“Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.” - Matthew 10:34
Contra certain other Nietzscheans (and, indeed, the Old Man himself), I do not consider either Christ the Man, nor Christendom to be avatars of passivity.
Let us first unpack Christ: His episode of flipping over tables and whipping people is well known. And if Christ teaches us anything, He teaches us how a brave man dies to protect others.
Current representations of Christ as some sort of bearded hippie are far more problematic than His “whiteness.” Christ slept rough, hung out with sailors and was a carpenter by trade. Any ideas we have about Christ being soft (as opposed to kind) are simply false. The Good Shepherd carries both rod and staff.
The Catholic Church for centuries practiced physical militancy, including several martial orders. When confronted with rising Islam, it did not go quietly into that good night. Arab Christians to this day are not shy about taking up arms to defend themselves in an extremely hostile neck of the woods.
But what of the present state of the Church, which I use in a broad and ecumenical sense. As the great President Dwight Eisenhower once said, “and I don’t care what it is.” Doctrinal disagreement and differing forms of worship are not an important distinction to make for these purposes.
Well, the Evangelical movement has entirely folded under the social pressure of the Summer of Floyd. While it might still mouth platitudes about the sanctity of human life and the importance of the father-led nuclear family, it has caved to the new racialist discourse.
Christ, apparently, came not to save humanity from the wages of sin, but to undo the historic legacy of America’s original sin — racism, ever more broadly defined.
What’s more, there is an increasing move toward Christ as a sort of self-help guru. There is less talk of Christ’s return and bringing woe and spiritual death to the wicked (of which there is certainly no shortage in this world today) than there is about how Jesus can make you a better employee or business owner.
All for His greater glory, of course. What wins souls more than middle-manager office types and career salesmen?
Indeed, much of the Church — and this is by no means limited to Evangelicals — seems to be concerned with either creating capable breadwinners (and man, remember, does not live by bread alone and Our Lord prayed only for His daily bread) or else creating a sort of Christian longhouse when men are continually harangued, henpecked and subjected to struggle sessions.
What kind of man is attracted to such a Christianity? And who, truly, is centered here?
I am painting in broad strokes, but I believe astute readers have taken my point: There is little manly about the Church today. And thus, it is no surprise that young men possessed of vitality and vigor seek spiritual answers elsewhere.
But what would a more masculine, male-oriented Church look like?
First, it would take the focus off the family. The family is the bedrock of Christian civilization, but its existence is under attack, not individually, but socially. It is not your family that is under attack, but the family as such. Masculine Christianity would fight for the institution of the family rather than hyper focusing on domestic matters.
A masculine Christianity would be more aggressive in its evangelization, framing itself as a firewall of order against chaos. This message has broad appeal and would win over a great many men possessed of some little faith in Christ, but much desire to defend their birthright.
Male-only Bible study groups would not use matters of the spirit to avoid difficult and uncomfortable problems of the world. Such study would not be a group therapy session, but a place where whiners, status-seekers and those concerned exclusively with the hereafter would quickly get the message and worship elsewhere. There is power in men coming together and seeking to serve Christ on earth.
Such a movement would be simultaneously attractive to the right kind of man and repulsive to the wrong kind. What’s more, masculine Christianity is absolutely necessary in a world increasingly dominated by chaos, hatred of civilization and a predilection with human deformity, both spiritual and physical.
Today’s Christian man is not the Bible-thumping holy roller of the 1980s, but a man deeply aware of his own shortcomings, the stakes involved in current events and the role Christ must play in confronting worldly evil. And he wants a way to make a difference in confronting this evil. If he eschews Church membership it is not because it is too divisive, but because it is not divisive enough.
What Christians face is not the End Times, but something that will make us yearn for them as a preferable alternative. We must conduct our spiritual communities accordingly.