Advice On People’s Advice Concerning “Manliness”

Recently, there have been a spate of books written on what it means to be a man. Also there have been the requisite blog posts to the same end. Some of it is quite good (Rev. Zach Garris’ book Masculine Christianity for example) while others are questionable at best.

Yesterday, I came across a typical bite sized X post on the subject of manliness from someone who is getting a great deal of press these days that has stuck in my craw because I think it is nonsense and can do a great deal of damage.

Here is the advice I came across from some genius on the subject of manliness;

The best of men learn how to thrive in moments of intense opposition and adversity. This is the “it” factor. 4th and long. Bottom of the 9th, 2 outs. “Manliness loves…the position of being embattled and alone against the world.”

The first sentence and the last sentence do not necessarily coincide and are not really the same thing. It can be true that the best of men learn how to thrive in moments of intense opposition and adversity while not being true that “manliness loves… the position of being embattled and alone against the world.”

Also, it is facile to compare being “embattled and alone against the world” with 4th and long and bottom of the 9th, 2 outs. When we think of embattled and alone against the world we think of the martyrs of the faith. That is a bit more consequential and trying then needing to make a first down or get a winning hit. Embattled and alone against the world is Polycarp being burnt at the stake. Embattled and alone against the world is fighting with the Confederacy after Richmond fell. Embattled and alone against the world is Pilgrim in Vanity Fair.

I wonder if someone who is dishing out this kind of advice has ever really themselves been “embattled and alone against the world.” I don’t think someone who has genuinely been “embattled and alone against the world” would use such trivial comparisons to the sportsball world.

It’s easy to toss around this kind of advice when not embattled and alone against the world. Much more difficult to live it out when one is in the vice grip of being embattled and alone.

Now if it had been said that love for greater realities moves one to accept their duty — no matter how difficult — I would have been satisfied with the statement. However, no man loves the position of being embattled and alone. Scripture teaches that we can learn to be content in all things but being content is different than loving being embattled and alone.

I reckon the reason I have taken such exception to this quote is because in many respects my ministry has been one of being embattled and alone. I have some experience here. Now, my being embattled and being alone is nothing to be compared with the saints who have gone before such as are listed in Hebrews 11;

 others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.

The idea that manliness “loves” this being embattled and alone turns manliness into a masochistic ideal. Now, manliness does endure such but to endure something because of one’s priorities is different than loving being embattled and alone.

Paul can write to Timothy saying;

Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Timothy is counseled to endure hardness, just as Paul himself endured hardness. But love it, in the sense of being delighted in the hardness itself? Only a masochist would speak that way.

Manliness accepts the responsibility that one is called to. Manliness endures hardness out of love for Christ or for family or for the Church. But manliness does not love the being embattled and aloneness just as realities in themselves. That is not manliness and anyone telling you that it is has never been embattled and alone for sustained periods of time. They have never had to fight knowing that they wouldn’t win in the short term. They have never had to endure solitary confinement. They have never faced being the lone voice of sanity among peers that can damage them professionally for disagreeing as the lone voice. They have never had to endure being ground down year after year. They just are not being rational, choosing instead to embrace some kind of romantic nonsense about what it means to be a man.

And what of the others around this man who loves being embattled and alone? What of his wife and children? Is there no awareness that the man who is embattled and alone has no put his wife and children in the positions of being embattled and alone also? This is not to say that a man must do this if the issue warrants it but if a man chooses not only for himself but for his wife and children to be embattled and alone is it really sane to love that when he sees how much it hurts his wife and children to be embattled and alone — and that even if they agree with whatever the cause is that has them all embattled and alone?

Just to be clear, I do agree that manliness learns how to thrive when the chips are down. My beef is using silly sports analogies for something so serious and my beef is with the idea that real men love being embattled and alone. I suppose real men who are masochistic love being embattled and alone.

Anyway … be careful of the advice that is being thrown around out there in Christian corners. More than a little of this advice is not well thought out.

 

 

Romans 6:23 & Grace Alone … Reformed Christianity; No Hope Without It

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Romans 6:23

This one verse alone proves that Roman Catholicism, Federal Vision, Lutheranism and Arminianism are all contrary to Scripture with their implicit or explicit denial that eternal life is purely a grace gift that comes through Jesus Christ.

Note the contrast. Wages are something one earns and what one earns from sin is (eternal) death. This is put in contrast to what is not earned but instead is characterized as pure gift and that as in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This one verse sustains the truth that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and it insists that even our faith is a gift of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So away with all models of salvation that by hook or by crook want to include works in our justification. Even our obedience in sanctification which is a necessary consequence of of justification are gifts that stem from having eternal life.

Salvation is not like Damnation. Damnation is 100% earned and is given as a just wage. Salvation is a free gift that is found in Jesus Christ our Lord ALONE.

Reformed Christianity … No Hope Without It.

Note — Lutheranism is included here because

1.) Lutheranism denies the perseverance of the Saints, teaching that one can lose their salvation, and when that is taught Christianity becomes a works religion.

2.) Lutheranism affirms that people can say “no” to irresistible grace and if people can say “no” to irresistible grace then the difference between those who say “no” and those who say “yes,” is the difference that constitutes a works.

3.) Lutheranism (like Arminianism) teaches that Christ died for all men. If Christ died for all men and all men are not saved then that which differentiates those who are saved that Christ died for and those who are not saved that Christ died for is a good work done by those who are Christ died that activates the death of Christ for them vis-a-vis those who don’t do that good work for whom Christ has also died.

A Conversation With Someone Who Supports Illegal Immigration

BC wrote,

Dude, that’s just straight up racism.

BLM responds

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Honestly, dude, the word “racism” no longer has any meaning. It’s just a random pejorative that the intellectually deficient cast at people when the intellectually deficient can’t make an argument.

BC wrote,

All people are made in the image of God and equally deserving of respect.

BLM responds,

Respecting people made in the image of God is not equal to accepting my home being invaded! I respect all kinds of people I don’t invite to come live in my house. I bet you do to. The same is true when it comes to a nation. I can respect people w/o inviting them to live here and steal my children’s inheritance by living here and sucking off the teat of the state’s welfare program.

I guarantee you that if we shut down welfare programs to immigrants we would have zero problems with immigration tomorrow. Immigration is a wealth transfer program from my descendents to the descendents of the stranger and the alien. Embracing untrammeled immigration is embracing the curses that God promised in Deuteronomy. Embracing untrammeled immigration ends up making the heritage American the bottom rail while the stranger and the alien becomes the top rail.

And with the reality of white replacement it is designed to do just that.

BC wrote,

And what culture are you talking about? American culture is a mixture of many different cultures. That’s what makes it great.

BLMc responds,

The original/previously-known American culture was a mix of (predominantly Northern) European Christian cultures! That is what once made it “great.” Bless your heart.

There yet remains a majority culture and that majority culture continues to be under attack in hopes of destroying it. That majority culture is driven by a now largely watered down Christianity but it still remains the case that “our” majority culture is yet influenced by Christian categories.

And any country that kills 1 million plus unborn yearly can hardly be considered “great.”

BC wrote,

I love being able to eat Thai food made by immigrants from Thailand or Italian food made by Italian immigrants.

BLMc responds,

You know it is possible to make Thai food without being swamped by Thais.

BC wrote,

And safety? Violent crime is waaaaaay down in the US since 1990. So what are you talking about?

BLMc

You got to be smoking Hashish when it comes to your assessment of crime

In 2020, the U.S. murder rate saw its largest single-year increase on record – and by 2022, it remained considerably higher than before the coronavirus pandemic.

Crime rates

There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.

In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non­black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.

Interracial crime

In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.

Urban centers

In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting” — defined as firing a bullet that hits someone — a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.

If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.

In an all­-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.

Police shootings

In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.

In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.

McAtee Contra The Baptist Rev. J. D. Hall On The Meaning Of The 2024 Election

J. D. Hall Wrote,

“If you’re confused why MAGA supports the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard or RFK Jr when “they’re not Republican” or “they’re not conservative,” please understand that the paradigm has shifted. These binary concepts are no longer relevant to us; their hours have passed.”

Bret responds,

If these binary concepts are not relevant it is testimony that people they are not relevant to are not wise.

The binary concepts remain relevant because true conservatives have always desired to dismantle the Leviathan beast. The fact that RFK Jr. or Tulsi Gabbard are being inconsistent with their stated Liberal beliefs only serves the agenda of the “Old Right.”

Secondly, people like RFK Jr. and Gabbard need to be watched closely because their leftist inclinations will eventually resurface and when that happens it will be the Old Right that has to put them down.

J. D. Hall writes,

We are beyond “conservative vs liberal.” We are beyond “Republican vs Democrat.” The only binary that matters is “Establishment vs Dissident.” This has become a post-partisan world.

Bret responds,

The thing here is though that if one is to honestly assess this one would have to conclude that “Establishment” has always been the position of the left, even when those on the left were calling themselves “conservative” and “Dissident” has always been the position of the genuine conservatives. Ever since I was old enough to vote, being conservative, I have been in favor of eviscerating the Establishment. This has always been the position of true conservatives.

So, it really is not a post-partisan world. It is rather merely that the lines between the partisans has now been more clearly drawn.

J. D. Hall writes,

We are not trying to save our institutions. We are not trying to reform our institutions. We have tried this, and failed; we are, instead, trying to dismantle them.

Bret responds,

Most of the people I run with gave up on trying to save our Institutions when it was clear in 1980 that Ronald Reagan wasn’t really serious.

But note… we are not anarchists. One can not tear down without at the same time building up. It is true that we are trying to dismantle but in the dismantling we have a vision of what the new institutions might look like. And we are doubtful that Trump is going to be the chap who leads us to that proper dismantling and rebuilding.

J. D. Hall writes,

MAGA recognizes that that there has become a Uniparty, supported by a sea of bureaucrats, in a system designed to suck the souls of men. We are tired of choosing between Eurasia and Eastasia, Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, in a system designed only to perpetuate an Establishment that persists in perpetual power regardless of nomenclatures of “left” or “right.”

Bret responds,

The problem was never w/ the nomenclature. The problem was with the fact that conservatives were never really conservative. However, there has always existed genuine conservatives who wanted to see the Federal Government chained down with the chains of the Constitution — as Jefferson noted 200 years ago.

J. D. Hall writes,

The system has become a cheap facade, to give the multitudes only a counterfeit feeling that our support for one or the other makes any difference at all. Both sides are Controlled Opposition for a permanent Federal power base that is fully non-idealist, consisting of professional politicians and unelected civil overlords.

Bret responds,

I completely agree with this.

J. D. Hall writes,

Trump’s picks are picked, based not upon their towing of a party line, but because they tow no line at all. They’re not chosen to apply makeup to the pig, but to butcher it.

Bret responds,

It is not possible to tow no line at all. Impossible. If they butcher the pig they have a different pig they want to ensconce. Is anybody even now really talking about devolving real power back to the States?

J. D. Hall writes,

Americans no longer want to tame Leviathan. We want to kill it. It is not the time to build up. It is time to tear down.

Bret responds

I am not sure it is true that Americans no longer want to tame Leviathan. We will only know that is true when Americans demand the end of things like the Great Society, Standing Armies, and a return to hard money. Until then, I’ll place my bets on the fact that Americans still envision taming Leviathan.

Rev. Bret McAtee, Maurice Pinay, and Winston Churchill on the Jews

Rev. Michael Hunter was recently grilled (interrogated) by the ARP’s Grace Presbytery Minister and His Works Committee regarding his views on a number of subjects. One of the questions put to Rev. Hunter was as follows:

14) Bret McAtee of Pactum (Institute) has said, “Jews do in fact play a disproportionate role in the destruction of Western Civilization and the white race via the Great Replacement.” What is your view on this as well as modern Jews generally?

Rev. Hunter gave his answer to this question which was quite excellent but since my name was brought up it seems only appropriate that I answer this question also. Clearly, the ARP Presbytery in citing my name as well as Dr. Adi Schlebusch’s, and Rev. Michael Spangler’s in their loaded questions to Rev. Hunter was attempting the old “guilt by association” technique. The methodology was … “as Spangler, Schlebusch, and McAtee are clearly guilty as seen in the quotes we provided, therefore you, Rev. Hunter, must be guilty also of whatever it is we have determined they are guilty of.” 

Let me note that this observation about the contest between Jews and White Christians is hardly unique to me. Indeed, so obvious is the truth of this that it strikes me that the ARP MHW committee is implying that I am guilty of the sin of noticing and they’re guilty of not knowing their own Church history.

In terms of Church history my quote is confirmed by Maurice Pinay in his history book, “The Plot Against The Church.” In this book Pinay chronicles two millennium of Church history concerning the ongoing religious conflict between Jews and Christians. If the clergy knew their own Church history they wouldn’t even invoke my name or my observation in questioning Rev. Hunter.

Perhaps Pinay is not good enough for the MHW committee of the ARP? If not then perhaps Winston Churchill would suffice as a witness to the truthfulness of the quote they cited from me. Churchill wrote in a 1920 London Newspaper column:

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.1

My quote that the ARP referenced in questioning Rev. Hunter is about as controversial in its truth as an assertion that “if one falls into water one is sure to get wet.”

1. Churchill, Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, p. 5.