THE MASCULINE JOURNEY
An Expedition into Biblical Confusion

by W.E. Nunnally with G. Richard Fisher

A book that claims to present a biblical analysis of manhood and is part of the curriculum of Promise Keepers, the much-talked-about Christian men’s organization, deserves a close look from believers.

Robert Hicks, the author of The Masculine Journey, says the book presents a “biblical framework” for the six major phases of manhood based on “six predominant Hebrew words” (The Masculine Journey, pp. 19-20). Hicks sets about trying to reconstruct a biblical theology of maleness (ibid., pp. 19, 20, 105) and argues that these Hebrew words describe what he calls the “normative male” (ibid., pp. 20, 22). He adds that Jesus Himself passed through each of these stages and therefore serves as the ultimate model for all who will follow Him through the phases (ibid., pp. 18, 180, 182; see also The Masculine Journey Study Guide, Robert Hicks with Dietrich Gruen, pg. 86).

Hicks is a professor of pastoral theology at the Seminary of the East in Dresher, Pa. (ibid., inside dust cover, back). He attended seminary (ibid., pg. 141), and describes himself as “a biblically trained theologian” (ibid., pg. 19), “a pastoral theologian in the evangelical tradition” (ibid., pg. 18), and a “minister” (ibid., pg. 78). He says he can ground the theory of manhood of secular author Daniel Levinson firmly in Scripture by basing six stages of male development on the “six words for ‘man’ [he] learned in Hebrew class years earlier” (ibid., pg. 19). Further, Hicks claims to have consulted most of the authoritative Hebrew lexicons, which he says will “prove [his] arguments” to his “more critical readers” (ibid., pg. 20). Finally, having thus established his authority as an interpreter of Scripture, he moves into many other areas of faith and practice which raise additional questions. Therefore, in a book as influential as this one has become, these ideas must be considered in detail.

Hicks’ own journey began on a flight to a speaking engagement. He decided that he was unhappy with his presentation on manhood, and decided to use Levinson’s major-stage theory of the male life cycle. At this point, when he thought that he had to ground it in Scripture, six words came to him that he had learned years before in “Hebrew 101” (ibid., pp. 18-19). These words, says Hicks, gave him a “biblical framework” that “reflect[s] the same seasonal or developmental aspects that have been demonstrated in so many of the recent men’s studies” (ibid., pp. 19-20).

Specific questions arise from this scenario. Can a certain set of words, eclectically strung together, reveal the Bible’s intended theology of anything? Can words without context express anything clearly (cf. his own statement on pg. 174, quoted in full below)? Is it not possible that without lexical aids available, these words are simply arbitrary choices made in the middle of a plane ride? Finally, is it possible that the convergence of these words with the major stages of Levinson is more a presupposition superimposed on the Bible than the result of careful investigation? Should not biblical theology begin with an exhaustive examination of the relevant scriptures and then conclude with a comparison of biblical revelation to human theory? The only way these questions can be answered is to subject Hicks’ “proof” to the careful scrutiny he invites (ibid., pg. 20).

Hicks defines the first phase of the masculine journey with the word ‘adam (creational man and woman). He then moves on to the zakar (phallic), gibbor (warrior), enosh (wounded), ‘ish (mature), and zaken (wise) stages of manhood. Due to the constraints of time and space, ‘adam will be the only phase critiqued in full. The other phases will be dealt with sufficiently to show that the same problems evident in Hicks’ treatment of ‘adam are also evident in the remaining five.

Much of what follows is detailed analysis, which will deal with Hebrew grammar, philology (study of words and their history), and hermeneutics (appropriate methods of biblical interpretation), because this is the level at which Hicks attempts to ground his theories in Scripture.

‘ADAM

Hicks describes the first phase as the ‘adam state, the “creational” aspect of manhood. He cites Botterweck and Ringgren’s Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament as establishing the meanings “dark, red soil, and red blood.” From this he concludes, “Therefore, the word depicts mankind at the most base level of flesh, blood, and dirt” (ibid., pg. 32). What he does not say, however, is that these meanings are derived from two Akkadian words, not from the Hebrew word. Additionally, those are abstract definitions, not derived from the use of a word in a specific context. The meaning of words as we and all other humans use them are not determined by their derivation or by detached, abstract definitions from a dictionary. The meaning of words is defined by the contexts in which they are found. (See the excellent discussion of D.A. Carson in Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker, pp. 25-66. These methods have been rejected by all the better interpreters since the watershed work of James Barr in 1961 [The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University].)

Further, this word first occurs in the biblical narrative in the exalted position of “the image of God” (Genesis 1:26), the apex of God’s creative activity. Contextually speaking, this does not sound like “the word depicts man at the most base level.” Further, Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of Man (ben ‘adam) in His glorified state (Matthew 26:64, which by the way, is a state which Hicks labels Jesus’ ‘ish [fifth] stage, pg. 182).

Finally, Hicks notes that this word represents the creational aspects men share with women (ibid., pg. 32). It should be noted, however, that ample biblical evidence suggests that the term is also used to distinguish the man from Eve (Genesis 4:25; 5:1, 3, 4, etc.). Hicks further states that this is the only phase of man’s development shared with women (ibid., pg. 32). It should be noted, however, that in his most recent book, The Feminine Journey: Understanding the Biblical Stages of a Woman’s Life (NavPress, 1994), six stages varying from roughly to exactly analogous to the male counterparts are delineated.

If Hicks’ previously quoted statements about the inherent distinctness of these stages as represented by these six Hebrew words are true, there should be no overlap of usage. These words should be antonyms, not synonyms. The biblical evidence, however, clearly shows that ‘adam is often used in a construction called “poetic parallelism” with the other words. What this means is that two or more of the words are used in the same passage as synonyms. An example of this is:

Rescue me, O LORD, from evil men;
Preserve me . . . from violent men (Psalm 140:1).

As can be seen, the words in bold are clearly synonyms, as are the words in italics.

Applying this to the present analysis, ‘adam is used in poetic parallelism with ‘ish (his fifth stage) in Proverbs 6:12. Psalms 32:2; 84:6, 13 and Proverbs 3:13 use the “Blessed is the man” formula so well-known in Scripture. Here the word is ‘adam. In the same grammatical construction, however, the word ‘ish is used in Psalm 1:1, and in Psalm 34:9 and Jeremiah 17:7, the word is gever (Hicks’ third stage). This means the writers of Scripture are in these instances clearly using these terms interchangeably.

The word ‘adam is often used as a collective, to refer exclusively to males (Ezekiel 23:42; Proverbs 20:6, where it occurs in poetic parallelism with ‘ish). Zechariah 8:10 uses the word ‘ish in a description of ‘adam (cf. also 1 Kings 8:38; 2 Chronicles 6:29). Finally, Samson describes himself to Delilah as an ‘adam (Judges 6:7, 11, 17), which clearly cannot be taken to mean both man and woman in this context.

Let us briefly sample the biblical evidence Hicks brings to support his arguments. Hicks cites Deuteronomy 8:3 because it uses ‘adam (ibid., pg. 33), but in verse five, ‘ish appears as its synonym. Here, both words are about Israel’s need for God’s provision and discipline. In citing Jeremiah 10:23 (ibid., pg. 33), Hicks fails again to note that ‘adam is used synonymously with ‘ish (stage five). Likewise, when he refers to Jeremiah 17:5, it is because he feels it supports his above-mentioned contention about the meaning and uniqueness of ‘adam (ibid., pg. 33), but again fails to observe that it appears here as a synonym of gever (stage three). Similarly, although Psalm 8:4 is appealed to (ibid., pg. 37), ‘adam is here synonymous with enosh (stage four). Finally, attempting to buttress his argument further, he appeals to Psalm 49:7, where he reproduces the text and inserts the word ‘adam where the English reads “man.” In actuality, however, the Hebrew word used is ‘ish. Similar problems occur in the citations of Scripture throughout the remainder of this and the other chapters.

We may conclude that the very passages Hicks chose to support his contention that each Hebrew word represents distinct stages of the masculine journey and to support his definition of the term and stage argue against his positions. We may also conclude that he misused the lexical material found in Botterweck and Ringgren. Finally, we may conclude that Hicks unnecessarily resorted to abstract definitions of the term, which amounts to an over-generalization which could not stand the scrutiny of biblical evidence read in context (cf. Carson, pg. 62).

ZAKAR

The Hebrew term zakar describes Hicks’ second stage. Similar etymological gymnastics leads him to the statement, “The Bible simply defines manhood by the phallus” (ibid., pp. 48-49). Noting that “only the male was required to bring a sacrifice” (ibid., pg. 50), he concludes, “possessing a penis places unique requirements upon men before God in how they are to worship Him. ... We are told by God to worship Him in accordance with what we are, phallic men” (ibid., pg. 51).

It is unfortunate when personal opinion determines theology, and when presuppositions take precedence over the full counsel of God. The Bible clearly teaches that women are in need of atonement as well as men. The sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) was equally needed and effective for all. Scripture also requires certain sacrifices specifically of women (Leviticus 12:6, 8; Luke 2:22-24). With respect to both sinfulness and redemption, worship and relationship with God, the Bible declares that there is no distinction between male and female (Romans 3:23-24; 11:32; Galatians 3:28).

GIBBOR

For Hicks, the next stage is defined by the Hebrew term gibbor. He states that the warrior stage of manhood is reflected in the three-letter root g-b-r, which “forms the meaning of all terms associated with the male warrior” (ibid., pg. 76, emphasis added). It should be noted, however, that many other terms and phrases are synonyms of gibbor, which Hicks passed over: ‘avir (used 23 times, see A New Concordance of the Bible, by Abraham Even-Shoshan, pg. 7), ‘amitz (used six times, ibid., pg. 83), ‘ish chail (used 19 times, ibid., pp. 53-55), and ‘ish milchamah (used 41 times, ibid., pp. 53-54).

Why are these not considered? It may be because Hicks could not make such a plethora of terms conform to the stages of Levinson. It may also be because the term ‘ish appears in some phrases, which would destroy his theory of differentiation (although our discussion of ‘adam and its synonyms have effectively accomplished this anyway). Nevertheless, we should also remember that this g-b-r root (stage three) has already been seen to be synonymous with ‘adam (stage one, cf. Jeremiah 17:5, 7), and appears in poetic parallelism with many other terms throughout Scripture as well.

ENOSH

The fourth phase of manhood is described by Hicks as the “wounded male.” Therefore, the Hebrew term he uses is enosh, which he states means “being weak, feeble and sometimes incurably weak or sick” (Masculine Journey, pg. 103). He again appeals to the lexical work of Botterweck and Ringgren. The reference in Botterweck and Ringgren, however, is again to Akkadian, not to specific examples in the Hebrew Bible. Also, Hicks fails to mention that in the same section of Botterweck and Ringgren he cites, the authors state that the clear Old Testament meaning is simply “man, mankind ... people, persons” (I: 346) and that in Ugaritic it means “to be manly ... be strong,” and that it is synonymous with ‘ish, gever, and ‘adam (I:347). Why is this material ignored? Clearly because it contradicts the agenda.

It is interesting that the Aramaic form of this term (enash) is used of the exalted “Son of Man” of Daniel 7:13. Although this evidence also is in the section of Botterweck and Ringgren cited by Hicks (I:348), he could not admit it into evidence, because he states that this stage of Christ’s “masculine journey” is categorized by the term ‘ish (Masculine Journey, pp. 182, 189).

Hicks states that the term enosh “is most often used in the book of Job,” which has significance to him, because this book “illustrates [male] wounding in its most severe form” (ibid., pg. 103). One wishes one could express trust in such a simple statement. This is not so. The term appears 18 times in Job compared with 49 times elsewhere. However, might he not be referring to a book-to-book comparison? The term appears eight times in Isaiah, 13 times in Psalms, and 23 times in Daniel (New Concordance, pp. 94, 96-97 cf. Botterweck and Ringgren I:347 which establishes the synonymity of enosh and enash).

Hicks states that Jacob is a perfect example of the enosh stage of manhood, “If all the ideas associated with the word enosh could be illustrated, they might best be found in the life of the biblical patriarch Jacob (Genesis 25:19-33:20).” He continues, “Jacob illustrates a young man having been severely wounded by a dysfunctional family system” (ibid., pg. 117). Apart from the pop-psychological analysis, what is the problem with his use of Jacob in this way? Whereas Jacob has other terms applied to him in the narrative, never is the term enosh used of him. In fact, it is used only once in the entire Pentateuch (Deuteronomy 32:26). The truth is, that when we focus on Jacob or any other part of the narrative which is not the author’s focus, we miss the intended message of both the human and the divine author of Scripture. This is true not of this passage alone, but of every passage of Scripture. This should cause all who are really interested in hearing the true message of Scripture to consider very carefully those to whom they choose to listen. It boils down to whether we are willing to settle for the word of man, or whether we will settle for nothing less than the Word of God.

‘ISH

This fifth phase is supposed to show the truly mature man who has learned and healed from his enosh wounds. Hicks declares that the term ‘ish is “always in contrast to the Hebrew terms yeled (young man), na‘ar (youth), and zaken (old men)” (ibid., pg. 124). One should note that he has here introduced two Hebrew terms for which no Levinsonian stages exist. Also, his assertion cannot be proven. The opposite is true. There are multiple examples throughout the Hebrew Bible in which the term ‘ish is used as a collective to refer to all men (and even women) of all ages. Any Hebrew concordance will establish this.

For example, in our sample study, we have already shown that the term ‘ish is often synonymous with ‘adam (the first stage). Judges 19:16, 17, 20; 1 Samuel 4:18; and 28:14 show that the term can also be used in concert with the zaken (the last stage).

In defining the term, the inevitable result of “word loading” (piling up abstract, decontextualized definitions, cf. Carson, pg. 62) occurs. Hicks states that ‘ish can mean both “a man of higher rank” and “a man of lower rank” (Masculine Journey, pg. 123). Obviously, in normal communication in any language, a word can convey only one meaning in a given context. It may not convey two or more conflicting meanings. These are the very gymnastics James Barr decried and which reputable scholars renounced almost 35 years ago.

ZAKEN

Nevertheless, Hicks employs the same approach in defining his sixth stage. Here, the zaken, or wise old man, is supposed to be the goal of manhood, only achieved in the final phase. However, as noted above zaken can be connected to the fifth stage (‘ish), and to the third stage (gever chakham, Proverbs 24:5) as indicated by poetic parallelism. Like all the others it can be shown to be synonymous with the other terms when one begins to work with contextualized examples from the Hebrew Bible.

UNACCEPTABLE METHODOLOGY

One can conclude that Hicks uses suspect methods for biblical study. He misrepresents his sources, misquotes Scripture, and neglects important evidence in both the Bible and secondary sources. He ignores context and simple Hebrew syntax. He is given to simple mistakes and over-generalizations. He is selective in dealing with the biblical terminology relevant to the study of manhood, preferring to conform biblical revelation to human theory.

Hicks begins with presuppositions, then seeks evidence to support them, rather than allowing theories to arise out of observations made from the evidence. To establish his agenda, Hicks regularly resorts to “word loading” (cf. Carson, pg. 62). He is not above spiritualizing and allegorizing historical texts (Masculine Journey, pg. 118). He continues to employ the long-discredited “word-study” method (cf. Carson, pp. 25-66).

Such methodological problems can only serve to alert the informed reader to proceed with caution. And proceed we must, if we are to keep up with Hicks. For Hicks, believing that he has established himself as an authoritative interpreter of Scripture on this subject, and has established a seemingly airtight case for his theory, does not stop with a mere explanation of his theory of male development. Rather, his imagination, perspective, and approach lead him to make statements which have broader theological implications. It is to these that we must now turn our attention.

THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS

Given Hicks’ departures from accepted methodology and loose handling of Scripture, it is not surprising that we find a considerable number of radical departures in the area of theology. Below are some examples:

1) Hicks states that as “creational” beings, man has “capabilities that are ... divine” (Masculine Journey, pg. 23, emphasis added). We had dismissed this as a slip of the pen, until we read his later statement, that after the fall, man no longer rules “in the divine majesty for which he was created” (ibid., pg. 41, emphasis added). This seems harmonious with his view that New Agers can also be Christian (ibid., pg. 134, quote cited in full below).

2) Hicks says that he tested the correctness of his Hebrew reconstruction of the masculine journey by listening to the comments of participants in his seminars (ibid., pp. 29, 30). However, the truth or error of teachings said to be based on Scripture cannot be determined by the reactions or comments of fallen man. Nor is it determined by feeling, intuition, or majority vote. “Scripture Interprets Scripture” according to historical Protestantism.

3) Hicks regularly adds to biblical accounts or rewrites the original author’s intentions. This is the case on page 68, where he concludes that the root of Samson’s failure was that “he was hopelessly controlled by his phallus.” Another such statement appears in his psychoanalytic diagnosis of the home of Isaac and Rebekah as “dysfunctional” and that the angel put Jacob’s hip out of place to evoke sympathy and thus effect reconciliation with Esau (ibid., pg. 118). He concludes that Elijah fled to Sinai because like most males, he could stand up to boss, king, father, etc., but could not stand up to “an irate, verbally threatening woman” (ibid., pg. 144). He suggests that Abraham’s reason for lying about his relationship to Sarah and her resultant incorporation into the harem of Abimelech was that he was attempting “to dump Sarah for not giving him any children” (ibid., pg. 168).

4) On Scripture Hicks says, “I call the psalms of David the musings of a manic-depressive. David’s psalms are either all praise or all depression” (ibid., pg. 114). Not only are both statements incorrect, but to call the results of divine inspiration “the musings of a manic-depressive” borders on blasphemy. This is the same material Jesus quoted authoritatively and used to explain his suffering messiahship to his followers (Luke 24:44). The Psalms are part of the “all Scripture” which Paul declared is “profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Combined with the examples mentioned in “3)” above, what does this say of Hicks’ view of Scripture?

5) Hicks asserts, “The Bible simply defines manhood by the phallus...” (ibid., pg. 49) and “Possessing a penis places unique requirements upon men before God in how they are to worship Him. ... We are told by God to worship Him in accordance with what we are, phallic men” (ibid., pg. 51. See the notes on this statement above.). Consider also that we are to focus on God in worship, not ourselves. Additionally, Scripture states that we are to worship “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Externals are not the issue: service and worship of God is a matter of the heart (Romans 2:28-29; 1 Corinthians 7:19). This only serves to point out the anthropocentric orientation of Hicks’ approach, whereas the biblical approach to worship and to spiritual maturity is theocentric. Hicks writes,

“Phallus, like all great religious symbols, points to a mysterious divine reality ... this symbol is important to religion but as an erect organ” (ibid., pp. 51-52). “Every time [a Jew] used his penis, he was making a spiritual statement about who he was and who he worshiped and why” (ibid., pg. 52). “Without proper teaching on the phallus, men will carry around in their psyches a spiritual god-hunger so mysterious and powerful that when driven underground, it will seek spiritual fulfillment only in the secrecy of motel rooms, adult videos, and in the bragging and joking about sexual exploits in athletic locker rooms” (ibid., pg. 55). “Our sexual problems only reveal how desperate we are to express, in some perverted form, the deep compulsion to worship with our phallus” (ibid., pg. 56). “...the phallus [is] ... the symbol of God’s faithfulness and provision” (ibid.). “As men, the phallus defines our identity” (ibid., pg. 68).

Do we see this type or this degree of emphasis on the penis in Scripture? Do we hear Jeremiah or Paul speaking this way? Is this their emphasis? Was this what Jesus was all about? Let’s read on.

6) “Jesus was also very much zakar, phallic ... I believe Jesus was phallic with all the inherent phallic passions we experience as men ... He may have thought about [sex] as the movie The Last Temptation of Christ portrays ... Christ was tempted in every way as we are. That would mean not only heterosexual temptation but also homosexual temptation” (ibid., pg. 181; bold added, italics in original).

7) In light of all the above, it’s not surprising that Hicks writes, “Whether married or not, the issue of what is normative for the Christian male is often not clear” (ibid., pg. 174, emphasis added). This is definitely not these writers’ view of biblical revelation and its requirements for males. This same degree of ambiguity can be seen elsewhere:

“Some of my ‘counselees’ were individuals whom I once thought were logical contradictions. God brought to me Christians who were homosexuals and Marxists. I listened ... [and] was left with the conviction that they were sincere about both their faith in Christ and their views on sexuality and politics ... I have learned that the way to look at God or the world is not necessarily through the lens or categories I currently believe are the correct ones. The labels don’t matter all that much, whether they be Communist, Democrat, New Age, feminist, fundamentalist, or hookers-married-to-cross-dressing co-dependents ... this is the way Jesus related to people, and His modeling provides me with a much richer and broader perspective on ministry” (ibid., pp. 133-134).

Such remarks are an excellent example of how what one believes eventually effects how one lives his life. Quite the opposite of “broadening” our ministry, Jesus constantly appears to sharpen and narrow our focus (Matthew 7:13-14). His way is not the way of the homosexual, the adulterer, and the idolater (1 Corinthians 6:9; Revelation 21:8, etc.). To claim that it is, is to proclaim “another Jesus” (cf. Galatians 1:6-9).

OTHER QUESTIONABLE CONTENTS

Hicks claims that his book is a map to trace the masculine journey (ibid., pg. 14). Most Christians would say that Scripture is their map for life (2 Timothy 3:16; John 17:17) and the light and lamp for their path. Suggested “maps” and “keys” to Scripture and life are usually a tipoff to a major detour.

On Hicks’ “map” there are conflicting, confusing and contradictory signposts. Is this really a map or some kind of disguised dead end? A disconcerting thing about the book (and the accompanying study guide) is the pop psychology, group therapy (with strange games) and his use of very questionable non-Christian sources. At times he does not seem to take those sources too seriously. At other times they buttress certain points that are made.

Hicks admits to his “map” not being totally a biblical map by his heavy reliance on Levinson’s book, The Seasons of A Man’s Life, (pp. 19, 107, 131, 133, 199, 200). In The Masculine Journey Study Guide (pg. 8), he affirms: “Levinson draws a developmental framework for understanding men.”

As demonstrated above, Hicks’ use of the Hebrew Old Testament is creative and contrived to fit a pre-existing scheme. It is, in fact, a reading into the Scripture of at least some of Levinson’s novelties along with his own imagining.

Levinson at the time of the writing of his book (1976) was a Professor of Psychology at Yale University. The book is based on a study of 40 men and creates a theory of adult male development. Levinson acknowledges building on both Erik Erikson and Carl Jung, (The Seasons of A Man’s Life, pg. 323). So in supporting any of Levinson there is credibility given obliquely to Jung.

Jung, who is also quoted directly by Hicks, was a disciple of Sigmund Freud and is known as the Father of Analytical Psychology (1875-1961). His mysticism, occultism, and unconventional ideas separated him from the professional world.

Of grave concern is Hicks’ reliance on Jung, (Masculine Journey, pp. 100-101, 197), as if to assume that Jung is a safe and reliable source to quote. He uses Jung to buttress his “wounded male” theory.

Jung was an avowed student of the occult and claimed to have a spirit guide by the name of Philemon who accompanied him and communicated wisdom to him. The neo-gnostic Jung also believed in his own divinity. Hicks should have stated this. In any context Jung is dangerous. The distance Hicks put between himself and Jung on page 17 narrows extremely at this point.

Jung spent his entire life in an obsessive pursuit of spiritism, mysticism and black arts and is the unwitting father of the inner healing movement. (For a shocking and frightening introduction to Jung’s life, see The Serpent and the Cross by Alan Morrison, pp. 258-266.) In light of these facts, it is amazing so many Christian authors accept and authoritatively quote Jung, and thus pass his unbiblical emphases on to an unsuspecting, undiscerning Church. Ignorance here may not be bliss but horrible error.

Also troubling is Hicks’ citing of another well-known occultists. He refers to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross (Masculine Journey, pg. 106), which gives her credibility with the unsuspecting. PFO has documented Kübler-Ross’ denial of Christian doctrines and her commitment to her “spirit guides” (see PFO Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 2, “A Deadly View of Death and Dying”). Her blatant spiritism is well-documented in many other places. She has no place in a “Christian” book. Hard-hitting facts, documentation and refutation of Kübler-Ross can be also found in Chapter 23 of Jay Adams’ work, More Than Redemption. It is brief and to the point and well worth a read.

Hicks also quotes Margaret Mead to say we are “noble savages” (Masculine Journey, pp. 40-41). In this he is behind the times. All of Mead’s “research,” it was found, was based on an elaborate scam that created anthropological myths about “savages” in Samoa. Her “facts” and conclusions were proven all wrong (see Fakes, Frauds and Other Malarkey by Kathryn Lindskoog, pp. 202-203). The “savages,” it turned out, were part of the con which played very well to tourists and the “savage” economy. However, myths die hard.

It seems contrived and forced to say that Jesus had to pass through all the stages and progressions of Hicks’ “map” of life (Masculine Journey, pp. 180-183) but he proposes that nevertheless.

In the companion workbook, The Masculine Journey Study Guide, Hicks suggests the novel nonsense of playing a game called “people bingo.” In group-therapy fashion, men are to find out if the other men have on bikini briefs or boxer shorts. As well, men are to divulge if they are circumcised, or had a vasectomy as part of the “game.” Such “games” are never ever suggested by Scripture. There must be some things that are of a personal and private nature. It seems that nothing is off limits. Salvation and sanctification are serious issues, not trifling games to be played in a church basement.

It is entirely inappropriate for men to divulge all types of private information in an attempt to cause them to “open up” and thus become “accountable” to the group. It is also irrelevant and inappropriate to discuss in such a setting stories about bed wetting, first development of pubic hair, or past involvement with pornographic materials (ibid., pg. 33). Beyond inappropriate, it is unethical to discuss in such a group what happened between oneself and one’s wife on the wedding night, or the details when one’s first child was conceived (ibid.). Encouragement to share one’s sexual fantasies in such a context (ibid., pg. 36) is also unacceptable.

Yet Hicks’ study guide directs men to share these stories. Apparently nothing at all is off limits or too personal. The whole thing is disgusting and repulsive. How would one’s spouse feel knowing that such intimacies have been paraded before others? What kind of thoughts might this provoke in terms of the weakness of another man to lust and be tempted? It seems that pop psychology and novelty are immune to common sense and logic.

Ephesians 5:1-12 suggests that there are limits as to what we discuss with others. The intimate details of our past sins and the intimacies of our marriage are not open for public perusal and discussion.

Finally, bragging about conquests is never acceptable Christian behavior, in this or any other situation. It is thoroughly unacceptable for this to be encouraged here (ibid., pp. 42-43).

It is difficult to believe that both book and study guide by Hicks have full-page endorsements in each by the Promise Keepers organization. One can only ask in frustration, “What has happened to biblical discernment?”

William Spencer has noted that Hicks downplays sin and lumps sinful practices under a category of woundedness. This is also contrived and more in the realm of pop psychology (see Christian Research Journal, Fall 1995, pg. 7, “The Masculine Journey of Promise Keepers”).

And so, using the baby and bath water analogy, how dirty is the water and would one even put a baby in a muddy mess? Any discerning believer can only express serious concern at the quotes, questionable sources, group therapy, pop psychology and games suggested by these two books. One can only wonder about those who endorse them so readily.

CONCLUSION

We can safely conclude that Hicks did not succeed in grounding Levinson’s stages of manhood in biblical theology. We can also safely conclude that Hicks’ radical departures from orthodox practices in hermeneutics and theology have led to further errors in other areas.

We might also observe that when a book such as this, with all its methodological and theological problems, is promoted by a major publisher, endorsed by well-known ministries, and employed as discipleship curriculum by the largest Christian men’s group in the world, discernment in the Body of Christ is at an all-time low.

Based on the evidence put forth in this review, NavPress, Promise Keepers, and other ministries would do well to rescind their endorsements of this book. Further, we hope that in the future, they will exhibit greater discernment in determining materials for use, distribution, and endorsement.

We hope that the Body of Christ will see this as another example of how far it can stray when it loses the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. We are to be a people of the Book. All matters of faith and practice are to be determined from Scripture alone. Personal opinion/testimony/revelation/majority opinion, and pop psychology all eventually lead to bondage. Yet when we know the truth, the truth revealed by Scripture, “the truth will set us free” (John 8:32).

Finally, as is evident from the technical nature of this analysis, it is important for the Church to have a leadership which is well-trained in the biblical languages, hermeneutics, and theology. This book would never have achieved the notoriety it has if only someone along the way had taken a few hours to compare its contents with biblical revelation.

It is ultimately the responsibility of the shepherd to guard and protect the flock from that which is unhealthy and dangerous. The flock has a right to expect this from its leaders. When this takes place, the church is healthy (Acts 20:29-32). When it does not, the church is sickly (Revelation 2:14-16; cf. Ezekiel 34:1-24). May God grant us all resolve and discernment to fulfill his command to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Editor’s Note: Dr. W.E. Nunnally is Associate Professor of Early Judaism and Christian Origins at Central Bible College and Adjunct Professor of Hebrew at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary.

© 1996 - PFO. All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Outreach. This article may not be stored on BBS or Internet sites without permission. Reproduction is prohibited, except for portions intended for personal use and non-commercial purposes. For reproduction permission contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136.