You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
15 reviews for:
It's Good to Be a Man: A Handbook for Godly Masculinity
Dominic Bnonn Tennant, Michael Foster
3.65 AVERAGE
15 reviews for:
It's Good to Be a Man: A Handbook for Godly Masculinity
Dominic Bnonn Tennant, Michael Foster
3.65 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
dark
sad
medium-paced
Terrible Book. Avoid!!
Some Interesting Ideas/Interpretations, but definitely not all based on biblical teachings. One line calls Jesus perfect, but is not complete.
It's as if the author was Red Pilled then converted to Christianity and decided to put them together.
Jesus is an example of how to live, and he spits in the face of that for a more Christianity x Red Pill Crossover
Some Interesting Ideas/Interpretations, but definitely not all based on biblical teachings. One line calls Jesus perfect, but is not complete.
It's as if the author was Red Pilled then converted to Christianity and decided to put them together.
Jesus is an example of how to live, and he spits in the face of that for a more Christianity x Red Pill Crossover
I admittedly did not expect to enjoy this book as much as I did. I harbored a negative bias towards Foster for a couple different reasons not pertinent to this review. But this was actually really great. We live in a culture where the very question of what it means to be a man or a woman is now not only contested, but outright denied. What I expected to find in this book was the typical argument for what it means to be a man. Which means that I expected high emphasis on the brute force, machismo, lumberjack with a Bible motif. Where the wife looks like that 1950’s trad-wife who waits hand and foot on her husband. I grew up in a form of the patriarchal movement where women were genuinely taught they were lesser than men. As Foster and Tennant show, the man as man is best expressed when he is with whom God made for Him, namely his woman.
The majority of this book is just common sense advice that a young man (or an old man who never got the memo) needs to hear regarding responsibility. Responsibility is quite possibly the biggest task given to man and the fulfillment of those responsibilities is his summum bonum. His responsibility to God, to his wife and family, to his church and church family, to his state and nation, and so on, are the key reasons why men exist. The best types of men are those who are faithful to those responsibilities. This plays itself out in a number of ways of course, but it should not be neglected that there is more to a man than what is between his legs. The biology certainly matters, and this is not playing into the leftist hands when I make that comment. I simply mean that biological men are very rarely Biblical men in the proper sense of the word. Simply existing does not give you a participation trophy. God calls for men to be a man as Christ modeled for us. Again, Foster and Tennant work this out carefully. There were more than a few paragraphs that I disagreed with, but the overall thrust of the book was too good to make this a point of contention. Overall, a worthwhile book that won’t be calling for men to join the military, or cut down trees, or joining that bodybuilding evangelical Power Team of the 90’s. They have a much higher calling.
The majority of this book is just common sense advice that a young man (or an old man who never got the memo) needs to hear regarding responsibility. Responsibility is quite possibly the biggest task given to man and the fulfillment of those responsibilities is his summum bonum. His responsibility to God, to his wife and family, to his church and church family, to his state and nation, and so on, are the key reasons why men exist. The best types of men are those who are faithful to those responsibilities. This plays itself out in a number of ways of course, but it should not be neglected that there is more to a man than what is between his legs. The biology certainly matters, and this is not playing into the leftist hands when I make that comment. I simply mean that biological men are very rarely Biblical men in the proper sense of the word. Simply existing does not give you a participation trophy. God calls for men to be a man as Christ modeled for us. Again, Foster and Tennant work this out carefully. There were more than a few paragraphs that I disagreed with, but the overall thrust of the book was too good to make this a point of contention. Overall, a worthwhile book that won’t be calling for men to join the military, or cut down trees, or joining that bodybuilding evangelical Power Team of the 90’s. They have a much higher calling.
Similar to the blog, an overly long cherry-picking of "biblical wisdom" to support an anti-humanist, chauvinist, guilt-forward theology. That makes it sound more interesting than it is, though. Around a third of it is rambling filler, neither controversial nor perceptive.
I changed my review from ** to *. I see the authors saying, “this isn’t a book about women” to their critics. And while it’s not about women, their own words speak about women extensively. Here are real quotes from the book:
“Women will always be tempted to remove discomfort. This happens even with the best women….either way, biblical Christianity requires discomfort because it requires discipline…” p89
“For churches, feminine social instincts are inversely proportional to ensuring orthodoxy.” p91
“A church in which the influence of women is not checked by masculine rule-where, indeed, it is instead elevated and amplified-will always descend in mystical emotional chaos. We exist to please God. It is impossible to build true religion on the false assumption of the opposite. Unfortunately, even pious women tend to lead us in that opposite direction if unchecked.”p92
“Again, women can be known for workmanship, and they should seek to develop it. They worship through service also. But workmanship is about more than simply doing; it is about becoming useful. This is a uniquely masculine quality.” p146-147
“God has made us to live in relationships. A man should be able to rely on himself-but “it is not good that the man should be alone.” He needs both the right woman and the right men in his life. Together they are the two rails that keep his train on track. A tribe and a helpmeet will stabilize, direct, and magnify his mission.” ch13
“It is a key milestone for a man, and a massive step forward, when he finds a wife. She is the second rail, running parallel to fraternity, that supports him, carries him forward, and keeps his mission on track.” ch13
“There is a way of women, and a way of men; and while they have much in common, there are major differences. There are things about women that men will only understand in a theoretical sense, and the reverse is also true. Hence women need a sisterhood; they need a close group united around shared emotion.” ch 13
The following is part of a story from a soldier that the authors use to “capture the male need for brothers on a mission.” “In war, he had a clear mission-and a fraternity that kept him company, kept him focused. He had a band of brothers, and in truth that mission and those brothers were more precious to him that his own wife. He writes, ‘Despite my resolve never to return to a combat environment, I’d signed up once more amid the height of insurgent violence. That deployment would cost me my marriage. I’d didn’t even have to go. I volunteered.’” NO clarity from the authors that this is bad, in fact, seems to be a positive example of male fraternity.
“Women are designed for different work: to fill the inward world, building a community. Thus, connecting with each other to establish social harmony is critical. Every woman must ensure her place by fitting into and conforming within the group. Because of this, meritocracies like true aristocracies, classical democracies, or biblical monarchies are masculine ideals. Feminine forms of government include flat democracies (everyone is equally competent), oligarchies (cliques), and committees (no one is responsible).”
FYI I’m an OPC attending, patriarchy affirming mother and wife, wondering how in the world this book is getting such rave reviews.
“Women will always be tempted to remove discomfort. This happens even with the best women….either way, biblical Christianity requires discomfort because it requires discipline…” p89
“For churches, feminine social instincts are inversely proportional to ensuring orthodoxy.” p91
“A church in which the influence of women is not checked by masculine rule-where, indeed, it is instead elevated and amplified-will always descend in mystical emotional chaos. We exist to please God. It is impossible to build true religion on the false assumption of the opposite. Unfortunately, even pious women tend to lead us in that opposite direction if unchecked.”p92
“Again, women can be known for workmanship, and they should seek to develop it. They worship through service also. But workmanship is about more than simply doing; it is about becoming useful. This is a uniquely masculine quality.” p146-147
“God has made us to live in relationships. A man should be able to rely on himself-but “it is not good that the man should be alone.” He needs both the right woman and the right men in his life. Together they are the two rails that keep his train on track. A tribe and a helpmeet will stabilize, direct, and magnify his mission.” ch13
“It is a key milestone for a man, and a massive step forward, when he finds a wife. She is the second rail, running parallel to fraternity, that supports him, carries him forward, and keeps his mission on track.” ch13
“There is a way of women, and a way of men; and while they have much in common, there are major differences. There are things about women that men will only understand in a theoretical sense, and the reverse is also true. Hence women need a sisterhood; they need a close group united around shared emotion.” ch 13
The following is part of a story from a soldier that the authors use to “capture the male need for brothers on a mission.” “In war, he had a clear mission-and a fraternity that kept him company, kept him focused. He had a band of brothers, and in truth that mission and those brothers were more precious to him that his own wife. He writes, ‘Despite my resolve never to return to a combat environment, I’d signed up once more amid the height of insurgent violence. That deployment would cost me my marriage. I’d didn’t even have to go. I volunteered.’” NO clarity from the authors that this is bad, in fact, seems to be a positive example of male fraternity.
“Women are designed for different work: to fill the inward world, building a community. Thus, connecting with each other to establish social harmony is critical. Every woman must ensure her place by fitting into and conforming within the group. Because of this, meritocracies like true aristocracies, classical democracies, or biblical monarchies are masculine ideals. Feminine forms of government include flat democracies (everyone is equally competent), oligarchies (cliques), and committees (no one is responsible).”
FYI I’m an OPC attending, patriarchy affirming mother and wife, wondering how in the world this book is getting such rave reviews.
The content of this book is essentially the ‘red pill’ baptized. The authors adequately observe the problems and challenges facing men and the concept of masculinity in modern culture. Unfortunately, even as I favored most of the solutions to the problems, I often didn’t agree with how the authors arrived at them.
First point of disagreement: the authors hold that men are not born they are made. Women are. Males have to become men. This performative sense of masculinity is problematic in my opinion for many reasons that I won’t detail here. Second, the authors ground masculinity in creation order, and in Adam in particular. This is likewise problematic, even as it’s the common starting point for many. Much better to begin with the very image of God, Christ himself, as the ground of masculinity. The resources for this are there in the theology coming out of the reformation. Why Adam, or at least the mandate given to Adam, remains the starting point for evangelicals on masculinity escapes me.
One additional point: I’m of the opinion that persons are usually not won to one’s position through denigration. So, phrases like clueless and functional bastards, butch women, and gay men, while they get the point across, are really unnecessary. It’s understood. Fatherlessness in all its forms is a cancer in our society. Men are increasingly feminized, and women are taking on more masculine traits. Don’t get me wrong, a well placed jab has its place at times, but I thought the point was to redirect and build up people, and here men in particular, not tear them down, unless the point is to just preach to the malcontented troops. In any case, as previously stated, I agreed with the observations of the problems and most of the solutions (I’m traditionalist at heart), just not always how they were arrived at.
First point of disagreement: the authors hold that men are not born they are made. Women are. Males have to become men. This performative sense of masculinity is problematic in my opinion for many reasons that I won’t detail here. Second, the authors ground masculinity in creation order, and in Adam in particular. This is likewise problematic, even as it’s the common starting point for many. Much better to begin with the very image of God, Christ himself, as the ground of masculinity. The resources for this are there in the theology coming out of the reformation. Why Adam, or at least the mandate given to Adam, remains the starting point for evangelicals on masculinity escapes me.
One additional point: I’m of the opinion that persons are usually not won to one’s position through denigration. So, phrases like clueless and functional bastards, butch women, and gay men, while they get the point across, are really unnecessary. It’s understood. Fatherlessness in all its forms is a cancer in our society. Men are increasingly feminized, and women are taking on more masculine traits. Don’t get me wrong, a well placed jab has its place at times, but I thought the point was to redirect and build up people, and here men in particular, not tear them down, unless the point is to just preach to the malcontented troops. In any case, as previously stated, I agreed with the observations of the problems and most of the solutions (I’m traditionalist at heart), just not always how they were arrived at.
A Hollow and Crude Failure at True Biblical Manhood.
Although Foster and Tennant may have been attempting something noble, the result of their work ends up undercutting true masculinity. The “masculinity” displayed in "It’s Good to be a Man" looks more like the sinful, self-obsessed manhood of the world than the sacrificial manhood of Christ’s kingdom. The humble, compassionate masculinity of Jesus is scarcely to be found, replaced instead by far too much of the brash, self-exalting masculinity of Barabbas. Strong Biblical Manhood is wonderful, and I agree with Foster and Tennant that it is indeed nearly forgotten today, but I fear that there is little of it to be found in this book.
Perhaps I am being so hard on them because we share so much common ground; I also have high expectations for authentic Christian masculinity. All in all, I probably agreed with 60-70% of the book. As a reformed complementarian, I sympathize with the impetus behind this book. I too am alarmed by the number of listless young men in my life who turn to secular life coaches like Jordan Peterson for purpose and guidance instead of Christianity. But the answers we give cannot just be what they want to hear. Instead, we are to give them the difficult, but Biblical truth.
Far too much of "It’s Good To Be a Man" was a display of self-pitying rhetoric about how terribly society has abused men and how if men were just allowed to act out their true selves, things would be better. The authors frequently fling about Incel internet subculture slang (E.G. Red, Blue and Black pills; Alphas and Betas… etc) and refer to their presumed readers as “Functional Bastards.” Even though these sections are sometimes followed up by a call to action, they fail to take into account that society is not singling them out. In our modern era, every group is sabotaged by the fallen world. Rather than resentfully wallowing in conspiracies and blame, we should man up and simply acknowledge the fallen nature of our society, move on and look to where we can help others.
"It’s Good To Be a Man" could have achieved far more if it spent more time pointing to the cross and less time belittling women. For a book about the blessings of manhood, it spends an astonishingly high number of pages complaining about women. Women “always descend in emotional, mystical chaos” (pg. 92) and strong women are “butch and unnatural”(148). Women are portrayed as crafty manipulators wanting to use men for their own success and are only put into check by man’s domination (See 145 and much of Church Effeminate). Foster and Tennant describe in far too much detail how women are immodest without even acknowledging the sin of those leering at them.
However, by far the greatest danger of this book is its faulty theology. This is a real pity because I did especially enjoy their focus on the danger of androgenizing the soul. To reiterate, on paper, Foster, Tennant and I are nearly identical theologically, which is why I was astonished to discover some of their wild leaps. Most of the theology of the book is fairly solid, but in this case, a wee bit of poison ruins the whole meal. They write: “male and female are an image of the creator and creation…the principle of male and female doesn’t originate in Adam and Eve, but in God and creation”(61). Such a position rings of the “Mother Earth/Father Sky” cosmology and not at all of biblical anthropology. Male and female are biological concepts alien to God prior to the incarnation. To hold what they propose would require one to suppose that God is to creation what Adam is to Eve. There is an infinite divide between creator and creation. If what they say is true, all women ought to worship all men for eternity. The truth however is that maleness and femaleness are rooted in the physical reality of our bodies both of which are completely and equally Imago Dei (Gen 1:27). The other major flaw in their premise is the supposed existence of uniquely masculine sins and virtue and uniquely feminine sins and virtues (In fact they go so far as to claim that Christianity itself is fundamentally masculine). Sin is sin. Holiness is Holiness. They will manifest in different ways in different people.
Where is the masculinity of Jesus in all this? They say that the church has overemphasized servant leadership, but if we look around us today, I would say we are in more need than ever of men willing to humble themselves and act like they are in the kingdom of God where the first shall be last and the last shall be first. They are right to point out that Christ will also be a conquering king as well as a sacrificial lamb, but they forget when we live. Until Christ comes again we are to imitate the example of Stephen, not the zealots of 70AD. Their ideal Christian man would sneer at the martyrs of old. They seemed to have missed the memo about the upside-down kingdom of God. If the goal is to be self-controlled wise men, the book spends little of its time exemplifying that. Crude language and uncharitable attitudes abound through the pages. Their opponents are made into straw men and called names. I trust that It’s Good To Be a Man is a bad example of the real-life manhood of its authors. I am sure they respect their wives and cherish their children and encourage their congregations to live lives in imitation of Christ, but this book has far too little of that.
The good motive which spurred Foster and Tennant to write this book cannot make up for its failure to exemplify the gospel. I am sorely disappointed with this book. I had high hope it would be a winsome theologically sound work I could recommend to some of my listless friends to point them to Christ-like masculinity, but unfortunately it is not. I believe God has a high calling for the men of the church in all their occupations. We are to be strongly courageous and kindly humble. Men are to be heads of their households, but only insofar as they are willing to submit to serve them as Christ served the church. It is not easy to be the type of man God calls us to be, but it is good!
p.s. There are many quotes I could take out of context but I stuck with those which I could justly use loyally to their context.
Although Foster and Tennant may have been attempting something noble, the result of their work ends up undercutting true masculinity. The “masculinity” displayed in "It’s Good to be a Man" looks more like the sinful, self-obsessed manhood of the world than the sacrificial manhood of Christ’s kingdom. The humble, compassionate masculinity of Jesus is scarcely to be found, replaced instead by far too much of the brash, self-exalting masculinity of Barabbas. Strong Biblical Manhood is wonderful, and I agree with Foster and Tennant that it is indeed nearly forgotten today, but I fear that there is little of it to be found in this book.
Perhaps I am being so hard on them because we share so much common ground; I also have high expectations for authentic Christian masculinity. All in all, I probably agreed with 60-70% of the book. As a reformed complementarian, I sympathize with the impetus behind this book. I too am alarmed by the number of listless young men in my life who turn to secular life coaches like Jordan Peterson for purpose and guidance instead of Christianity. But the answers we give cannot just be what they want to hear. Instead, we are to give them the difficult, but Biblical truth.
Far too much of "It’s Good To Be a Man" was a display of self-pitying rhetoric about how terribly society has abused men and how if men were just allowed to act out their true selves, things would be better. The authors frequently fling about Incel internet subculture slang (E.G. Red, Blue and Black pills; Alphas and Betas… etc) and refer to their presumed readers as “Functional Bastards.” Even though these sections are sometimes followed up by a call to action, they fail to take into account that society is not singling them out. In our modern era, every group is sabotaged by the fallen world. Rather than resentfully wallowing in conspiracies and blame, we should man up and simply acknowledge the fallen nature of our society, move on and look to where we can help others.
"It’s Good To Be a Man" could have achieved far more if it spent more time pointing to the cross and less time belittling women. For a book about the blessings of manhood, it spends an astonishingly high number of pages complaining about women. Women “always descend in emotional, mystical chaos” (pg. 92) and strong women are “butch and unnatural”(148). Women are portrayed as crafty manipulators wanting to use men for their own success and are only put into check by man’s domination (See 145 and much of Church Effeminate). Foster and Tennant describe in far too much detail how women are immodest without even acknowledging the sin of those leering at them.
However, by far the greatest danger of this book is its faulty theology. This is a real pity because I did especially enjoy their focus on the danger of androgenizing the soul. To reiterate, on paper, Foster, Tennant and I are nearly identical theologically, which is why I was astonished to discover some of their wild leaps. Most of the theology of the book is fairly solid, but in this case, a wee bit of poison ruins the whole meal. They write: “male and female are an image of the creator and creation…the principle of male and female doesn’t originate in Adam and Eve, but in God and creation”(61). Such a position rings of the “Mother Earth/Father Sky” cosmology and not at all of biblical anthropology. Male and female are biological concepts alien to God prior to the incarnation. To hold what they propose would require one to suppose that God is to creation what Adam is to Eve. There is an infinite divide between creator and creation. If what they say is true, all women ought to worship all men for eternity. The truth however is that maleness and femaleness are rooted in the physical reality of our bodies both of which are completely and equally Imago Dei (Gen 1:27). The other major flaw in their premise is the supposed existence of uniquely masculine sins and virtue and uniquely feminine sins and virtues (In fact they go so far as to claim that Christianity itself is fundamentally masculine). Sin is sin. Holiness is Holiness. They will manifest in different ways in different people.
Where is the masculinity of Jesus in all this? They say that the church has overemphasized servant leadership, but if we look around us today, I would say we are in more need than ever of men willing to humble themselves and act like they are in the kingdom of God where the first shall be last and the last shall be first. They are right to point out that Christ will also be a conquering king as well as a sacrificial lamb, but they forget when we live. Until Christ comes again we are to imitate the example of Stephen, not the zealots of 70AD. Their ideal Christian man would sneer at the martyrs of old. They seemed to have missed the memo about the upside-down kingdom of God. If the goal is to be self-controlled wise men, the book spends little of its time exemplifying that. Crude language and uncharitable attitudes abound through the pages. Their opponents are made into straw men and called names. I trust that It’s Good To Be a Man is a bad example of the real-life manhood of its authors. I am sure they respect their wives and cherish their children and encourage their congregations to live lives in imitation of Christ, but this book has far too little of that.
The good motive which spurred Foster and Tennant to write this book cannot make up for its failure to exemplify the gospel. I am sorely disappointed with this book. I had high hope it would be a winsome theologically sound work I could recommend to some of my listless friends to point them to Christ-like masculinity, but unfortunately it is not. I believe God has a high calling for the men of the church in all their occupations. We are to be strongly courageous and kindly humble. Men are to be heads of their households, but only insofar as they are willing to submit to serve them as Christ served the church. It is not easy to be the type of man God calls us to be, but it is good!
p.s. There are many quotes I could take out of context but I stuck with those which I could justly use loyally to their context.