Confronting the Crisis in Masculinity

Egalitarianism, and the sexual revolution that appeals to it, have made a common public understanding of what it means to be a man difficult, and thus made it difficult for boys and young men to see what they should aspire to. James Lowe, who has worked for the L’Abri Fellowship in Rochester, Minnesota and at the L’Abri facility in England, with a degree in International Media and Communications from the University of Nottingham, and who has also served as Associate Youth Pastor at Calvary Evangelical Free Church in Rochester, discussed the contemporary crisis in masculinity at the annual L’Abri Conference in Rochester on February 14.

The Modern Crisis in Masculinity

Lowe believes that masculinity has been in crisis for a couple of centuries, a crisis partly related to changes in public morality and partly to the industrial, and now the digital revolutions. Against the Christian understanding of masculinity as a normal part of human nature, and problems with it arising from sin, there is the “crisis dichotomy” of the secular worldview in which things are either “safe” or “dangerous.” The secular culture today is in a mode of “crisis.” He said that it has “been suggested that we have shifted from an ontology of substance to an ontology of events.” There is “a sense if being unmoored from solid things.” In this environment of crisis, traditional ideas of masculinity, which highlight dominance, protection, and even aggression, are easily seen as “dangerous.” The question of what a man should be in a world aspiring to egalitarianism is therefore acute.

Lowe sees masculinity in crisis from three sources: political, industrial, and critical (pressures from philosophy). While the secular culture holds sex, or “gender” to be unreal, merely a social construct, “scientifically, we’re finding clearer and clearer boundaries around what it means to be masculine.” Testosterone therapy, which is not uncommon today, is one reason for this greater clarity. Confidence, a desire to dominate, “a desire to be in charge and [then] to share,” hyperfocus on projects, and greater physical strength than females are key masculine characteristics. Interestingly, Lowe said that research has shown the “gender equality paradox,” which is that the greater the sexual equality in a country, the more people tend toward traditional sexual characteristics.

The globalism versus nationalism theme figures into the crisis in masculinity, since globalism seeks to dissolve differences. Post World War II, the dominant culture has sought to weaken differences, ultimately pointing to globalism. Definitive sexual differences are therefore associated with nationalism. There is a “concern that masculinity itself is warlike when we put borders around it.”

But this is in contrast to the view of manhood held in colonial America. Here he referred to Nancy Pearcey’s new book, The Toxic War on Masculinity. Pearcey points out that in colonial times masculinity was understood “in terms of duty and service.” Duty was to family, church, and nation. This understanding of masculinity is known to historians as “communal manhood,” Lowe said. Men were understood as “the lead parent” in families. With the advent of the democratic and industrial revolutions, however, values were separated from the world of work and the public square. Men lived much of their lives away from their families, in factories or in business. Values were increasingly restricted to the home, church, or private associations. This resulted in criticism of men for becoming “callous, egotistical, competitive, and morally hardened.” These characteristics were in fact “useful” in industry and in the marketplace. This led to “a manhood demoralized.”

Lowe believes that with the digital revolution, a new crisis of masculinity has arisen. This is because work largely involving interaction with computers causes many people to work alone, and the resulting “disconnect men have with other men.” He said that men naturally relate “side by side rather than face to face.” They bond with each other, focusing on tasks rather than focusing on personal relations. So bonding over a task is less possible if people are working alone. There is pressure today against strength and boundaries, “and towards a disenchanted, fluid state.” Along with this is the “sacred/secular divide,” which restricts the sacred to family (if religious), and church. Additionally, portrayals of men in the mass media overwhelmingly show them as villains of some type (aggressors, philanderers, etc). At the opposite end of the spectrum, there is social media influencer Andrew Tate, who advocates a “Genghis Khanian” type of masculine aggression. He is quite popular with teenage boys.

Christian Responses to the Crisis

There are Christian responses to the controversy over masculinity. John Eldridge’s book Wild at Heart extols the male desire for challenge, courage, and adventure. Rediscovering these values will alleviate many of the world’s problems, it is held. Lowe then looked at how male nature relates to skills, and the virtues that these skills facilitate. How one balances male nature against universal moral obligations is “really important,” Lowe said. In contrast to Eldridge, he said that male nature and skill should not be seen as “inherently virtuous.” This is because one’s nature and skills “can be used for good or ill.” In contrast, “a radical feminist critique” of masculinity would see masculinity as “inherently corrupting,” with “a desire for dominance leading to oppression.” Skill and virtue should be emphasized with men, this feminism would hold, minimizing or even eliminating male nature. At the other end of the spectrum, Tate would hold that male nature is inherently good; skill and virtue are subordinate to it.

Tate’s fierce advocacy of masculinity, or more moderate versions of it (such as that of Jordan Peterson), are appearing as the post-World War II era ends. Lowe observed that according to First Things editor R.R. Reno, the post-war era emphasized defusing passions and weakening loyalties to remove conflict. But the new populism in the contemporary world pushes back against the weakening of loyalties and the “fluidity and weightlessness of life” in its “sane desire for metaphysical density.” This desire should be educated “in the proper order of love.”

Lowe proposed that a correct understanding of manhood would be to recognize that males have a definite, real nature, and definite skills, perhaps developed with a male methodology. This does not mean that there is not a larger human nature, which in fact makes up the majority of a person’s character. As Christians, we also know that we should be experiencing ongoing sanctification of our character. But for men, there is properly a desire for conflict and competition without killing. The desire and exercise of power can be used for theft or murder but can also be used “for the defense of the vulnerable.” Lowe said that a friend used this desire in anti-piracy operations. Hyperfocus on a project or a profession is another male characteristic that can be beneficial for society. Less desirable is an untrained male focus which can “stagnate in interesting hobbies.” Worse yet, male characteristics can completely dissociate from virtue, as is true in bullying. Masculinity is a “neutral vessel” in these things, to be used for good or ill.

Lowe offered the case of David in the Bible as a good example of the balance that should exist between male assertiveness and virtue. David was a “warrior-poet”. He exhibited in his poetry a “classically masculine forthrightness, conviction, and devil-may-care attitude.” Lowe said that David’s masculinity was not “somehow suspended or neutralized” in writing poetry, while not in war fighting. Rather “it took on a different form” and thus was “a fuller and richer expression” of masculinity.

Lowe maintains that “when a male does something, he imbues it with a masculine essence.” The difference between “hypermasculinity” and a fuller, richer masculinity is that the former may exhibit masculinity to the extreme in one area but be deficient in other areas. An absent father, for instance, may have left the family he established to a world of prostituted women and/or substance abuse, showing willfulness and indulgence of the flesh, but absent the protective nature which is also part of masculinity. Biblical masculinity, he said, “can be less clearly defined at times, and yet more deeply rooted, and therefore less easily uprooted, less easily supplanted.” As an example, Lowe said that “speaking truth, and confronting sin” is a clear example of a Biblical use of masculinity. On the other hand, “gentleness or kindness … compassion for the poor” are Biblical commands which lend themselves to femininity.

Where masculinity is excluded from the life of a church, then “key guidelines” prescribed in the Bible for the life of the church have “less of a chance of succeeding.” The Christian call to men should not be to “replace their nature with virtue … but our call must be to marry the two. We must plant the flag of Christ on this most contested ground and refocus our cultural efforts on the redemption of masculine nature and identity.”

A questioner who said he was a coach in football and wrestling noted that there is much hypermasculinity in football, while wresting involves more skill. He asked what he could do, given the mandated secularization of schools “to help bring up moral young men and bring God’s light into those areas.” Lowe said that “all truth is God’s truth,” and we can get around this mandated secularization by saying things that are true, and which young men will find to be true. One such truth in this context would be “aggression will get you only so far,” but “a gentle answer turns away wrath (Prov. 15:1).” Yet we must remember not to “denigrate” male characteristics as immoral, but value them (properly directed), else they will “turn to mischief.” He quoted St. Paul’s admonition, “anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need (Eph. 4:28).”

More from IRD :

Defending Good Men: A Review of The Toxic War on Masculinity

Masculinity is Tragic

The post Confronting the Crisis in Masculinity appeared first on Juicy Ecumenism.