Personally I have to disagree, however I might purchase the book at read it. What some American men think are correct gender roles are pretty disgusting IMHO. Men can be strong, protective, set limits, punsh, protect and love. The idea of the distant authorative father produced from American fiction is not reality and if it was for a while… it’s not the way humans have been through history.
My guess is that this book, like so many like it, are from a protestant misinterpretation of the Bible. On the Amazon review the guy states that Orthodox understanding of the Christian male… what he means is the overbearing judgmental narcissistic male that left England so he could be that kind of guy.
As most Theologians, especially Catholic ones, will point out, the understanding of the gender roles in the NT is really equal. Yet for years the understanding, because the Protestants heeded to no authority, was that women should always submit and parents should beat their kids (spare the rod and spoil the child, which of course is wrong - the “rod” was a tool to teach, if you don’t “teach” your kids you will spoil then).
Like most protestant theological arguments, those understandings leave out the rest of the verses, you can’t do that and get a complete picture.
A Christian Man should be willing give all for his spouse - be humiliated, beaten, flogged and even crucified if necessary. Those are all submissive acts, not authoritarian. A true man leads rather than demands and when a man truly acts like that, he will find his wife obeys because they are on equal ground not because he demands she be submissive to him.
Hahn has a theory about the fall based upon some ancient Hebraic textual understandings of certain words in Genesis. The understanding being that Adam’s fall was not so much that he “ate” the fruit, but that he didn’t protect Eve from the beast (the hebrew translanted as dragon in this case rather than serpent which may actually be more correct). Rather than defending her from the dragon he let her fall and then chose to be submissive rather than fight.
This paints a much different picture than the common patrichial understnading of the fall yet… and yet… IMHO is much more in line with what Christ taught in the NT. And not it’s not contradictory to my first paragraph. Adam chose to be submissive rather than stand up for what he believed it. What he should have “believed in” was in God’s protection and his own ability to defend his mate, even if that required death. Thus Adam refused to sacrafice himself for Eve and thus the chain started with each male failing God’s Covenant until Christ. Not what we have been taught but not necessarily heretical either… (I believe the theory is in the book “First comes Love”)
Anyway, I would be leary about any book that “claimed” to say we needed to return to what REAL Christian men are because from what I have found, most of those definitions aren’t quite right.
If I get a chance though I’ll try to pick that up, my instincts on the book could be wrong. Note though it’s from 1996 as well.