Manly Dominion (Mark Chanski)

In Manly Dominion, Pastor Mark Chanski argues that in today's society, men are too often "passive-purple four-balls" (to use a billiards image), being pushed around and failing to act, when the Bible calls for them to be "aggressively dominating and pushing around our environment and circumstances." He gets this from the initial cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28, arguing that our job is to have dominion and subdue. He looks at a handful of areas (vocation, spiritual living, husbanding, fathering, etc.) applying this image and talking through each.

I didn't like this. Don't get me wrong- there are certainly some important truths in here. But the following things rubbed me the wrong way:

• His overall point was okay, but he hammered everything into the aggressive vs. passive construct, which (in places) didn't feel quite correct. For example, what he called being aggressive in places was simply being diligent, or wise, or faithful. 
• In addition, he fails to acknowledge/explain the negative connotation some of his preferred words have acquired over time. It doesn't mean they can't be used; but one must be aware of the audience and appreciate the reaction that certain words may produce. He can come across as pushy, and not in a good or acceptable way.
• He used poor arguments in places, often making strawmen of opposing viewpoints or, at the very least, failing to acknowledge nuance or complexity in issues that can very much feature them.
• For example, he writes off all environmentalists as placing creation above man. This is  true for some, not all. And there are Christian environmentalists who argue not that man is subject to nature, but that man's current handling of nature is far from God's view of proper stewardship. 
• He focuses so much on being 'aggressive' that insufficient attention is given to being correct. Or being humble. Or wise. That is all implied or marginally covered, to be fair, but I think he would do well to draw those out a bit more.
• His examples were simplistic and implied guaranteed success. "Just do this and watch everything be magically amazing!" He didn't say it that way, but it was the gist. He never covered examples where things didn't work out despite you doing all the right things.
• He seems overly focused on success and prosperity. His examples of employment, for example, focus on either college-educated people advancing as far as possible or tradesman starting their own ventures. He even says "make all the money you can" at one point. I wonder where he sees that in Scripture. God calls us to be holy. Faithful. Success is hoped for but never promised.
• I'm not confident the Scriptures he uses in arguments are always the best, or even used appropriately. In general, his arguments range from "true" to "mostly true" to "sometimes true," and I feel his proof texts can be taken out of context (or not appropriate to his claim).

So, this was an odd read for me. On the one hand, I think he and I would agree on many basic theological stances. On the other, I think he's trying too hard to look at everything as an aggressive vs. passive construct, and in so doing paints unfair pictures or mildly distorts Scriptures. Ultimately, I think his point is to strive to exhibit disciplines of a Godly man as put forth in the Bible, and that too often, men fail to do so and lapse into an inappropriately-passive mindset. There, I agree with him. But I suggest that other works more appropriately (and accurately) cover the topic. It's been years since I've read it, but R. Kent Hughes' Disciplines of a Godly Man come to mind.

Rating: C