What Does It Mean to Be a Gentleman?
That Good Fight podcast, Episode 5
Western masculinity is in crisis, and the Church is part of the problem.
For almost a decade now, “masculinity” has been in the headlines, one way or another. Opinions abound about what’s gone wrong with it; who’s to blame for it; how to fix it. It’s a problem that doesn’t seem to be going away, however much people seem to talk about it.
Western men no longer know how to be men, nor whether it’s ok for there to even be a way to be men. They are a chaotic mix of the disempowered, the unfulfilled, the inhibited, the brainwashed, the virtue-signalling, the confused. They’ve been told much about all they and their kind ought not to be, and have subsequently been left to watch their steps.
Many still sense a deep yearning within them for something we once called “the heroic”. They still look to certain cultural ideals and models for fatherly solace. They still seek to be heroes, even if they no longer know what the “approved” heroes are meant to be look and sound like.
They want to find men they can look up to; men they respect; men with whom they can identify; men whom they wish—on some level—to emulate. Men have always done this. But increasingly within western culture today, they do so whilst looking over their shoulders lest a feminist tell them off about what they’re no longer “allowed” to find appealing. We need to stop asking feminists for permission. (But more on that another time!)
I’ve been thinking and speaking on this topic for some time now, especially on how the Church ought to have done so much more to reach such men. A couple of years ago, Jordan Peterson’s “message to the churches” caused quite a stir. I wrote something about it at the time, which caused a BBC producer to get in touch and invite me on a discussion show (my appearance was predictably cancelled at the last minute, perhaps once they realised my views might not quite be “BBC material”!).
Peterson’s point was effectively that he has met so many men looking to him to work out how to be a man, that he wondered why they were not looking to the Church. He essentially urged the Church to “man up” and reach them. But rather than proclaim a more “muscular” Christianity, the Church has often nullified masculine purpose. Rather than opposing the feminist chorus that perpetually lambasts manly virtue as potentially “toxic”, it has joined the choir, resulting in the effective surrender of masculine distinctiveness altogether.
Why has the Church been so reluctant to call men to “act like men” (1Cor. 16:13)? One reason, at least, is that we have glorified some of Jesus’ attributes at the expense of others. We have trained recent generations of men that effeminacy—one way or another—is the “godly” option. We have over-emphasised gentleness as the chief virtue, and have cut it off from other key Biblical emphases that give godly gentleness its profundity. The men stop turning up. And those who were men no longer act like it.
Meanwhile, the non-Christian “manosphere” is awash with angry and disempowered men keen to glorify strength over and against this inherited notion of “Christian” gentleness, which many men have come to see as a tool to keep them down. If male strength becomes dangerous when untethered, where and how can such strength be better expressed? One way to get at this issue is to consider what it means to be a “gentleman”.
Why is the stereotypical ‘English gentleman’ a target of attack in our culture today? Does he have Christian roots on some level? If so, what are they, where did they go wrong, and how might they be recovered? In what sense can Jesus be thought of as a “gentleman”? Whatever that term brings up for you, there are certainly aspects of what we see in the ideal of what the gentleman stood for which might act as a model of godly masculinity today for a generation of bewildered men who know not where to look.
A gentleman is not just “a rich man”, nor is he “a soft man”. At his best, he is a man who can be trusted, a man who takes responsibility not only for himself, but for others. He is a man knows how to do what needs to be done, and knows when and—crucially—why to use his strength, when the time comes to use it. Above all, he is a man on the side of good, not evil, and is willing to do something about evil when the time comes to do it.
In the last of our “introduction” episodes to the That Good Fight podcast, we talk about this idea of the recovery of the gentleman and unpack it further, sharing our thoughts on everything from James Bond to Pinocchio, from Boniface to Andrew Tate, from Anthony Esolen to Downton Abbey, and from Jesus to The Ultimate Warrior…
Enjoy!
The episode is also available as audio-only in the usual places…
I read your article on Peterson's comments. A few observations (and I do NOT profess to have a solution of course ...).
I think it is entirely telling that Peterson addresses Muslims just like he addresses Christians. I know you would never do this, but I took myself off to a few unpleasant days of research about the treatment of women in the evangelical sphere. In as far as this bubble blames "feminism" for the confusion of their menfolk, and in the cures they advocate, they are frighteningly close to any old ayatollah. One shudders to think what would happen if these forces realised that they have a common interest.
You bemoan the identity crisis of modern men, but in order to have an identity crisis, one first has to be freed from existential concerns such as food, shelter and safety. We are increasingly looking inward because we have the time, the education and the language of philosophy, even if our grasp on the latter might be tenuous ...
As a woman, I do not recognise the men you describe. Are men in general confused about their roles? I doubt it. I have a lot of male friends and nobody seems to spend much time being in a masculinity crisis.
Has a certain number of men (AND WOMEN!) been revealed as inadequate because the millennia-old straightjacket of work and survival has been removed? Most certainly. We now need to adjust and develop ways of being in this kind of world. Pretending we can return to a world that never was is naive.
It seems to me that every life has its challenges. Maybe we angst more than our parents' generation. Maybe in a world that offers a thousand avenues to purpose, finding yours is harder. I dare think, though, that the gospel was written as much for neurotic hipsters as it was for illiterate peasants ploughing a field in 1547. I bet the latter didn't spent a bleeding minute talking to his pastor about whether his wife should have a career.
I would therefore recommend that men buckle up and stop obsessing. I find Peterson very helpful - move out of your mama's basement, clean your room, make a healthy decision about finding a partner and strive to be a decent person. I'd add ignore the men's groups who blather on about "muscular Christianity" - they are selling you a lie, the lie that it will get easier if only we find new ways of steeling ourselves.
I also think that everybody is called to be "gentlemanly". Adventure, conquest, chivalry, heroism, grit and leadership are as much for women as they are for men. For me, this is the true sphere of God. None of us, neither woman nor man, is called to be a simpering, frilly pile of mush obsessed with avoiding "sin" and pleasing others.
And putting a photo of James Bond with the article is an odd choice! He got laid about twenty times per film. I hope this isn't what you had in mind when talking about men.