Last week, Ruth Gledhill wrote in The Times (19 Nov 2009) that the "Archbishop of Canterbury must show muscular Christianity". After acknowledging the Archbishop's turning of the other cheek to the Pope's invitation to disaffected Anglicans to move across to the Roman Catholic church, she advocated  that at his meeting with the Pope in Rome, "a bit more muscular Christianity would not go amiss... he might do better to ask himself not 'What would Jesus do?' but 'What would Thomas Cromwell do?'".

Without wanting to go into the issue between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, there is one sense of course in which Christianity should be "muscular", but another sense in which it should not. Christians need to be prepared to put forward what they believe and why, to show that there is an intellectual and rational integrity to Christian beliefs. In addition, Christians should be prepared to challenge the world where its values differ from our own, as well as to affirm those values when possible. Paul uses strong language when he writes: "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). That could perhaps be fairly described as muscular Christianity. But if we are to be obedient to Christ as he urges, the question of what Jesus would do is much more relevant than the question of what Thomas Cromwell (or anyone else for that matter) would do.

Ruth Gledhill describes Thomas Cromwell as "tough and resourceful", climbing "to the top of Tudor society" and being a "maker and breaker of rivals". If that is what she wants for the Christian church and Christian leaders today, then the church will be moving far away from the teaching and the example of Jesus Christ, who said "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it" (Matthew 16:24-25).

Let us each work to tone up our intellectual "muscle", to know why we believe and how to present that effectively and attractively. But at the same time we need to shun that worldly power and "muscle" that would hurt and harm others, that simply seeks to win the argument, that responds to criticism and opposition with the desire to break our "rivals".

Perhaps "robust Christianity" is a better term to use than "muscular Christianity" - as long as we see that robustness as reflecting an intellectual and lifestyle integrity that seeks obedience to Christ above all worldly power and ambition.