The Best Men Are Dangerous Men

There’s no question that men are hardwired for danger.

As psychologists and sociologists have long recognized, there is a genetic predisposition in men for physical aggression and violence. They possess larger, stronger bodies, as the typical male has 75 percent more muscle than women and 90 percent greater upper body strength. Throughout history men have, not surprisingly, predominantly filled roles in the front lines of combat and dangerous professions. 

Statistics also reveal where this masculine biology can go wrong: According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 93 percent of those incarcerated are men; research both present and historical shows that a vast majority of those involved in homicides are men; of the most dangerous jobs available, men occupy the vast majority, which is why men are 10 times more likely to be killed at work than women. 

Fueled by a pervasive feminist ideology that points to the obvious reality of man’s natural propensity for violence and labels it toxic, the most popular theory is that you make men safe by weakening them. And so from prohibition to public education, there’s been a concerted societal effort to domesticate, emasculate and soften men

The obvious problem, which all the research points out, is that it doesn’t work. You don’t make men good by softening them, just like you don’t make a knife better by dulling it. As any butcher knows, the best knife is the sharpest knife used for the right purpose. 

What our society has done is neuter the characteristics of authentic masculinity and then wonder why the new beta male isn’t worth a damn. We made war on fatherhood and then wondered why fatherless homes are decimating the culture. We told men their strength was toxic and then wondered why we’d been plagued by invertebrates in communities, corporations, and churches. 

In the timely words of C.S. Lewis: 

In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Only Dangerous Men Can Be Good 

Where we are most helped today is by the great men of the past who understood that only dangerous men have the capacity for masculine virtue. Tolkien captured this truth magnificently in The Two Towers: 

Gimli said, “But you speak of him as if he were a friend. I thought Fangorn was dangerous.

“Dangerous!” cried Gandalf. “And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Gloin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion. Certainly the forest of Fangorn is perilous—not least to those that are too ready with their axes; and Fangorn himself, he is perilous too; yet he is wise and kindly nonetheless.”

In modern times, men like Jordan Peterson have repeatedly pointed this out: It is only the most dangerous men that are capable of virtue; weak men are incapable of true virtue. 

What the world needs is dangerous men, not safe men.

It was dangerous men, with the capacity for violence, who stormed the beaches of Normandy and kept the evil of Nazism from swallowing Europe whole. It was dangerous men who chased and bombed the Taliban to the point of extinction in Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. It was dangerous men who tracked and killed UBL on May 2, 2011. 

Instead of vilifying masculine virtues like physical prowess, potent sexuality, vocational passion, and violent aggression, it’s essential that we understand what men are for and recast that vision for future generations.   

Man Was Made for Dominion 

In the context of creation, which is where man’s purpose and aim is most clearly defined, we are told that God gave man a primary task: rule the world. 

“God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28). 

With the necessary help of the woman, man’s primary, God-given task was subduing or taking dominion of the earth for God’s glory. From his loins to his chest, man’s physiological and psychological hardwiring has one ultimate purpose: conquering the world. 

Men are sexually driven, which is a gift for procreation, pleasure, and raising up an army of godly warriors.  

Men are combative, which is a gift for slaying the dragons that roam the earth and destroy civilization. As the past century has borne out, there is real evil and the only solution is for violently good men to meet it at the gates. 

Men are made to be warriors among a gang of men, which is a gift for the continuance of a god-fearing community. When a threat arises to the welfare of a people, men will ride into battle because they give each other strength and courage that can come no other way.  

Men are fathers, intense workers, culture builders, protectors, and leaders, which is a gift for building societies and shedding one’s own blood to ensure their generational vitality. Men were made to gather, store up, manage, and build wealth for the furtherance of future generations. 

Here’s the rub: The church today has almost completely lost an optimistic vision for the world dominion that is embedded in masculine DNA. Without a mission, brothers to shed blood alongside, families to nurture and build, and a land worth dying for, men become aimless and destructive. All that energy that was meant for world dominion becomes unhinged, destructive to self, society, and the world. 

It’s the same reason that many men who thrive in combat return home to discover a purposeless, listless existence. They are removed from the greatest love a man can have, which is for the man who bled next to him in battle. They no longer have a clear sense of purpose for their lives. Many suffer from depression and turn to suicide. 

Without a clear vision for dominion, masculinity cannot be fully recovered. But with that clear vision, men will again thrive. 

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he” (Proverbs 29:18). 

The desperate need of the hour is to encourage men to embrace the godly vision for dominion that he was made for. 

The plagues of masculinity we face today are a result of a people perishing without a vision. Without clear purpose, sexuality engulfs a man in pornographic napalm and selfish pleasure seeking. Strength is used to manipulate, control, and abuse. Fatherhood is abandoned for cheap sex and the objectification of women. Money becomes a tool for self-aggrandizement. Misguided combativeness erupts violently to destroy families, communities, and churches. 

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

Many Christians have been indoctrinated in effeminate churches by pastors who proudly occupy the egregious station as the “third sex.” More women’s tea parties and book clubs than boot camps for dominion takers, churches have become soft ghettos for the kind of pacifistic, emotionalistic pietism that any hard man would call gay. 

While Paul called the church to “fight the good fight,” (1 Tim. 6:12) “act like men,” (1 Cor. 16:13) and “be a good soldier,” (2 Tim. 2:3) most churches today speak exclusively in the language of feelings, heart religion, and binding the wounds of a bruised inner child. Oddly enough, no place in Scripture will you find an emotivistic plea to “accept Jesus into your heart,” but you will find Christ calling for violent men to violently pursue the kingdom. The former is the standard fare in evangelical churches while the latter has been almost completely forgotten. 

What men are to be, we are told, is meek. After all, didn’t Christ say that the meek shall inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5)?

Ironically, the meekness Jesus calls for is exactly the opposite of the soft-shell-crab weakness in men that gets peddled from the pulpit today. The actual meaning of “meekness” helps us understand the kind of masculinity we ought to pursue. 

The Greek word praus refers to the meeking of a war horse, which describes a tremendously powerful creature that has been brought under the warrior’s direction. Biblical meekness “is not weakness but rather refers to exercising God’s strength under His control—i.e. demonstrating power without undue harshness.” 

God calls men to be tremendously powerful and dangerous and to harness that drive with unparalleled discipline under the authority of God’s Word. 

The virtues which Christ himself extols in men are holy violence and power under restraint. The authentic man has not become weak, but quite the opposite; he has learned to harness his power through training and discipline.

Which is why the best men are dangerous men. 

More To Explore

20 thoughts on “The Best Men Are Dangerous Men”

  1. This should be mandatory reading for every Christian male and female and particularly every true Pastor in this Nation. Why isn’t this preached from the Pulpits of America and around the world? Thank you brother for daring to put such a needed but purposely ignored message in writing. I read article after article on why The Church is losing membership and no one should find it necessary to read more than this piece. Thank you

    • John,

      Thanks for commenting, and glad you found it helpful. May the Lord be pleased to change the message in our pulpits and raise up godly men to fill them.


  2. Love this. Gonna/wanna keep on getting blootered in Holy Spirit. Watch out world, flesh & Devil. 1 John 3:8. Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh.

  3. Great Article! That effeminate pacifism being preached from the pulpits today is 0% compatible with the Holy Scriptures!! Those servants of God in the Old Testament were LIONS, who literally fought hand-to-claw battles against such dreadful beasts; lions, bears etc!! Read about the mighty men of valor in David’s army, how a single one of them slaughtered with the sword or the spear, hundreds of equally testosterone-filled warriors like himself!! I mean, I began reading the Bible since I was 9 YO, and ever since I started, I began wielding wooden swords and riding a stick imagining it was a horse! Yes, I thought I was a David, a Moses, a Jacob (who fought with the Angel of the Lord all night thinking He was an enemy!!), an Abraham (who rescued his nephew Lot from the hands of a mighty army with just 300 of his domestic servants), a Joshua, a Caleb, a Samson, etc etc… Speaking of Samson, he killed 1000 Philistine warriors with the jaw of a donkey, in other words, almost his bare hands, and that he could accomplish by being literally possessed by the Holy Spirit!! Now, my question to all those pacifist effeminate “christians” is this: if killing an enemy who is a danger to yourself, your family and your community is a sin, then how come the Holy Ghost possessed Samson to kill THOUSANDS???? Can the Holy Spirit sin??? Of course NOT!!! Has the Holy Spirit ever possessed a man to lie with a harlot, or to steal or to murder??? OF COURSE THE ANSWER IN NO!! I always think about what would our ancestors think if they saw us now, how emasculated and women-dominated most modern “men” have become! It is truly disgusting to think about!! A soft, effeminate, coward, woman-dominated “man”, is not a true Christian!! Period!! I have enough Biblical references to back it up!! God bless!!

  4. Right on Target Eric,
    Unfortunately in Uh-Merika today, we see far too many ‘soy-boyz’ drinking the tainted Kool-Aid from the increasingly wicked revived ‘femi-nazi’ movement……yes Virginia, even coming from most of women in the mainstream ‘churches’, employing weak-kneed hirelings for their milksop pulpits. It has to be thoroughly revolting to the LORD, per His many clear references about men in His Word, and as clearly demonstrated through His Son Jesus Christ’s own demonstrated consistent behavior while He walked the earth.
    As men who have been ‘awakened’ to this factual threat, we MUST demonstrate even more manly behavior with measures of compassion before our peers; Job 38:3 and 1 Corinthians 16:13.

  5. Excellent. My pastor (he’s a straight-up cowboy, to boot) exhorts men to be right men, dangerous men. I find this blog post precise on every point and am sharing it on my social media. Heck, I should probably print it out and frame it up for the reading pleasure of guests in my home.

  6. Good word, brother! And that word for men in 1Corinthians 16:13 is a masculine noun. A number of translations took it out altogether. Paul was addressing men only in that sentence.

  7. Simcha Fisher published a fantastic article a few years back in Patheos, titled “Boys with Sticks”. Your essay here echos many of the same points she wrote of then.

    A few pull quotes (emphasis mine):
    “It doesn’t make violence go away when we always tell boys, “Put that stick down.” Instead, it’s making a world where people, boys and girls alike, have no idea what to do about unjust violence.”

    “A boy who wants to pick up a stick needs to know that he can, and he may, and that his affinity for sticks is not a bad thing. He needs to know that a stick is a powerful thing, and that the world needs men who know how to use their sticks.”

    “If your house is the place where [someone else’s] son first lays hand on a sword, don’t apologize! But let him know that swords come with rules. Don’t banish fighting; banish cruelty.

    I keep that link and re-read it frequently, as my sons — especially my toddler — show an affinity for tools and weapons of all kinds. I refuse to prohibit weapon and fighting play in our house, but I do everything I can to instill a respect for that strength and teach them how and when it’s appropriate to use it.

    The church and the world need dangerous men. Not cruel men, but dangerous men.

    (Or as one of my favorite memes puts it, “Let me live my life such that, when my feet hit the ground in the morning, the Devil says, ‘Oh, crap…. He’s up.'”)

  8. I’m a little late to the party, but I have an unusual experience and question to pose to both the editor and readers that may tie into the topic at hand. I’ll preface it quickly. I’m 62, and I work both a full time job, and a part-time job. Occasionally, on a Friday payday, right after work (5:00-6:00 pm range) I’ll stop into an upscale (and often overpriced) restaurant or bar for a Tito’s Vodka and dinner, then head home and get my German Shepard out before calling it a day. I’ll sit at the bar as there’s generally no wait, and as I won’t occupy a table as they make their money from larger parties. I’m always polite, and I tip generously. I’ve experienced, especially in the last 5-10 years, more and more combative older women (40s-50s) out and about. I’ll be sitting there, minding my business (no interaction, no eye contact), when an older woman will out of nowhere become mouthy, or start an unprovoked altercation. It’s always been an older woman with an older man (the man has always been ambivalent to it), or an older woman out with her older “girls” (often including the token flaming homosexual male pal). I’ve had a couple start shoving me too. I live in Kansas City, and like any other big liberal city, if an altercation breaks out between a man and a woman, someone goes to jail. Invariably, it’s the man. Plus the KCPD is a notorious rogue department. I have a lot of skin in the game, and a lot to lose, especially my concealed carry license. I have some theories as to why this has occurred more than once. I’ve found I’m avoiding doing this less and less, but I’m not some noodle arm, and I don’t want these old bats determining my lawful occasional pursuits out. Are other men around the country encountering this, and if so, how have they handled it?

  9. This is also why boys need men in the home. In general, and there are always outliers, boys need to learn how to harness and channel these masculine characteristics into beneficial and productive directions. Women tend to suppress these things in boys–which is sometimes called for, but also sometimes are the wrong thing to do. Like all of life, it’s a balance. Without a man in the home, boys do not learn this crucial skill that permits them to grow into good, productive young men.

  10. Hmmm. Dangerous men? Men who commit acts of domestic violence? Men who commit violent acts of racism? How do you limit the impulses of a dangerous man?

    • Claudia, you shouldn’t have led off by maligning dangerous men as being inherently more evil, when they are just more capable, if you really just wanted an answer. Because it would seem that libeling men was your agenda.
      But, I’ll answer your question. Dangerous men can be self-controlled by the fear of God.
      Proverbs 16:6b by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.

  11. I love dangerous, masculine men. As we know, they are in short supply.
    As a woman I struggle…surprise… because the apparent role for women is we are “supposed” to submit to our husbands.
    I cannot accept I’m considered an equal when I’m expected to submit. To me, this puts me in the child’s role…that I’m not capable of offeri g wise counsel….or I may offer it, but if my husband feels it isn’t best…it is his duty to lead us another way…and he is to be respected for this…even when his way isn’t best.
    I asked why…I was told that men will have to answer to god, but if he’s coming from a place of servant leadership then his heart is in the right place.
    Here’s the thing…what about the fact I’m coming from the same place? I truly feel something is best…but of he disagrees…I’m supposed to simply accept his decision…and allow him to lead, and respect him for it. He, on the other hand does not have to accept my decision… respect me for my leadership…if he disagrees.
    Can men understand why this doesn’t resonate with many women? I understand having order…but in the professional world…I am respected for my input…and if I’m not I leave that company or I start my own business…in a marriage…I am never given the grace of ever being more than a woman who receives my husband’s sexual desire, his support…but never allowed true leadership as well.
    Why is it assumed we only ever want to be the cheerleader and not the CEO?
    I’m not being an ass…these are honest answers I never feel I find a good answer to.
    I love strong, masculine men…I don’t however, love being told I must only occupy a certain role because of my gender. I’m capable, smart, have value with regards to leadership as well…and not just in the role of raising kids.

    • Aimee,

      I think the root of the problem is being unwilling to accept what God made a woman for. He does not want women to lead, to direct, to be the ultimate decider for the family. God wants women to offer their husband wise counsel but then to leave the consequences to God, in faith. It takes an immense amount of faith to be willing to sit back and not try to control outcomes, for a woman. I believe that for a man it is different- it takes faith to act, to lead. God made us for a certain purpose and it is as noble and valuable as the man’s headship is. We are not the head, but we are the glory. We give life to a man’s effort, we take what our husbands give us and amplify it. He provides flour, we turn it into bread- we make his efforts go far. We are also place makers; men are not capable of making true homes. If we focus on leadership, we fail to do our job of glorifying and making fruitful. It is an eyes on your own plate issue. Lastly, I’ll leave you with this thought: if God makes a bullfrog, it best glorifies God by being a frog; if it instead chooses to envy a rabbit and hop around eating broad leaf weeds, it insults God as creator and determiner of our place. We best glorify God by being what He intended us to be. We cannot elevate ourselves by choosing a different position. God loves hierarchy and it is better to serve in heaven than to reign in hell.

  12. Well-said brother. There is no weakness in Jesus Christ, only submission to His mission–which ironically, requires more strength than we can imagine.


Leave a Comment