Reading good book- 7 Men & the Secret of their Greatness by Eric Metaxas. Short easy read- basically shows (7) Male, Christian role models short stories: George Washington, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Pope John Paul 2, Chuck Colson (Watergate), Eric Liddell (Chariots of Fire) , William Wilberforce (Ended Slavery in England), Jackie Robinson

He has great introduction, in a nutshell, we need strong role models so boys know how to properly lead when they grow up to be men. Recently men have become neutered/made into whimps (Coward) by society because men have been violent (Bullies) in the past. This does not happen with true Christian Men- who are servant leaders, know how to properly use their God given male nature/strength.

Recently I watched an old rerun of The Rifleman, starring Chuck Connors. The series ran from 1958 to 1963 and its audience was largely boys. I was absolutely stunned by how the story was clearly trying to communicate what it means to be a real man, a good man, a heroic and brave man. And it was showing the difference between that and being a coward or a bully. This is vital in raising up young men who aspire to do the right thing. But one look at TV today will tell you that this is entirely gone. This book is for everyone, but in writing a book about these seven men, I've thought that young men especially need role models.

Few More Excerpts:

Young men who spend their time watching violent movies and playing video games aren't very easily going to become the men they were meant to become. They will drift. They will lose out on the very reason they were brought into this world: to be great, to be heroes themselves. What could be more tragic than that? They won't understand who they are, and they will have no idea how to relate to women, and they will hurt themselves (and probably some women) along the way. So it is vital that we teach them who they are in God's view, and it's vital that we bring back a sense of the heroic. The men in this book are some of my heroes and I am thrilled to be able to share them with others. I hope they will inspire young men to emulate them.

The first false idea about manhood is the idea of being machoof being a big shot and using strength to be domineering and to bully those who are weaker. Obviously this is not God's idea of what a real man

The second false choice is to be emasculated to essentially turn away from your masculinity and to pretend that there is no real difference between men and women.

So we live in a culture where strength is feared and where there is a sense that to protect the weak strength itself must be weakened. When this happens, the heroic and true nature of strength is much forgotten. It leads to a world of men who aren't really men. Instead they are just two kinds of boys:

Last summer, there was a terrible shooting at a movie theater. Twelve people who had gone to a midnight showing of the most recent Batman movie were senselessly murdered by what can only be described as a madman. But of all the things that have been said about this tragic event, what struck me more than anything was that three young men died protecting their girlfriends from the madman's bullets. Something caused them to risk losing their lives for a young woman. Why did they do that? What does that say about manhood?

In the killer, you have a perfect picture of evil, which is the opposite of love. It is a picture of someone using power his firearm) to destroy, to harm. But in the three young men, you have a picture of strength expressed as love, which is the opposite of evil. You see men using their power and their strength to protect. In the case of the first you see someone doing something that is unfathomably selfish, someone who seems to see no value in others, and whose actions reflect that judgment. In the second you see three men doing something that is unfathomably selfless. Why did they use their strength and power to help someone else? What was that instinct, and why did they follow it?

Read his biography of Bonhoeffer which was really well written. I'll have to add this to my reading list.

Washington? He wasn't very religious by all accounts.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Washington? He wasn't very religious by all accounts.

---

Define what you mean by he wasn't very religious?

Is praying regularly, going to church for decades, caring for the poor and other charities, his public comments on God, religion and morality make him not religious? Read the book.

...pope John Paul ...?

I'm out

Doc Daneeka said:

---

...pope John Paul ...?

I'm out

---

So do you simply reject all Christians from the end of the NT period until the Reformation?

RetiredAg said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

...pope John Paul ...?

I'm out

---

So do you simply reject all Christians from the end of the NT period until the Reformation?

---

No... Only the ones who stayed Catholic post reformation...

Doc Daneeka said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

...pope John Paul ...?

I'm out

---

So do you simply reject all Christians from the end of the NT period until the Reformation?

---

No... Only the ones who stayed Catholic post reformation...

---

Okay, so you do embrace Catholics and Orthodox. Just not from the last 500 years. Got it. Baby steps I guess. Who are your favorite pre-Reformation Catholics or Orthodox?

Doc Daneeka said:

---

...pope John Paul ...?

I'm out

---

Sorry it is JP2. Pope John Paul (1) just lived a few more months.

Doc- seen your posts- don't do the work of the devil- divide.

Catholics and Protestants are on the same team- we have the same QB and Coach!

Mark 9 38-40 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us." Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us.

Quote:

---

Catholics and Protestants are on the same team- we have the same QB and Coach!

---

Amen. Let's not forget our Orthodox brethren as well. We may disagree on certain theological issues, but we all follow the same crucified Christ.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Catholics and Protestants are on the same team- we have the same QB and Coach!

---

Amen. Let's not forget our Orthodox brethren as well. We may disagree on certain theological issues, but we all follow the same crucified Christ.

---

In my book- Orthodox/Catholic same thing.

Although K2 would probably disagree

I really don't hate Catholics... I just like to put heat on them...

But I don't like bible study with catholics because it ends up being a reference to a catechism... studying the bible with them is basically googling the catechism. Same with orthodoxy (I'm guessing - but debating with K2 pretty much confirms my suspicions)

That's why I ask Protestants for answers. They are allowed to think.

Back to the OP, though, I have issues with Metaxas. Specifically his biography on Bonhoeffer. Other Bonhoeffer scholars have been very critical of the work. Here's one such review that references other Bonhoeffer scholars and their comments on the shortcomings of Metaxas' book: https://www.csustan.edu/history/metaxass-counterfeit-bonhoeffer

Doc Daneeka said:

---

I really don't hate Catholics... I just like to put heat on them...

But I don't like bible study with catholics because it ends up being a reference to a catechism... studying the bible with them is basically googling the catechism. Same with orthodoxy (I'm guessing - but debating with K2 pretty much confirms my suspicions)

That's why I ask Protestants for answers. They are allowed to think.

---

Don't have any issues with putting heat on. It is fun to debate and argue.

It is ok to think. But you need to also understand back ground and history. Where Protestants went wrong in my opinion. Is they went to everyone is able to come to their own conclusion (even when they don't understand context) thus the logical outcome we see 30K denominations and some (not all) with bad teaching

By reading church history and understanding what happened the first 1500 years. We see all the heresies and how the church guided us along. For the first heresie- why was St. Paul and the Apostles correct and the Judiasiers wrong in 50AD?

We can squabble about history of chruch all day. If you are going to church,praying, reading bible and loving neighbor- I am good.

booboo91 said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

I really don't hate Catholics... I just like to put heat on them...

But I don't like bible study with catholics because it ends up being a reference to a catechism... studying the bible with them is basically googling the catechism. Same with orthodoxy (I'm guessing - but debating with K2 pretty much confirms my suspicions)

That's why I ask Protestants for answers. They are allowed to think.

---

Don't have any issues with putting heat on. It is fun to debate and argue.

It is ok to think. But you need to also understand back ground and history. Where Protestants went wrong in my opinion. Is they went to everyone is able to come to their own conclusion (even when they don't understand context) thus the logical outcome we see 30K denominations and some (not all) with bad teaching

By reading church history and understanding what happened the first 1500 years. We see all the heresies and how the church guided us along. For the first heresie- why was St. Paul and the Apostles correct and the Judiasiers wrong in 50AD?

We can squabble about history of chruch all day. If you are going to church,praying, reading bible and loving neighbor- I am good.

---

This is precisely how democracy started.

What I enjoy about our Christian faith- is it is so simple- everyone gets it and can do (Don't need to be that smart) Repent, Turn to Jesus and Love

And at the same time the Christian faith (God) is so complex and deep that the most intellectual minds never understand it.

I'd say he wasn't very christian by all accounts. But he was still religious to an extent. He prayed in solitude, and mentioned providence (a common deists term) but seemed to think the deity actionable in our daily lives moreso than common deist thought. He wasn't religious in a christian sense in that he rejected communion, almost never spoke of jesus, and some of the contemporary clergy who knew him considered him a deist.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I'd say he wasn't very christian by all accounts. But he was still religious to an extent. He prayed in solitude, and mentioned providence (a common deists term) but seemed to think the deity actionable in our daily lives moreso than common deist thought. He wasn't religious in a christian sense in that he rejected communion, almost never spoke of jesus, and some of the contemporary clergy who knew him considered him a deist.

---

You win- he was deist, that just so happened to attend Christian church regularly throughout his life, prayed regularly and read the bible. He mentions God in his speeches but not Jesus. He believed in active God- Providence- hands on.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Good Read - 5 Men by Mark May

---

Is the cover blue?

Sigh nm

booboo91 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Washington? He wasn't very religious by all accounts.

---

Define what you mean by he wasn't very religious?

Is praying regularly, going to church for decades, caring for the poor and other charities, his public comments on God, religion and morality make him not religious? Read the book.

---

Is the author an historian or a religious figure trying to make an argument? What sources did he use? Washington prayed standing, did not take communion, was not a regular church figure, was not known to discuss matters of faith or theology beyond a superficial level, and typically used deistic language.

He may have been a believing Christian, but it was probably not central to his life from the evidence we have.

Dr. Watson said:

---

He may have been a believing Christian, but it was probably not central to his life from the evidence we have.

---

Or another very likely option, it was central to his life- we see proof of this by his daily morning and evening prayers, reading the bible, but at the same time he was also private about his faith.

Washington's nephew, George Lewis, was an inadvertent witness to his uncle's faith. He related what he saw to Washington biographer Jared Sparks, who wrote: Mr. Lewis said he had accidentally witnessed [the general's] private devotions in his library both morning and evening; that on these occasions he had seen him in a kneeling position with a Bible open before him and that he believed such to have been his daily practice.

As Ron Chernow relates in Washington: A Life, when, during the Revolutionary War, General Robert Porterfield "delivered an urgent message to Washington" he "found him on his knees, engaged in his morning's devotions.A lifelong churchgoer, Washington served for twenty-two years as a vestryman of Truro Parish and also served as a churchwarden whose duties included assisting the poor.

Friends, such as John Marshall, knew Washington to be "a sincere believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man."Washington also believed that God had a special purpose for his life, and he spoke of his belief that Providence had saved him from being killed in various early battles precisely because God had a purpose for him. Washington's charity toward others is also well known.


Eric Metaxas- biographer - history and religion- look him up

b said:

---

Eric Metaxas- biographer - history and religion- look him up

---

I'll say that I've read a very similar complaint about other Metaxas works as I read about his biography on Bonhoeffer. I've not read any of his stuff in full, but have seen similar criticisms on multiple books. And that is he tends to create an "Evangelical-friendly" version of the figure he's writing on, and that leads to some sacrificing of historical accuracy. Whether accurate or not, I am probably not qualified to say. But pointing out that this is a repeated criticism I've heard from academics and other biographers.

I looked him up. He's not an historian. He's an evangelical writer who writes what his audience wants to hear. You should look into Washington. He attended church spottily unless he thought there was personal or political advantage to attending. Everything you posted is stuff that came out after his death and supported a specific narrative. What we have from his life does not support your conclusions.

Dr. Watson said:

---

You should look into Washington. He attended church spottily unless he thought there was personal or political advantage to attending. Everything you posted is stuff that came out after his death and supported a specific narrative. What we have from his life does not support your conclusions.

---

Yep I am huge history buff, like reading. Have read several bios on war of 1776 and Washington.

So lets separate fact from speculation. Please show me where Washington does it for political advantage, show me facts, that he was not a Christian. Not speculation. The facts that exist, he was a Christian who was not public about his faith. We agree Washington was not Billy Graham. Here are facts for my side.

Fact- He frequently attended church over his entire life (with ebbs and flows).
Fact- Washington was seen regularly praying and reading bible. Daily Routine
Fact- He quotes God in his public addresses. We have these on records. Here is just one example- Washington writing to all the states at end of war 1783 " I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination & obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large and particularly for their brethren who have served in the fieldand finally that he would most graciously be pleas'd to dispose us all to do Justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves, with that Charity, humility & pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion & without an humble immitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.

Also it is logical, quotes about George Washington would come out after his death. No one cared about Washington in his early life. He fought Revolutionary war 1775-1783 (USA in in chaos), 1789-1797 (President), Died in 1799. It is only the last decade that people would be really paying attention to his life. And this only grew over time as this fledgling nation prospered.

RetiredAg said:

---

b said:

---

Eric Metaxas- biographer - history and religion- look him up

---

I'll say that I've read a very similar complaint about other Metaxas works as I read about his biography on Bonhoeffer. I've not read any of his stuff in full, but have seen similar criticisms on multiple books. And that is he tends to create an "Evangelical-friendly" version of the figure he's writing on, and that leads to some sacrificing of historical accuracy. Whether accurate or not, I am probably not qualified to say. But pointing out that this is a repeated criticism I've heard from academics and other biographers.

---

In this book- they are very short bios on the men from their Christian perspective, their conversion. Also how they were strong men- not bullies. It follows Eric's introduction, which I listed above.

It shows the pressures of life, them turning to God and succeeding and failing.

Eric Liddell (Charriots of Fire) is great story- after olympics, He gives up fame to go serve as Missionary in Chian. Held by Japan during WW2, he could of been released but gives up his spot, dies in the Japanese detention Camp.

RetiredAg said:

---

Back to the OP, though, I have issues with Metaxas. Specifically his biography on Bonhoeffer. Other Bonhoeffer scholars have been very critical of the work. Here's one such review that references other Bonhoeffer scholars and their comments on the shortcomings of Metaxas' book: https://www.csustan.edu/history/metaxass-counterfeit-bonhoeffer

---

I have not read Metaxas full bio on Bonhoeffer. So I can't comment.

However, I do know as a Catholic, Bonhoeffer a Lutheran is well respected. Father Barron (respect his opinion) has Bonhoeffer book " Cost of Discipleship" (written while he was in Germany detention) as recommended reading material.

I have book Cost of Discipleship but have not finished reading it, was given to me years ago,and was not in the mood to read it. Will now pick it up again.

Washington was a known figure of significant stature going back to the start of the French and Indian Wars (which he started). He was a major player in Virginia politics for years and years before the Revolution. And debates over his religion (or lack of it) happened during his lifetime precisely because he showed no great interest in organized religion. In an age of much higher religiosity, he was decidedly on the low end.

Furthermore, you're reading too much into things like owning pews and church attendance. Colonial Virginia was organized into parishes rather than counties that were based around the Anglican Church. The rich and powerful supported the Anglican Church and attended services to solidify their position in society as much or more than their religious devotion. We know that Washington frequently left services early and appears to have not taken communion according to any records we have.

His writings show someone who was not an atheist or an agnostic, but also not a dedicated Christian. He used the common vernacular and deist language when referring to God. And you have to look far and wide for any explicitly Christian writings. He does seem to condescend when it comes to religion in much the same way as John Adams (condescension wasn't seen as a negative in this era). He believed the lower classes needed religion to restrain their baser instincts.

booboo91 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Back to the OP, though, I have issues with Metaxas. Specifically his biography on Bonhoeffer. Other Bonhoeffer scholars have been very critical of the work. Here's one such review that references other Bonhoeffer scholars and their comments on the shortcomings of Metaxas' book: https://www.csustan.edu/history/metaxass-counterfeit-bonhoeffer

---

I have not read Metaxas full bio on Bonhoeffer. So I can't comment.

However, I do know as a Catholic, Bonhoeffer a Lutheran is well respected. Father Barron (respect his opinion) has Bonhoeffer book " Cost of Discipleship" (written while he was in Germany detention) as recommended reading material.

I have book Cost of Discipleship but have not finished reading it, was given to me years ago,and was not in the mood to read it. Will now pick it up again.

---

Booboo, I highly recommend the biography on Bonhoeffer. Despite what was said on this thread it is a good read.

BTW, I didn't get the impression he was trying to make Dietrich compatible with American evangelical. Maybe if I was a liberal arts major I would feel differently. I can be blind to my own bias.

Quote:

---

Maybe if I was a liberal arts major I would feel differently.

---

Huh?

Dr. Watson said:

---

Washington was a known figure of significant stature going back to the start of the French and Indian Wars (which he started). He was a major player in Virginia politics for years and years before the Revolution. And debates over his religion (or lack of it) happened during his lifetime precisely because he showed no great interest in organized religion. In an age of much higher religiosity, he was decidedly on the low end.

Furthermore, you're reading too much into things like owning pews and church attendance. Colonial Virginia was organized into parishes rather than counties that were based around the Anglican Church. The rich and powerful supported the Anglican Church and attended services to solidify their position in society as much or more than their religious devotion. We know that Washington frequently left services early and appears to have not taken communion according to any records we have.

His writings show someone who was not an atheist or an agnostic, but also not a dedicated Christian. He used the common vernacular and deist language when referring to God. And you have to look far and wide for any explicitly Christian writings. He does seem to condescend when it comes to religion in much the same way as John Adams (condescension wasn't seen as a negative in this era). He believed the lower classes needed religion to restrain their baser instincts.

---

Much of what you say may be true. But you have yet to provide firm evidence to back up these claims. Your words and my words are cheap. Opionions (Speculation) are like A- holes. As requested put together some hard concrete evidence to backup your claim. Example- Show me his letters with details on when they were written in his life, who he wrote them to.

How do you define Washington was on the low end of organized religion vs someone who was private about his faith?

Show me he went to church to solidify his position in society? The facts are he went to church and sometimes he left early, he did not always take communion. So what? Assuming 30 years X 52 weeks= 1560 times he could of been in church. So did he miss church 20% of the time and not take communion 10% and left early 10%?

Our Christian faith is not a 50 meter sprint (believe in Jesus and you are done, unless you are thief on cross and dying within a few hours) but rather a life long marathon. There are highs and lows in life, Major issues to work through, people become sick and tired. At times prayer can become dry. There are also jerks/ politics in church- Christians are sinners. People also pray in different ways, some folks are outspoken others are quiet lead by example.

List all these things, quite confident that Washington experienced most of them as he took the United States on his back and create our nation. Regardless of his faith- Deist or Christian who prayed often. George Washington was a stud. True man of character and leader. Greatest President in my book. Confident in saying there would not be a USA without George Washington.