Talk:Muscular Christianity

message: There are lovely references on this article, but IMHO, the article is totally wrong.  Muscular Christianity was a flavor of theology, which although health-positive, was not centered around athletics.  With luck I will return to this page with references to fix.  
(Added 06:24, 24 July 2007 by 71.112.140.115) 
Does service with the military promote muscular Christianity?  Some info at this link Towards a Christian Masculinity for the Armed Forces might be added in.  Springnuts 19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well.  Hm.  No occurrences of "muscular", "Kingsley", or "Hughes", so I for one don't have the expertise to say, although it seems reasonable.  I'm hoping the anonymous person who contributed above will bring in some references on the original meaning—assertive Christianity fighting injustice, or something, all consistent with physical training—and the transition to what seems like a modern usage—Christianity for athletes (and military men?).  —JerryFriedman 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Untitled] 

message: In modern British English usage the term muscular Christianity has very little to do with Christianity. Rather, it denotes: 1. hostility to things intellectual, scholarly, scientific and artistic - in short, its meaning overlaps with that of philistinism; 2. a period or movement in the history of the Britsh fee-paying or 'public' (that is, independent or 'private') schools, when games and military values were cultivated at the expense of academic values, sometimes amid superficial appeals to Christianity.
Obviously, I'm aware that this is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry, but the point needs making. Norvo (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think new meanings belong in the article, if there are reliable sources that back them up. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Term in Modern British English Usage

message: The second picture, of George Wilson, and the last section, naming a series of athletes as exemplars of Muscular Christianity, seems a bit of a stretch. Do these athletes actually espouse an ideal of Muscular Christianity, or are they just coincidentally male athletes who happen to be publicly open about their Christian beliefs? If so, they should probably be removed. Horatio325 (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One quotation in the article says, "John MacGregor is perhaps the finest specimen of muscular Christianity that this or any other age has produced. Three men seemed to have struggled within his breast—the devout Christian, the earnest philanthropist, the enthusiastic athlete."  All those apply to George Wilson (except probably for "finest specimen").  The reference for Tim Tebow specifically mentions that he's been called an example of muscular Christianity.  Another reference mentions "analogies" between Tebow's and Jeremy Lin's Christianity and muscular Christianity.  All these people seem to have charitable foundations and do charitable work.  So I think the inclusions of them are justifiable, although other than the picture of Wilson, I'm not sure how much they add to the article. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  too broad? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Muscular Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818063058/http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-2.html to http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I first began to copyedit the article but thought that this Introduction and Growth of Muscular Christianity in America section needed more support. It doesn't focus much on America and describes more generally the origins of the philosophy. It should probably focus more on Protestant Christians than Catholics, who are less prominent in America. The source that this section cites seems to be credible (I haven't read it all, but it's in-depth), but the source does argue that Catholics didn't care much for the ideas of Muscular Christianity. 
In sum, I think this section should either be scrapped or majorly reworked. Thoughts?
note: this is my first foray into Wikipedia editing  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoArmedMan262 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Growth of Muscular Christianity in America section -- rewrite? 

message: The "See Also" section links to both Muscular Judaism and Muscular Liberalism.  Is the latter relevant?  "Muscular Judaism" and "Muscular Christianity" appear to be analagous concepts - the idea that religious observance and identity should be combined with athleticism.  "Muscular Liberalism" looks like a completely different concept, and "muscular" only in a metaphorical sense. Iapetus (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A year later... I agree, and have removed the link. Robofish (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Muscular Liberalism link? 

message: The following merely repeats verbatim, statements in the preceding paragraph, with a spurious reference to Lance Armstrong. If it belongs anywhere it would be in an item about Meyer (who apparently is un-notable enough that he currently has no Wikipedia article). The paragraph should be removed IMO: 
'Richard Andrew Meyer, a professor of Baylor University, explains Thomas Hughes's six definitions of Muscular Christianity through six criteria. Meyer wrote a dissertation about Thomas Hughes's notion of Muscular Christianity by analyzing the career of Lance Armstrong. The criteria are "1) a man's body is given to him (by God); 2) and to be trained; 3) and brought into subjection; 4) and then used for the protection of the weak; 5) for the advancement of all righteous causes; 6) and for the subduing of the earth which God has given to the children of men."' Newburyjohn (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Hughes