Rasslin' with Jesus

I had not intended any kind of follow-up to my last post, but sometimes the headlines call out. This article suggests a fight (pardon the pun) between female and male, masculine and feminine, that I find unhealthy. They seem to be suggesting that Jesus himself must have been "all man" and because of that fact be someone they should consider following. WWJD - What Would Jesus Do? is being replace by another WWJD: Who Would Jesus Deck? This dualism suggests that Jesus himself had no feminine side, that all of his statements about peace can be thrown out because Jesus was a "fighter."

Of course, I hate being placed in a position where it is presumed some traits are feminine and others masculine. If forced to choose, into which of these columns does justice worker go? How about peacemaker? Healer? Friend to all marginalized persons? I would hope that all persons would aspire to embody these distinctions regardless of how we assign their biological gender.

And in a recent advertising campaign Dockers is not-so-subtly suggesting that a lack of manliness has led to many societal problems, difficulties that apparently would not exist if men - presumably white and straight men - had been wearing the pants they way they are supposed to. Maybe the next campaign should be WJWD...Would Jesus Wear Dockers?

If 21st century men need to re-create a 1st century Jesus into a rough and ready, bare-knuckles fighter so that they can follow him, then Jesus' wardrobe of choice will pose problems, not to mention all those pesky sayings of his noted in scripture.

I'm tapping out.