No man should be belittled for having special affection for another man. Whether David and Jonathan’s friendship (in the Bible, not “Friends”) qualifies as a man crush is debatable, and so is whether their relationship might baptize the kind of attraction that a man has for another man, not sexual but bordering on smitten.
I myself have had any number of man crushes on both colleagues and celebrities. In the latter category I would now have to place Gabriel Byrne who stars in the HBO series, “In Treatment,” and is one of the few actors who can sustain interest on screen even when not doing anything, or in the case of his character as a psychotherapist, simply listening to patients. He first enthralled me as Tom Reagan in the Coen Brothers homage to “The Godfather,” “Miller’s Crossing,” a rare gangster hero who prevails not by overcoming his adversaries but by enduring the most beatings.
If I had written this two weeks ago, my nomination for man crush then would have been Garry Shandling, the comedian who created, wrote, and starred in one of the most underappreciated television series, “The Larry Sanders Show.” This was HBO’s first television series and it was both a tribute to Johnny Carson and the format of the late-night talk show and a humorous and poignant expose of the egos and antics that go into producing these shows. For anyone interested in the phenomenon of celebrity, “Larry Sanders” is a must.
My most abiding man crush is for Phil Hendrie, the best (and only) real talent on radio, who takes the political talk show and turns it on its head by functioning as both host and guest (with made up voices). The joke is not merely the callers who think the interview is real, but also the situations and characters that Phil creates — such as Ted Bell, owner of Ted’s of Beverly Hills steakhouse, who thinks he can flip off a van driver sporting a Jesus fish because Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek. It is radio theater at its best, and with three hours a day, available on-line, it is far more impressive how much comedic material one man can produce compared to an entire television series that employs hundreds to produce as much material for one season (13 hours) as Phil does in one week of broadcasts.
All of this is to say that I understand man crushes and see no reason for embarrassment in admitting to them. But sometimes man crushes are embarrassing. The latest case comes with the announcement from the editor of Kerux that the journal of biblical theology, where they put the Vos in Vossian, will no longer be printed but will be published on-line. In his introduction to the last print issue of Kerux, James Dennison goes on about Geerhardus Vos in ways that appear to take a man crush from a special fondness to an odd obsession. He writes:
. . . these pages have wonderfully developed the legacy of Vos in ways which would have both pleased and surprised him. Surprised him in the wealth of original contributions ranging through the history of doctrine – patristic, medieval, Reformation and modern: all these remarkable contributions endorsing, advancing, encouraging historic Christian orthodoxy – catholic, evangelical and Reformed. Pleased him in that new methods of penetrating the inspired Word of God have been applied in these pages. However haltingly or inadequately, nevertheless the advances God in his providence has granted to his church in our time have been plundered )aka robbing the Egyptians) in the interest of unpacking treasures of old and new which are locked in the mind, heart and Word of God.
I am not sure that a journal should be edited according a desire to please and surprise a deceased – even if highly regarded – theologian. I am even less sure that an editor should be so impressed by his own accomplishments in bringing such brilliance into print.
The kicker is the paragraph preceding Dennison’s adulation of Vos and Vos’ adulators. In a surprisingly candid admission of dangerous ideas and articles published in Kerux under his watch, Dennison unwittingly calls into question his own abilities as an editor:
Most of the contributions to this journal over twenty-five years have been insightful. . . . A few, however, deceived us, using the pages of this journal for their own ends and agenda. Their heterodoxy, even edgy ‘heresy’, has subsequently been revealed as, like Demas, they departed from us, even with contempt. It is increasingly clear that many who have sworn by the name of Geerhardus Vos haven’t the faintest notion of what he stood for. These charlatans, who have padded their bibliographies and footnotes with references to his works, have demonstrated over and over again that they are incapble of reading primary documents without skewing those documents to their own bogus schemes. They are users and users are losers. Their character is as insufferably self-centered as any classic egoist: ‘empty vines, they bring forth fruit unto themselves.’ Vos has no real place in their thinking because they constantly seek to re-image him in themselves. But when what they preach and what they write and how they act is placed against the portrait of this unassuming giant, they show themselves to be dishonest, arrogant and vicious. They are the acid which corrodes Reformed Biblical Theology, for the game is all about them and not at all ultimately about Christ.
Good to see that ultimately Kerux is about Christ and the gospel, but readers of this editorial have to be thinking, editor edit thyself. For if users are losers, what are editors who publish losers? Posers? Apparently, veneration of Vos is not a reliable guide to matters biblical theological. Not recognizing this may be the best indication when a man crush has crossed that fine line separating affection from obsession.
Old Life 
Weird.
I’ve heard Dennison preach some great sermons. But I always thought he was a little arrogant.
I used to like Kerux way back when (Kline’s Essays on Zechariah’s night visions were the best thing they ever published), I even had it sent to my house for a couple of years. Then I received an issue in 2005 with an essay titled, “The Old and New Covenants and the Law: Was the Mosaic Covenant a Redemptive Covenant of Grace?” by Scott Sanborn. It was (strangely) written as a dialogue, but Sanborn’s conclusions were clear. That was it for me. I have now successfully ignored N.W.T.S. and Kerux for more than 5 years.
LikeLike
Seeing how some fawn over, follow around, and otherwise suck up to celebvangelicals like your friend Mark Dever and Tim Keller takes a little of shine off the whole man crush concept for me. Maybe you’re wise in keeping yours outside of the religious orbit. A case of 2K wisdom at work??
LikeLike
Second on the Phil Hendrie rave. Not sure I have a man crush on him, but if you haven’t heard him, you will never hear radio the same way again. A true original and genius. And yes there are still folks who “don’t get it”!
LikeLike
Let’s just turn this chain into a Phil Hendrie praise chorus.
Best gags?
1. Woman who called in to discussion on diabetes sharing how she avoided “the beaties” by scrubbing with bleach
2. Guest selling OJ Simpson boxer shorts and shot glasses in immediate aftermath of his arrest, proceeds going to nicole’s family.
3. Complaint about how promise keepers could meet in LA Colloseum (where oj had run around on the field)
But of course, it’s the execution, not the gag.
LikeLike
It’s no fun reading something like that after I’ve formerly drawn much benefit from some of Mr Dennison’s past writings and preaching – though even moreso from his brothers(?) Charles and Bill.
The tenor in the quote unfortunately reminds me a little of John Robbins, though not as abrasive. At least these sort of men don’t leave you guessing where they stand in relation to the issues or the work of others. But it is painful to watch someone paint themselves into such a tight corner like that. Dropping down the word heresy isn’t to be taken lightly, does he actually give examples of what or who he has in mind or is it left to the wandering imagination of the reader?
LikeLike
Gabriel Byrne has been excellent in In Treatment. I have watched every episode of the show. Pastors and one-on-one counselors could learn reams by using his techniques in their craft. He holds his emotions in check quite convincingly when repelled and attracted to his clients. He even has broken rules at times.
The stories of the clients in treatment have been quite heart wrenching and the dialog is intellectually stimulating and insightful. Some episodes have even been subtley erotic. I put the show up there with Six Feet Under and Breaking Bad as some of the best drama on Television. It’s even better than Miami Vice.
LikeLike
“It’s even better than Miami Vice.”
Maybe, maybe not, but it *can’t* be as cool.
LikeLike
The morning service featured a visiting minister with a thick Scottish accent: “And th’ Lard spook all dees wards, sayin’…be ye pearfect as yer heavenly Fatha’ is pearfect.” Huge temporary man crush for me. Plus, he smelled good.
John, “Breaking Bad” is the best kept secret in commercial television. It is trying my patience that they have delayed season four until July (!). Did Jesse really shoot that guy in the face? I hope “Michael Mann” didn’t hear you say that about MV.
LikeLike
Testing.
LikeLike
“Testing”- what’s up with that?
Zrim, I know- it’s driving me crazy too (about Breaking Bad that is). How did you find out it is starting again in July? I tried in the past to find anything out about it but have not had any success.
How all the characters are going to solve their moral dilema’s is beyond me. The writers need to put the words amazing back into grace- especially for Walt and his wife. Jesse may turn out to be the hero in a twisted sort of way.
LikeLike
You’re too cool for school Michael. You even seem to be a good guy too.
LikeLike
This reminds me of the Trinity Foundation (not the guys who investigate televangelists; the other one). They seem to exist solely to promote the works of Gordon H. Clark and John W. Robbins. While these teachers were probably very wise, I find it incredible that an organization like this can exist for years upon end simply promoting their work and writing article after article examining how they were right about everything. There’s a reason these groups stay small; they have little appeal to people who do not agree on every particular or assent to the hero-worship. The disciple has less breadth than the teacher, like Calvinists who are more narrow-minded than Calvin.
LikeLike
Rick, your comment about the dialogue reminded me of this:
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6297969/
LikeLike
Anybody who likes Phil Hendrie owes it to themselves to listen to this interview on the WTF podcast with Marc Maron while it’s still free. (In a few weeks it will slip into the subscriber-only archive). WARNING: The podcast is not called “WTF” for nothing. Set vulgarity-tolerance to high! But if that’s not an issue for you, it’s a fascinating look into radio history, and it’s fun to hear interviewee and interviewer both making each other laugh.
LikeLike
Rube,
What do you make of Maron’s TV show? I had never heard of him, tried to watch once, and gave up. What am I missing?
LikeLike
Rube,
That was interesting. Thanks.
LikeLike