gengwall

The reason some try to “remake Jesus into some kind of macho commando” is because they perceive he has previously been remade by others into some kind of mushy sissy. I agree that they go overboard in their reaction, but I suggest that their perception is not entirely unjustified. One must not forget that Jesus was still a male. He had just as much testosterone as the rest of us guys and acted accordingly (although without the sinful side effects that we continually fall into). Certainly, no one would suggest that Jesus was androgynous, would they?

I don’t see gender distinctions having any connection to being Christlike, as Christlikeness is an expression of love without concern for the methodology employed in expressing that love. Both the machoest man and [whatever the antonym for machoest would be] woman can reflect Christ to the world, even if their ways of doing it are worlds apart.