A Load of Bull

I grew up with a partially correct thinking that a bull is that particular species of beast which can be found at the arena of any Spanish city, both chasing and evading the smartly dressed Matador who is there to torture the life out of it with his use of decorated spears. Personally, I believe that the term Bullfighting is a misnomer. The type of bull in question is the male gender of cattle, of which the more familiar female cow provides us with our daily supply of pasteurised milk. I have actually visited a bullfighting arena whilst on a package holiday with a college friend way back in 1972, the first ever trip abroad without my parents and a year before my first ever backpacking trip into Italy in 1973.

Mt college friend refused to join me for that day trip to Barcelona. Instead, he preferred to remain in the growing popular Mediterranean resort of Tossa-de-Mar on the Costa Brava, just south of the Pyrenees, where our hotel was located. I think he had a point. I was keen to sample some foreign culture, which to my mind was the foundational basis for future backpacking. He was more aghast with the thought of witnessing torture as a source of pleasure. And torture it was. Bullfighting? The animal has always been herbivorous. A bull will only charge when its territory is invaded and its harem of females are under threat of competition or harm. In the ring, the bull's attempts to charge was always frustrated by the far greater agility of the slim-built matador, who watched the beast's life slowly ebb away in full sight of the cheering crowds. I went away having just learnt that the matador wasn't the star hero that the Spaniards make him out to be. Now had he fought a hungry lion or tiger like the ancient Roman gladiators did, then I guess that would have been more of a nerve-tingling, edge-of-the-seat entertainment. 

It was during the years that followed when I became aware that the word bull was not just reserved for male cattle. Rather it applied to other male species of mammal, mostly herbivorous, which include the rhinoceros and the elephant. Plant-eater the rhino may be, but having one of those charge at you has been proven fatal, as without the spears and a crowd of cheering spectators, a cattle bull can also gore a human to death as well. Among marine life, the male whale and dolphin, both mammals, are also referred as bulls. It looks to me that the bull is the male of any large, bovine-type mammal often having the capacity to kill a human. Going by what I have seen throughout life, the bull looks to be synonymous with masculinity.

During my school days, male respect was based on physical strength, an athletic prowess and the ability to co-operate well in team sports. Throughout the year, three team games were played by all the boys - Football, Rugby, and Cricket. The snag was that I did not have good team co-operation, although I did enjoy playing cricket to a certain extent. But attempting to play rugby was nigh impossible when I wasn't even taught the object of the game - to score a try by passing the ball over the touchline without passing the ball forward, and then convert the try by kicking the ball over the crossbar of that H-like structure at both ends of the pitch. In addition, the goal-kick, aiming the ball randomly over the crossbar without having to score a try beforehand, also added points to the score. Indeed, if only I knew all that whilst at school. Chances that I might, just might, have performed better.

The culture of the day was that rugby was a he-man's game, the ultimate of masculine team sports, especially if rain has muddied the pitch. Aside from a determination to win, perhaps together with performance enhanced by a degree of aggression, the display of all other emotions on the pitch was well off the cards. When a try was scored, there was no congratulated hugging from team mates. If one got hurt, unless his injury was serious enough for treatment, the player just got back up and continued playing. In rugby, British stoicism and stiff upper lip reigned supreme. After all, the game originated here in the English town of Rugby in Warwickshire. So it was not surprising that the game, throughout my youth in particular, carried such English characteristics. This was emphasised not long after leaving school, by a national newspaper which published a thesis of the game as a whole. The article opened with a bold headline which read:

SISSIES, STAY OUT! 

The British bulldog. Yes, it's back to the bull again, although I can't exactly equal the bulldog in strength and prowess as the bull of a rhino, elephant, cattle, or for that matter the Blue whale bull, the largest ever living animal of any kind existing on this planet, or that of the orca, perhaps living right on the top of the marine food chain. Against such creatures, in conflict the bulldog wouldn't stand a chance! And that despite that the bulldog was originally bred for bull-baiting, which peaked around the year 1800 before its abolition in 1835. As such, this dog has always been the symbol of British masculinity, particularly in the portraying of Winston Churchill.

And by reading national newspapers such as the daily Mail, columnists such as Richard Littlejohn, only a couple of years ago criticised the BBC for firing Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson for throwing a punch at programme producer Oisin Tymon, as well as calling him "Irish" and "lazy" when he failed to come up with the roast beef dinner Clarkson had hoped for after a full day's work. Littlejohn, along with fellow columnists Amanda Platell, Kate Hopkins, and perhaps Piers Morgan as well, all in their own way expressed the promotion of the great British Bulldog in which these writers saw Clarkson as an ideal candidate - courageous, stoic, unemotional, strong-minded, as characteristic of national pride, self confidence and optimism. As an example, Littlejohn has not only criticised the BBC over Jeremy Clarkson's dismissal, but also poured heaps of praise on the presenter for being characteristically British - rough, tough, sometimes crude but always fair, and something of a bigger-than-life hero not unlike John Wayne of Western legend.

And as one who has voted Remain in last year's Referendum, I now belong to a larger group known as the Remoaners, and even the editor of the Daily Mail newspaper now refers to us with such a title. Maybe the paper has a point. After all, the British are reputed worldwide as being a nation of moaners. We even have an edict here: Mustn't grumble. Instead, according to these writers, we are now a generation of snowflakes, of which columnists Amanda Platell and Melanie Phillips described us as emotional, mawkish, sentimental, and lacking of masculinity, courage and principle. Indeed, I now wish I was good at rugby at school, and maybe even joined a rugby club as a young adult.

It goes to show what a misconstrued meaning of masculinity these writers have. The Biblical meaning of the word is quite different. There is just two words making up a whole verse in the Bible, and those two words are Jesus wept (John 11:35). And surely, if there was ever the finest example of what masculinity really is, one has only to look to Jesus of Nazareth. And Paul reflects the human nature of Jesus Christ when he exhorted the churches of Galatia in his letter:

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control 

Galatians 5:22.

This means that true masculinity is about love and concern for the welfare of others, which is quite a contrast to having pride and confidence in self. And with such other fruits as gentleness, the total opposite of the "rough, tough and often crude" mentality which is erroneously defined as masculinity. True masculinity involves self-control - a virtue lacking in Clarkson when he punched Tymon - just because he did not get what he wanted. Self-control is the ability to remain calm when wronged. But this virtue is not to be confused with the stiff upper lip. Self control involves showing love and kindness despite being wronged.  The stiff upper lip is nothing more than keeping anger and frustration bottled up - which is detrimental to health and can lead to suicide. Clarkson would never have struck out at the producer if he also had the virtues of kindness, goodness, faithfulness and patience. These are definitions of true masculinity.

The fruit of love contains all eight segments of the Holy Spirit. 

A real man is someone who doggedly journeys to work each day at a job he hates because of a neurotic and foul-tempered boss - in order to keep up with his mortgage payments and to feed and clothe his family. It is the love he has for his wife which motivates him to climb out of his bed early on a cold winter morning to head for his car for the drive to work or attend to his outdoor job. His love for his wife is a fruit of true masculinity.

True masculinity involves fulfilling the vows made at the wedding altar. It means staying with her even if she falls ill and permanently loses her mobility and ends up in a wheelchair, and as such, he finds it too inconvenient to take foreign holidays he once so loved. True masculinity is refusing to leave his wife for a far better lifestyle - even if staying with her means the loss of his children to Social Services. True masculinity will always see his wife as beautiful as the day he married her, even after age has taken its toll. True masculinity is showing love and compassion which can be costly. True masculinity is offering friendship to someone who has a different opinion. As such, for example, I have at least two friends, and no doubt, others whose friendship I value highly, yet who are patriotic and have voted Brexit. It means showing kindness, goodness, patience and faithfulness to someone who differs in theological issues. That is masculinity, which also involves not un-friending someone on Facebook and then blocking him and his wife too, just because they perceive life in a different manner. To block someone on Facebook is not masculine at all. Rather it is craven cowardice.

True masculinity can only come with a true love-relationship with God. The Bible even delivers an acid test - that anyone who loves God loves his fellow believers too, and anyone who claims that he loves God but hates his brother is still in darkness (1 John 2:9-11, 3:15). With still the flesh at work within me, it is true that I can, and do get impatient and angry with somebody else, whether believer or unbeliever. That could be the reason why John exhorts his readers to love one another (e.g. 1 John 4:11) - which corresponds with Paul's letter, especially to the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 13). This love can only come with the residence of the Holy Spirit within. My own experience in life has shown a strong desire for forgiveness and reconciliation whenever I fall out with someone, especially at church. This desire for reconciliation and friendship restored can only come from the Holy Spirit within, which I find far more beneficial to mental and physical health alike, than pride - the insistence that I'm in the right and therefore sticking to my guns. Pride is not masculinity. Admitting that I was wrong is masculinity.

You want to be controlled by the Holy Spirit within? Then read your Bible everyday, and allow the Word of God to dwell richly within you (Colossians 3:16). Here lies the real power source for true masculinity - without the British Bulldog spirit.

Am I Being Morbid?

Being retired from work does give me several privileges. Aside from going to the gym up to three times a week, there is also the opportunity of visiting Bracknell Town Centre during a typical working day, especially around the time of the lunch period. And the fact that over here in what the Americans may refer to as "Downtown Bracknell," much of it is a huge building site, at a midst of a major redevelopment project, featuring a new shopping and leisure mall which will attract retailers and businesses which have not existed here before. 

Last week I passed a group of workmen who were milling around during lunchtime, and I overheard one calling out some instructions to another - in a foreign language, probably Polish. Suddenly, my perception of the construction project, the issue of immigration, and the result of the Referendum, all seemed to have come into focus. Many of the builders, if not the entire workforce, are no longer of the traditional English working-class builder, known for his drum-sized mugs of tea, a half smoked cigarette carefully poised between his fingers, and his casual humour as he wolf-whistles a passing young female, or as they say in their language, "a nice-looking chick." Rather, it looks to me that the redevelopment of Bracknell town centre is carried out by foreign workers who keep themselves mostly to themselves.

Reconstruction project at Bracknell town centre.

Like the time when we had a complete kitchen and bathroom overhaul, a project which lasted three weeks. Several different contractors were involved. The first took down all the old plaster and fittings, the next dealt with the plumbing, another took care of the electrical rewiring, another re-plastered the walls, still another installed all the new furnishings, another re-tiled the flooring, and the final contractor re-painted the walls and ceilings. Quite a number of workers we had in our house every weekday, and I'll be the first to say that they all done a magnificent job, up to professional standard. Yet every worker involved in the project were foreigners, even with a level of difficulty in speaking English.

So the cry of the indigenous Brits as we voted whether to remain in the EU or to leave and regain our national sovereignty - we voted to leave by a narrow margin. One of the main issues here being immigration - people from the European Union coming here and taking our jobs, often with low pay. As a consequence, employers are to be blamed for paying such low wages whilst at the same time the foreign workforce seems to be content enough not to protest and withdraw their labour, as the British workers were reputed for doing so on such a large scale. It was even noticed globally, particularly back in the 1970's, with the Winter of Discontent of 1978/9 reaching the pinnacle of the crisis, something I remember well. Maybe it was these Capital-versus-Labour conflicts which were a factor to this widespread immigration. Then after watching Degree-Inflation beginning to creep into the academic world during the 1990's, with more and more students choosing Further Education in preference to vocational apprenticeships, a culture of occupational snobbery began to rise. Young men in particular wanted to match their female colleagues in the professions, and therefore turned up their noses at traditional vocations for a desk in the office.

And so the dominant Prime Minister of that decade, Labour leader Tony Blair delivered his mantra: Education! Education! Education! - with Universities becoming the new yardstick for personal and occupational success. The Labour Government of the 1990's was also responsible for the Open Doors Policy, a relaxation of our national boundaries to allow greater freedom of movement across Europe, including into and out of the UK. No doubt, small businesses, retailers and farmers took advantage of the inflow of Europeans with a promise of accommodation and "a reasonable pay" - which although low by British standards, it was still higher than these workers would have received had they remained at their home countries.

And so with an added excuse of the NHS becoming clogged up with "Health Tourists" coming into the UK with their expectation of free treatment, when former Prime Minister David Cameron called for a Referendum to ask the nation whether to leave or remain in the European Union, the Vote to Leave won. And that despite that the clogging of the NHS was due mainly of the ageing indigenous population rather than health tourism - which makes up a tiny percentage of the patient flow - there is a certain high feeling of optimism, even excitement as not only the UK regaining its own sovereignty, but with great expectations of great glory equalling to imperial days. Indeed the modern Tower of Babel will one day be completed! 

And so with the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, is hardly completed when a group of highly professional, right-wing English Media journalists gets in on the act. This being the case of the gloating and sneering attitude towards us who voted Remain at last year's Referendum. One good example of sneering is quoted here, word for word, from Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn, in his article praising the victory of the new President. He writes:

One of the great joys of watching the unlikely rise of The Donald has been witnessing the deranged reaction of his opponents, who have behaved exactly like the hysterical Remain camp at home.

They still can't accept that they lost and will do everything in their power to prevent Trump (and Brexit) from succeeding. But they are doomed to failure.

A phalanx of Democratic politicians boycotted the inauguration, in a playground gesture of dissent. Like our own Remoaners, they saw everything which they disagree as "illegitimate" or "undemocratic".

The Daily Mail, Saturday January 21st - Page 17, emphasis mine.

This is totally untrue, we have not behaved like the protesters in the streets of Washington DC. Instead, Littlejohn looks to be exaggerating so to throw a stronger punch. In what way? Well, first of all, the majority of Remainers still believe that the result of the Referendum was democratic enough for the divorce from the EU to proceed. Secondly, and more to the point, I cannot recall even a single reported incident of Remainers causing violence in the streets here in the UK, throwing rocks, setting cars alight, and breaking glass shop-fronts of banks and McDonald's restaurants. These violent protests were against the rise of Donald Trump and this took place mainly at 12th Street of Washington DC. Yes, we might have made a verbal protest or two, but it looks to me that the vast majority of us who voted Remain accepted our loss with a level of grace. On the other hand, the murder of Labour M.P. Helen Joanne Cox in West Yorkshire by a deranged would-be Brexit voter just before the Referendum, is kept rather quiet by columnists such as Richard Littlejohn.

Scenes of the Anti-Trump protests in Washington DC 

I voted to remain in the EU, and after suffering the loss, all I did was make a few comments on Facebook. That was all. I certainly did not go out onto the streets to protest, not even on a peaceful level, let alone violently! Furthermore, I am against any idea of a second Referendum, as proposed by both Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron and Virgin Group founder Richard Branson. Rather, we all have already voted. A result emerged. Those who voted Leave has won the vote. So let's get on with it.

Right-wing newspapers are glorifying both the victory of Brexit here in the UK and the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. Both groups of supporters are extremely proud, self-confident, and optimistic for the future. I could even add that there were many evangelical churches in America who persuaded their members to vote for Trump. And here is the rub. Churches vying for a political leader. Quite contrary to how the Apostles felt about their leaders of their day.

Because although I voted to remain, I am also aware of the imminent: Death, which could happen at any moment. Especially as one retired, I have become more aware of this unstoppable journey to the grave. The apostles knew this as well, and lived as if each day might be the last. Suddenly, with such a realisation - everything in this world becomes irrelevant. What use is it for me if we leave or remain in the EU if God will call me home tomorrow? Oh more important, if my unbelieving friends, colleagues or neighbours were to die tomorrow without Christ in their lives? Yes, what then? Am I being morbid?

In Romans 13:1-7, Paul writes that there is no authority which has not been established by God. Therefore as Christians we are obliged to submit to those over us. The American believer has a duty to submit to Donald Trump as President as it is for us to submit to Theresa May as Prime Minister, whether we all agree with their policies or not. It is what Paul the apostle has written. Peter backs this up, exhorting us to fear God and to honour the King (1 Peter 2:17) - even if the Roman Emperors in Peter's day were at their peak of wickedness, and guilty of murdering potential rivals and family members. Both Paul and Peter knew that God himself has placed each one on the throne for the purpose of keeping evil in check. In this sinful world, the need for authority is a necessity.

There was something glorious about the ancient Roman empire. Despite the wickedness of its ruler, the Pax Romana has made the empire look glorious to the average Roman citizen, including richly aesthetic public buildings, marketplaces, forums, theatres, and of course - the public baths, so beautifully decorated, and areas of public gardens and its numerous fountains to delight the eye. Indeed, there was a lot of beauty in the ancient Roman Empire along with its economical and political stability. The kind of world which Donald Trump has aspirations for the USA, and for Brexiteers have for the UK. The wanting of the heart of every human being to restore his lost paradise, bathed in glory and earthly splendour, the Garden of Eden lost at the dawn of history. 

And that how poor Demas must have felt. Demas was a companion of the Apostle Paul out on an evangelical mission, along with Cresens, Titus, and Luke. In 2 Timothy 4:10-11, Paul writes that only Luke remains with him, after the departure of Titus to Dalmatia, Cresens to Galatia, and Demas having gone to Thessalonica, having loved this present world. 

With the richness and man-made glory of the Roman Empire, I can't blame the attitude of Demas, on how he was overcome by the beauty, political and economic stability of the world he lived in. But a few years ago I have read an online article written by one of the leaders of an evangelical church in the Californian city of Sacramento. This church, like I do, believes in Eternal Security of the Believer, and therefore I value many of its teachings. But one teaching I have objections with is that concerning Demas. According to this church, Demas was never a true believer, or else he wouldn't have deserted Paul for the love of this world, according to their reasoning, the promise of the true believer being kept by the power of God, as stated in 1 Peter 1:3-5. Therefore this church has classed Demas as a false convert, still in his sins, along with any other like-minded church-deserters as false converts. This is utter nonsense. Not only does this deny the beauty in the truth of Once Saved Always Saved, but also becomes a form of Lordship Salvation. Only in this case, a life of continuous performance being proof of salvation. Failure to perform adequately only leading to grave doubts whether he is truly saved, hence becoming a sitting duck for adverse spiritual forces. Surely, this kind of thinking can place an unbearable yoke on the neck of the believer.

Jesus advises us to seek the Kingdom of God and not to love this present world. This can only be done through the power of the Holy Spirit within. It is an act of love. An act of love for God and his Kingdom which will surpass everything that is good in this world. Not only it's the work of God in the heart, but it also take time for such love to be reached, and it's easy to fall back from time to time. But that does not make us false converts. Rather, it's part of spiritual growth.

To the apostles, along with the majority of early believers, the Kingdom of God and its glory was so close to their own reality, that all the glorious things of this world had become like shadows by comparison. They honoured the Emperor in full knowledge that God has put him there to keep evil in check, but still their hearts yearned to be in the presence of their True King, the risen Jesus Christ who has atoned for their sins and has credited his own righteousness upon them, and made them children of God and heirs to his inheritance. Donald Trump cannot achieve any of these for his followers. Neither can Brexit bring such salvation to us either.

Pride, Prejudice, and Jealousy

One of the most notable characters in the New Testament, other than the Lord Jesus Christ, is Simon - renamed Peter by the Lord himself. A full blown extrovert, he stumbled his way through all four Gospels with barely keeping his mouth shut. He was one of only three men in all of human history who had the wonderful privilege to witness the Transfiguration of the Lord to his full glory, and also watching the appearance of Moses and Elijah appearing in their post-mortal glories. What was talked about between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, only Luke gives us a clue (9:28-36) which touched on his Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. But it was Peter, who should have been kneeling with his face to the ground, instead, his anxiety of such a vision caused him to speak, which all three of the Gospel writers recorded: Lord, let us build three tents: One for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. Such a statement uttered out of impulsiveness without proper forethought is a hallmark of his character.

Another bloomer can be found in Matthew 16:21-23, where, after foretelling by the Lord of his accusations, death and resurrection all taking place in Jerusalem, Peter, swollen with pride, exclaims that these things would never happen to him. What was the cause of his pride? It was built on the commendation Jesus gave him shortly before for identifying him as "The Christ, the Son of the living God." It was this pride which opened the door of his heart for Satan to enter, and ending with the sternest rebuke Jesus has to make to anyone other than to the Pharisees.

Within the same person, I am wondering whether prejudice is related to pride. And there are at least two occasions where Peter had demonstrated this trait. The first was when God sends an angel to Cornelius with an order to dispatch some men to bring Peter to his home (Acts 10.) Peter was a Jew while Cornelius was a Roman centurion. Just before the men had arrived at Peter's lodgings at Joppa, Peter was praying on the rooftop, and he began to feel hungry. He received a vision of a large sheet, held by its four corners, containing animals which the Law has forbidden for any Israelite to eat, and therefore rendered unclean. The vision, which appeared three times, had to be used by God to break his prejudice and convince the apostle that the three Gentile men arriving at his lodgings were sent by God. Even at Cornelius' house, Peter had to utter such words which the Authorised Version has put so succinctly:  

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

In other words, it was an abomination for a Jew to enter a house of a non-Jew, let alone fellowship!

But even with prejudice overcome, remnants of it might be linked with fear. That is, fear of what others would think. Such was a classic case some years after the Ascension. Peter most likely felt rather nervous or ill at ease while eating at a non-Jewish table. Because as soon as some men sent by James arrived, Peter suddenly withdrew, even taking fellow-Jews, including Barnabas, with him (Galatians 2:11-14.) It was Paul, himself a Jew, who rebuked Peter in front of them all, calling his action an act of hypocrisy and not walking according to the Gospel.

Also in the case of Peter, a glimpse of a third trait, jealousy, is recorded in the apostle's character. This was when the mother of James and John, on one occasion, approached Jesus with a request for her sons to sit right next to him on either side of his throne (Matthew 29:20-28). The Lord's answer was that it was not up to him to grant the request, but that of his Father. Peter, along with the other disciples, expressed displeasure, to put it mildly, an acknowledgement of jealousy seen in the apostle's character - along with a momentary showing of pride and a more enduring sense of prejudice. But as I look into history, I also wonder whether the third trait is related to the other two. And I having studied some history, there is good evidence that jealousy has always been fully embedded in western culture. Using an example, reading about slavery which dominated the Deep South during the eighteenth and nineteenth Centuries, pride in slave ownership, prejudice against social equality, and jealousy over the superior strength, good looks, and superb physique of each of their chattel, each making up the threefold pillar which supported such a culture, allowing the trade to exist before abolition in 1865.

As one who has been a believer in the Lord for over forty years, I would not be truthful if I was to claim freedom from these three emotive issues. Pride, prejudice and jealousy, each intertwining to offset my walk with God and from enjoying his love and blessings. Where is my source of pride? Much of it goes to what I have achieved - 35 years of running a business, worldwide travel - especially to the Holy Land - the ability backed by determination to write, despite leaving school without any qualifications nearly half a century earlier, to constantly work on improving grammar, style and so-forth. Then the strength and robust of our marriage over sixteen years, after constantly reading about how glamorous Hollywood-style marriages between celebrities break up as little as only after fourteen months as with the case of Russell Brand and Katy Perry, or 72 days with Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries, or even as little as 55 hours - as was the case with Britney Spears and Jason Alexander.*

And celebrities - coming to think of it - there was one instance of celebrity pride I had to laugh at. And I ask you, the reader, to forgive me for seeing the funny side of what should have been a serious matter of misplaced egotism. It concerned a horse racing venue at Cheltenham, where spectators on a balcony, all second-rate professional footballers, were meant to be watching the races. Instead, one of them urinated into a glass in public and then emptied the glass over the rail. A day later a newspaper columnist, in direct reference to the incident, wrote,
When I was a kid, my (footballing) heroes were rarely pictured without a shirt-and-tie, when they weren't in their football strip.
The only snag with his argument was that both offenders, James Collins and Samir Carruthers, were dressed in shirt-and-tie, with Collins himself dressed in a smart suit.

Footballer James Collins throws his urine over the railing

And it is such a comment made by this columnist which arouses prejudice embedded within my own character - the British stigma about wearing a tie which suppose to bring an element of class to the wearer, and in turn engender greater respect. To be honest with you, I'm one of many average guys who don't like ties. Of course, I'll still wear a tie when circumstances call for it, such as on the last occasion which was at my father's funeral. But otherwise, I have always found the tie to be the source of physical discomfort and irritability, an opinion apparently shared by the majority of foreign correspondents and journalists whilst on duty, let alone by just about everyone you see strolling along the shopping precinct on a typical Saturday. I prefer to associate class to good character rather than dress style. But then again, I have always harboured a deep prejudice against the social class strata, along with the English idea that "I must know my place" - still felt in the air despite the increase in social mobility. It looks to me that such professions such as Government ministers, high ranking bishops and archbishops, along with movie actors, together with journalists and reporters, all having received Public School education. With the decline of grammar schools, it looks to me that this has brought a revival of this "Know your place" attitude. Just look at Parliament!

Then as a typical human, I too have my share of jealousy. Stemming from my parent's desire for me to have done a lot better at school, I tend to feel an element of jealousy at university graduates and their promising outlook of a choice career they have the ability to follow. Did you know that my childhood ambition was to become a surgeon? Very far fetched no doubt, but not from my primary school days. Journalism was my second option, especially if global travel was involved. As for wealth and possessions, surprising this may be to you, this has virtually nothing on me. Whether it's a big house, a couple of fast cars, or possessions, it has completely no effect in rousing jealousy. But on the other hand, a Facebook message that one of my friends was about to take off from Heathrow Airport to visit Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and California, on a cold November morning, caused me to sit on the ground green with sheer envy as I started the day's work. The same in the past, before I was married, when a good-looking friend and bachelor is seen for the first time sitting next to a pretty female, particularly in church.

The apostle James asks his readers:
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from the desires that battle within you? 
James 4:1.

And he was writing to believers, not unbelievers! It goes to show that we who are regenerated as begotten of God are still not free from such earthly desires. It must lurk in all of us, including Christians. James takes our sinful natures as a matter of course, just as John, in his first letter, has written that anyone who claims to be without sin is a liar (1:8-10) and he is deceived. And apparently this applies to believers, as John addressed his letters to them.

Lately, after reading Isaiah's statement that many approach God with their lips, but their hearts are far from him (Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15:8) my main concern was that this prophecy isn't being fulfilled in me, as it was with the Pharisees. Lately, I have stood outside and looking heavenward, pleaded with the Lord to draw my heart ever closer to him. It was at a time of ecstasy, as I have just completed a vigorous workout at the gym, and chances were that the Pituitary Gland was pumping out all sorts of "happiness hormones" into the bloodstream. It was a good moment for a heart-cry to God. And yes, I thoroughly believe that all Old Testament men of faith were drawn to God by his Divine power, and not by self effort, as just about the entire book of Jeremiah can attest, endorsed by Jesus in John 6:44, as well as the seventh chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. To pray for the Lord to bring my heart closer to him seems to be the solution to all my emotional problems.

Are there people who dislike me? I won't let that bother me any more. Even Christians who hate me? (Only one I think.) It no longer matters. Failed at school? No longer important. Wish I had a far more respectable career? Too late now, I'm enjoying retirement. Not a home owner or car owner? My eternal Home is in Heaven, and I most likely will fly! The wonderful truth is, that I'm loved by God, and I love him. My love for God is because he first loved me, and gave up his Son to atone for my sins. With such a revelation as this, it's not only have a humbling power, but also helps me to ask:
What else do I want?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Source:- Platell's People, The Daily Mail, 19/03/2016.

Also, no infringement of copyright on Mark Large's photo was made as this blog page is not designed to make money.

Manhood Defined

Just this evening I was doing the weekly main shopping at the local superstore when I began to notice how empty it was of the usual crowd of shoppers. For me, Friday evenings has always been a great time to shop, as it relieves the weekend of the responsibility. After the last item was placed in the wheeled basket, I made my way to the checkout, where the teller sat idly, waiting for the next customer. A very unusual sight at any supermarket store. Usually on a Friday there is always at least one person in the process of being served, quite often two, with the second still waiting his or her turn. During the weekend itself, queues of two to three, sometimes even four at each checkout waiting to be served is more of the general norm.

But not this time. Instead the tellers sat idly, and I was able to breeze through. Then it dawned: I said to the young female serving me that it must be the live football on TV which was keeping their customers at home. It was an important match for all football fans, as this game was of a series of fixtures which would climax with the F.A. Cup Final later in the year. Then I said to her that I am not a follower of football. When she replied that she wasn't a fan either, I concluded the conversation with the words:-

This does not make me any less of a man, though - as I spoke with a hint of embarrassment.

The question of masculinity. And I write this more than a week after an incident at a curry restaurant which made me feel very hot under the collar with rage after suffering public humiliation while seating myself at table. Under the Facebook link, A Punch Averted, a good friend of mine typed, You are the bigger man not biting. In a situation like this, he was absolutely right. Had I responded by giving way to my anger - rather than prove my manhood, I would have lessened it, with the risk of all of us thrown out by the restaurant staff and bringing shame and disgrace to an Ascot church of adult men.   

Is being glued to a TV watching live football more masculine than missing the programme to go out shopping? Many years ago, back in the mid-1970's, whilst working at a precision engineering company, I cracked a joke at a fellow machinist, an ardent Queens Park Rangers supporter. In a discussion about watching the match, I came up with a suggestion on going out shopping with his wife instead. The fierce look he gave me would have launched a thousand ships! I went away laughing, back to my own machine, having both caught the funny side. But this kind of thinking most likely had arisen from his adolescence, when he accompanied his father to the weekly visit to the football stadium, while his mother went out to the shops and cooked the dinner. Those post-War days when men were men and women were grateful had an effect on my schooldays, when boys evaluated each other according to their physical prowess and their ability and competitiveness at team sports rather than on academic attainments.

Perhaps very much modelled on John Wayne. This six foot four inch tall embodiment of American masculinity left a trail of broken hearts and jaws everywhere, along with millions of fractured male egos, as this rough, tough, two-fisted, ramrod-backed, but always fair, character who conquered the Old West became the celluloid idol of masculinity to whom no other man can measure up to in the real world. John Wayne remains a fictional character, the ideal model of male toughness. But no less masculine is the far less muscular husband and father who doggedly goes to work each day to the job he hates in order to support his wife and children and to keep those nagging fuel bills paid.

John Wayne.

Indeed, devotion to wife and children through self-sacrifice marks out a far more masculine character than the hulking logger who desserts his wife "for that other bit on the side." Going by experience, true masculinity is not based on how physically strong one is, but on how he relates to others, in particular, putting the interests of others before self. This may even include the swallowing of pride in full public view, for something much better. I once read a story about an evangelist who was preaching the Gospel at a public auditorium. In the audience stood one gangster who has a record of street violence, and based his masculinity on his own toughness and prowess, along with his pride in the fights he got himself into. Soon after the main preach, this young man ran up to the evangelist in full view of everyone, and hugged him tight, breaking into tears. He had just learned what a real man is.

Another misconception of masculinity was emphasised by three journalists of the same newspaper, but at different times, two of the three were female. It is the British notion that stoicism in public is the sign of true masculinity. Over the years as a Christian believer, I had the "virtues" of the British stiff upper lip thrown at me by fellow Christians as well as by newspaper journalists and columnists. They write that since the death of Princess Diana in August 1997, our country had lost its "stoic, bulldog spirit" to become publicly emotional, mawkish, sentimental, schmaltzy, and wet - that is, except the emotion of anger. Like the time when the BBC Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson punched the producer Oisin Tymon in March 2015, over a meal served at a hotel - almost exactly eleven years after punching journalist Piers Morgan in another dispute over a boxing contest. Nobody referred to him as emotional or sentimental, but instead received praise from columnist Richard Littlejohn for "being typical British."

This brings out what I find interesting about British masculinity. Littlejohn's article about Clarkson wasn't unique. The same idea was also reflected by fellow columnist Amanda Platell, who equally praised him. When he was ousted by the BBC over his hotel incident, a very large percentage of Top Gear viewers stood behind him, demanding reinstatement. They all loved his saucy humour, his bias towards racism, and his sense of superiority over foreign nationals, as was the case during his stint in India. While Clarkson could be seen as the more genteel British equivalent of his predecessor John Wayne, he too has left a trail of bruised faces and dented male egos, much to the delight of his fans.

Simon Peter could be seen as another who had similar traits to that of Wayne and Clarkson, even if he was Jewish and lived some two thousand years earlier. Muscular in build, this experienced and hardened fisherman was not only the life of the party, but would have been the first to throw a punch at anyone who dared cross him. Before his encounter with Jesus Christ, he most likely filled his talk with strong language, and according to the culture of the day, it would not be surprising if after a heated argument, end up in a fist fight with the local tax collector, seen by him as a traitor of his people while sucking up to the Romans. Little wonder that Simon and Matthew ending up as members of the same team was nothing short of a miracle, the power of God demonstrated. One interesting incident found in the Gospels was when Jesus allowed mothers to bring their children for a personal blessing (Mark 10:13-16). The narrator says that "the disciples rebuked them." I would not be surprised at all if the ringleader was Simon himself, who didn't want to see his Lord wasting his time on "soppy, sentimental drivel"- and ready to throw a punch to any unfortunate dad who had the temerity to insist on a blessing for his offspring. Instead, Jesus quelled any rising tempers with a rebuke before it got out of hand.

The whole life of Jesus really was a demonstration of manhood and the true nature of masculinity. This makes him distinct from the likes of John Wayne, Jeremy Clarkson and Simon Peter. In the world (and not just in the UK either) male anger is seen as a trait of real masculinity, and is often seen as a means of power and a display of masculine strength. And yet the only time when Jesus showed anger was at the Temple precincts in Jerusalem, making a whip and throwing over the trading counters. But his anger was never the result of suffering as a victim of personal injustice. He was angry because he saw that his Father's House of Prayer was suffering under dishonest violation of its true purpose. When the issue was resolved, his anger was totally dissipated, and he was able to plead with the same crowd that he is Eternal Life, and to come to him and receive it.

While on Earth, Jesus shows compassion to the sick, the lowly, and the rejected. As a boy he was subject to his parents, and as an adult he had a kind attitude towards children. In a culture where women were deemed inferior to men, and their word or testimony generally disregarded, and even gender segregation at the synagogue as well as at the Temple, Jesus has shown a high regard for women. Like the elderly lady who suffered twelve years of vaginal bleeding, (Luke 8:43-48) the chat he had with the woman at the well, (John 4:1-42) and his ministry to Martha and Mary (John chapters 11, 12). Here Jesus shows his true masculinity by showing love and compassion towards women while at the same time going against the grain of culture, and risking to suffer reprisals for this.

While the Lord determinedly set course for Jerusalem to be tried and crucified, and knowing with certainty of his fate, he went with the full knowledge that this was the will of his Father in heaven. Yet he also fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy that he did not open his mouth (Isaiah 53:7) in protest, grumbling, or in defence, nor did he shout in retaliation. He never wept for himself or for his coming fate. This has nothing to do with the stiff upper lip. It had everything to do with his love for Israel and the whole world taking precedence over his own affairs. In addition, the Gospels does record him weeping in public on two separate occasions. The first occasion was when he foresaw the fate of Jerusalem. After rejecting him as Messiah, Saviour and King, the city would be razed to the ground by Roman general Titus less than forty years later. He wept over the city (Luke 19:41) without caring what others might think of him.

The second occasion is recorded in John 11:35, the shortest verse in the entire Bible: Jesus wept. He loved that family so much - Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, that the sight of Mary's distress brought out his tears. If this was an occasion to show off his sentimentality, surely this was it. It was nothing of the kind. Instead, he wept out of love for the family.

Jesus Christ demonstrated a level of masculinity which was way above Wayne, Clarkson or even Peter. But it does not end there. We too can have the same level of manhood Jesus had. This is achieved by being controlled by the Holy Spirit in our lives, who is available to anyone who asks for him. It is that simple. Believing that Jesus is the Resurrected Christ and having the Holy Spirit dwelling within makes the man whole, and the Holy Spirit can direct him towards true masculinity, which involves putting the interests of others on the same par as himself at least, if not above himself.

It is the goal to aim for.