The American Church Must Embrace 'Muscular Christianity' and Engage the Culture War to Be Faithful to the Gospel
Source: Jesse Hughes. "Strong Men Will Save The American Church." October 7, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that a recent Christian men's conference in Tennessee—which was mocked by critics on the left and even some conservatives—proves the church has become too soft and afraid to speak boldly about sin and culture. He claims that real love for people means the church must publicly confront issues like abortion, gender, and immigration, and that a 'nice' private-only faith is actually a betrayal of the true gospel.
Conclusion
The American church should reject a privatized, 'winsome' faith and instead recover a bold, masculine Christianity that names sin publicly and fights cultural battles (on abortion, marriage, sex, nation, migration), because this is what faithfulness to Christ's lordship actually requires.
Premises
- The mockery and backlash the Muscular Christianity Conference received from the left and from some self-described conservatives proves that a church with 'backbone' is perceived as a genuine threat, whereas a weak, privatized church is tolerated or even welcomed.
- History shows a repeated pattern since the 1920s (Machen's warnings, mainline abandonment of inerrancy in the '60s-'70s, the seeker-sensitive movement of the '90s-2000s) in which the church's retreat into niceness and cultural relevance led to doctrinal collapse and moral capitulation (e.g., affirming lesbian pastors, drag shows, support for mass migration).
- Christ's lordship, per Kuyper, extends over every sphere of existence—household, school, law, nation, sexuality, and the public square—so a gospel that stays confined to private, inner life is a diminished, false gospel.
- Genuine love of neighbor requires confronting falsehoods that harm people, such as the sexual revolution, abortion, and the dissolution of national identity and moral law—therefore cultural confrontation is an expression of love, not a distraction from it.
- Critics prefer ridicule to argument because mockery is cheaper and institutional subversion from within is a more effective tactic than open, honest confrontation, which further confirms that the real objection is to the church's strength, not its tactics or tone.
Assumptions
- The specific positions associated with 'muscular Christianity' (traditional views on sex, marriage, nation, migration) are correctly identified with biblical orthodoxy and gospel faithfulness.
- Mockery and criticism of the conference are motivated primarily by fear of the church's strength rather than legitimate concerns about content, tone, or theology.
- A 'winsome' or therapeutically gentle approach to public engagement is inherently incompatible with truth-telling and courage, rather than potentially coexisting with them.
- The historical narrative of doctrinal decline (Machen to seeker-sensitivity) is a straightforward causal chain rather than a more complex, multi-causal history.
- Masculinity/strength ('men with chests,' 'spines') is the correct and necessary category for describing faithful Christian cultural engagement, as opposed to alternative virtues (e.g., wisdom, humility) being equally central.
- Institutional capture by 'the left' is a unified, intentional strategy rather than a more diffuse set of independent theological and social developments.