Cosplaying Masculinity

(I’m writing this week about the dynamics of the James Talarico and Ken Paxton race in Texas. This article I wrote last year is directly applicable to the issues of Christianity and masculinity that are coming out of that race.)

Recently Senator Josh Hawley went on Eric Metaxas' show to talk about the condition of men and presumably about young men. Hawley asserted that the call to men is to "sacrifice", that laying one's life down for family, country, and church is "the highest calling". To which Metaxas replied, "that gives you total moral authority" and therefore everyone else should "shut up and do what you say." Not only did Metaxas invent a wholly new model of authority on the spot, I believe this conversation is important to understand how these guys in the Christian "manosphere" think. More importantly how they go about "cosplaying" masculinity and even Christianity.

"Sounding Good... on Paper..."

One of the things you encounter as a veteran or someone who serves in the military, law enforcement, fire, or other serious public service job is people who seem to want "credit" for not serving. This normally goes two ways- the first is the "I thought about signing up once" attempt at solidarity. What this person is trying to say is, "I value what you did so much I thought about doing it myself." Of course, the reality is that someone thinking about doing something isn't nearly as significant as actually doing it. The second person who will seem to want "credit" is the person who supposedly really, really, values what someone else does. This is often someone who has a relative or good friend who serves, they want you to know they appreciate that service. The problem is that sometimes people want that appreciation to count almost as if they actually served. In both of these examples people want credit, or partial credit, for valuing something while themselves not having to have done or been that something.

At first Hawley's desire sounds good, even Christ like in what he is saying. There's one big problem with that, and that is when many men in especially the Christian "manosphere" talk like this they are talking about getting credit for having a good valuation of those things, not actually displaying those things themselves. There is a lot of talk about seeing "sacrifice" as a good thing or calling men to "humility" from men who don't display any of those characteristics. Hawley and Metaxas are in the same sphere as Mark Driscoll and Josh Howerton, they are a part of a culture of "Christianity" that "talks a good game" while themselves not displaying anything near what they claim to "value".

So much of the talk in certain Evangelical circles speaks as if having a high value on something or seeing something as "important" or "noble" means you yourself have that trait. I've seen pastors even write books on things like "humility" who notoriously were not themselves "humble" in either their church or family lives. There have been numerous "leaders" who have preached against adultery while having an affair. This is not mere hypocrisy, this is an ideological disconnect that essentially says, "I can value and even claim this thing as good, even while I don't do it myself."

This gets us back to Hawley and Metaxas as they talk about "sacrifice" and valuing humility. Neither man has "served" in any real sacrificial way. "Serving" in politics simply doesn't count. (Hawley's use of private jets to campaign belies this) As well, one only has to look at their public personas to see a marked lack of humility and even arrogant belligerence. So how can they not only say they value "sacrifice" and "humility" when they clearly don't do either of those things? The answer is a redefinition of what those two things are.

"Sacrifice" and "Humility" Redefined

One of the things that one needs to understand, especially about the Evangelical "manosphere", is they will redefine male or "masculine" traits and responsibilities as being more spiritual than they are. Often this shifting in definitions is so that they can paint what they currently do, or are responsible for, as being more "noble" than it actually is. So many "megachurch" pastors do this when they couch what they do as "serving". Somehow getting up on stage, performing for an hour (many times with "borrowed" material), and receiving the adulation of thousands of people is "serving". And this is completely separate from the fact that they are often compensated six figure salaries to do precisely what they do on Sunday.

So much of the Driscoll, Howerton, Hawley, et all "theobro" "manosphere" consists of taking things that men are simply responsible for and unnecessarily elevating it to a level of spiritual "sacrifice". Routinely things like working to provide for one's family, doing normal things to clean up after oneself (not even what one would do in a shared space), or caring for one's own children is coded as "loving" or "serving" others. A part of this may be an attempt to "inspire" men, but I believe it is mostly an attempt to subtly shift what men do as being inherently "noble" and "sacrificial" as opposed to what women are supposed to do in the same relationship as being "essential" to their nature. So, when a man is doing a job and provides for his children that is a "sacrifice" because he somehow is entitled to keep all that money, but a woman's time and labor in the home is "essential" to who "God made her to be". In this way men are conditioned to see the minimum they do as "worthy" of some sort of praise or extraordinary recognition while they perceive what others do as merely "normal".

This is why when certain men start saying that men need to be encouraged to "sacrifice" it is important to not only look at their lives for evidence of sacrificial service but also look where their end goal for that "service" takes them. Are they doing something to be "faithful" or are they doing it really to transactionally get something, even demand something, particularly from women?

It's all Transactional... for Nothing

Whenever you encounter the modern Western "manosphere" you will encounter "men" obsessed with transactions. Every interaction, every relationship is built on "I did this so you should do for me". This fits back in with seeing everything "men" do as some form of "sacrifice", everything is done looking for some form of reciprocation or reward. This is where the guy expects sex or attention for paying for a meal (or in some instances simply agreeing to a date). This gets expanded to every other relationship and interaction so that men in this mindset rarely do anything without some compensation in mind.

So, to go back to Metaxas and Hawley's conversation, men should be willing to "sacrifice" because that willingness gets them "unquestioned authority". But here is where it gets even more insidious because what is being demanded is the "reward" for simply valuing the "sacrifice". In Metaxas' world you should be able to demand that "unconditional submission" not because you actually have sacrificed anything but because of a stated willingness to do so. This is where many will fall back to symbolic or even "covenantal" language concerning Jesus. What they'll say is men are supposed to "enter into" the "role" of leadership and sacrifice being "like Jesus", but what will always be twisted is that them having that "role" and stating a supposed "genuine" willingness to be like Jesus means they should be treated like him regardless of whether they are acting like Jesus/sacrificing or not. What Metaxas is effectively arguing for is a pretense for total domination based on the promise of self-sacrificial love (that often is reframed responsibilities as selfish transactional "sacrifice").

Cosplaying "Masculinity"

There is a difference between people who play Airsoft and those who join the military. There is a difference between a several thousand dollar "bootcamp" where men pay to get yelled at and signing up for a real boot camp. One is playing a role that is all benefit and no risk and the other involves real cost that cannot be removed from the experience. One is a simulation of danger and sacrifice the other takes a toll that cannot be excised from what is "real".

One of the things I fear much of Evangelical obsession with "masculinity" is in actuality doing is creating men who "cosplay" at a kind of masculinity. I think there is a reason Mark Driscoll, Josh Hawley, Josh Howerton, and so many more look, dress, talk, and act the same and that is their "masculinity" is a costume. For too many what makes a "Godly man" is merely a set of ideologies (not "woke"), thinly veiled misogyny, and t-shirts that are two sizes too small. You have guys who are using other people's work and words, styling themselves off of other people's work and what has already been deemed "popular", and then wanting to be taken seriously even though they haven't done the scholarship, put in the time, or even “sacrificed” much of anything. It's a cosplayer who wants to be treated like they're a real superhero even though all they've done is put on someone else's look and learned some lines.

The problem is that there is truth in the "cosplaying" lie. Again, what Hawley says about sacrifice, humility, and looking like Jesus is true, the problem is he's merely saying it. This is where the hyper-masculine obsessed Evangelical culture is a real danger, it has just enough truth to make guys who are putting on a costume think they should get credit for the real thing. This is also why so many Evangelical "man focused" events ring so hollow with pyrotechnics, fake SWAT teams, muscle cars and Harleys; they are so obsessed with selling masculine coded accoutrement as being "good" it sells the mere accoutrement as being the whole substance.

There is another concern when it comes to this "cosplaying" aspect of selling "manliness" and that is what if all someone is, is the costume? This past week Josh Buice was confronted and removed from both his pastorate and his job as President of G3. His removal was because he ran multiple anonymous social media and even publishing accounts. An honest question is who is the "real" Josh Buice, the one he presented with his name or the ones he used anonymously? This isn't the only example of a prominent Evangelical leader leading a false life either. One of the most notable was Willie McLaurin an executive in the SBC. McLaurin invented his entire education and lied for the entirety of his career in the Southern Baptist Convention. Even more there have been plagiarizing accusations for multiple "theobro" "pastors".

What Jesus Says to These "cosplayers"

One of the issues with this disconnect and question with who is the "real" man in question is the belief so many have in the Evangelical "manosphere" that you can value "good" things in one sphere and be a jerk in another. That you can be sacrificial and humble and loving towards your family and at the same time be ruthless, power hungry, and deceitful to your "enemies". This is why Hawley, Metaxas, Howerton, Driscoll and almost all of the "theobro" subculture rings hollow because there is an obvious disconnect where they what they say they want to value and claim to be one way with certain people, but then they are obviously not that way with others. What I believe we are seeing is that the tendency isn't that valuing "good" things in one circle bleeds into the "hostile" circle, rather the sin excused towards "enemies" ultimately edges out whatever "good" values you say you believe in.

Jesus and James get at this specifically. Jesus states, “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. (Luke 6:32-33)" Valuing "sacrifice" and "humility" with those who will just turn around and give you their submission or loyalty seems like exactly what Jesus was addressing. Then there's James, "...but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water. (James 3:8-12)"

You cannot be Rush Limbaugh online and Tim Kellar in the pulpit Sunday morning. You cannot be a wannabe Fox News pundit/troll on social media and long keep "pastor" in your bio. The trajectory that James and Jesus predict is that your "trollishness" will befoul any allusions you had to anything else. I also think James addresses the issue of "genuine" faithfulness, "Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."

This isn't a mere "valuing" what is good but saying, "Goodness isn't an ideology you hold, its born out in the fruit of your life." I think so much of the "manosphere" conversation gets too caught up in "roles" that it misses the question of what does faithfulness and maturity look like? What does being loving and considerate to another person look like in this situation/relationship? What does simply being a mature person look like?

It's important to remember that James isn't imagining ideals to be valued in the above passage, he's remembering his brother. I think if more Evangelicals (not just men) really started trying to look and act like Jesus we'd look less like the guy who shows up to the Neighborhood Watch wearing camo and body armor.

(Thanks for reading! I’m always grateful for those who lend me their time. If you want to get my latest please subscribe and consider supporting me in making this content. If you’d like to gift a one-time gift of coffee or dinner, that would also be appreciated https://venmo.com/u/Jason-Mallow-1 Lord willing I’ll see you again next week)