubt as to who is boss. Make no mistake, this is no Gandhi.

Thankfully, the gently whispering Jesus of my younger years is now slowly being substituted for an image more attuned to the Gospel image, largely – I think – because of the excellent “passion of the Christ” and James Caviezel’s very manly rendition of the Lord. It will take time, though, before the Birkenstock-sandalled, tofu-eating, Cosmo-reading and Oprah-watching Jesus is replaced by, well….. Jesus.

Mundabor

Advertisements

Posted on March 10, 2017, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Thank you for this insightful article. I often think about the humanity of Jesus. For instance, when he was twelve and in the company of the doctors in the temple, “hearing and asking them questions; and all that heard Him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers.” It is clearly demonstrated that Jesus was an infant prodigy. In fact, I would go as far to say, that in absolutely everything He did was in the realm of genius. His memory probably photographic, His skills in craft, as a carpenter exceptional. He astounded people with his academic abilities.: “And the Jews wondered saying,: “How doth this man know letters, having never learned?” He would of outshone Mozart and every genius that ever existed; simply because He is true man and true God. Jesus’ physical strength was clearly awesome. Meditating upon the stations of the cross, one wonders how he managed to rise up after the third fall; how he managed to die such a terrible manly death with such strength and tenderness. No weak effeminate pansy man could of achieved that, in fact I doubt that any of us could.
    A N.O, friend of mine has a large painting of an effeminate, hippy like Jesus playing the guitar. I hate it, but if He did play the guitar He would of been better then Clapton. You might have to an old ex hippy to understand that reference.

  2. Ah, very good! I’m a newcomer here, and the masculine tone of your writings is invigorating. As someone who is trying to make my way to the holy Catholic faith, I can’t tell you how valuable a clear, direct perspective is. The Protestant church is rife with soft males…I certainly didn’t want to jump from the frying pan into the fire. Thank you for your focused observations.

    • Welcome, and please stay tuned..

      In the years I have written thousands of posts, and if you click on the “Catholic Vademecum” on top of this page you will find a series of articles illustrating Catholicism.

      With the usual bluntness, I will tell you that the conversion to Catholicism is not an option, but a duty. However, be aware that you will, for all your life as a Catholic, find the Barque of Peter infested with pansies, or worse, of all sorts. But the Barque still is, and there is no other place for a Christian to be.

      M

  3. In art, the closest images of Our Lord to your description are the Byzantine mosaics. The artists did not imagine what Our Lord looks like, they knew from studying the Shroud what a tall imposing man He is.

%d bloggers like this: