My most recent blog post, Manliness is a Dying Trend, had a wonderful response written by a fellow Webring member, Discrete Ideas, that I wanted to address.

I read through the response and I think there’s a lot there worth agreeing with. The strongest parts of their response are the reminders that strength without restraint becomes dangerous, and that manhood cannot just be reduced to violence, dominance, or "protector" language alone. I think those are fair corrections to make to a lot of modern conversations around masculinity.

At the same time, I think some of my original point got interpreted more narrowly than I intended, which is definitely due to my poor choice of wording.

When I talked about protecting and providing "for those you love," I wasn’t only talking about wife-and-kids suburban family structure. I meant your people. Your community. Your church. Your neighbors. The people around you. Historically, good men have always served outward. The man who fixes a neighbor’s roof after a storm, volunteers in his church, helps pull someone out of a ditch, or stands between danger and somebody weaker is still living out that protective role even when it extends far beyond his household.

I also think modern conversations sometimes flatten masculinity into two extremes:

either aggression and domination,

or total passivity.

But those are not the only options.

One thing I think gets missed a lot is that Christianity itself does not teach spinelessness. People quote "turn the other cheek", but the context there is insult and humiliation, not abandoning people to violence. It is about rejecting vengeance and ego. Christ was teaching restraint and humility, not cowardice.

And Jesus Himself is actually a good example of the distinction I was trying to make. Christ was loving, merciful, patient, and sacrificial. But He was not weak. He drove the money changers from the temple with force when righteous anger was called for. That matters. There’s a difference between uncontrolled aggression and violence restrained by love and aimed at protection. (I will admit, this argument doesn't do well to back the concept of using lethal force, that is something I think every man must wrestle through for themselves, with the Spirit. I will also add, I would vehemently argue if you use potentially lethal force, have some training in trauma medicine, try to save their life, but even more importantly, try to save their soul. Give them the Gospel in what could be their final moments.)

That’s really the heart of what I was trying to say.

I’m not arguing men should become caricatures. Not every man needs to be some hyper-aggressive action movie stereotype. I’m arguing that society still needs capable men. Men who can endure hardship. Men who can protect others when necessary. Men who can build, provide, lead, and serve. Men who are dangerous enough to defend people, but disciplined enough not to abuse that ability.

And honestly, I think the response and my original post overlap more than they conflict.

Because I agree that masculinity disconnected from virtue becomes destructive. But I also think virtue disconnected from strength becomes fragile.