When I first woke up in the wee hours of the night with this paper on my heart, it had a more controversial title. It ended with “and the Failure of Christian Masculinity.” But Christian Masculinity hasn’t failed, it just hasn’t yet met the challenges it faces. People were surprised by the hard right turn that many Gen-Z men seem to have taken in the most recent election. This would include a good number of Gen-Z Christian men. They have fallen in with very conservative Christian preachers and teachers who offer them a version of manhood that is appealing, though quite at odds with the Gospels. What makes them vulnerable to these teachings seems to me to be the absence of a coherent appeal to what makes them feel like men within real, Gospel-centered Christianity.
I was involved with men’s ministry in the Episcopal Church for a good number of years. I worked with a good friend who was the Vice President and then President of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew, trying to help shape a spirituality that was both “male” and yet deeply spiritual. The Brotherhood had grown stale, and many of its members had become members of men’s clubs in the churches that did service projects and raised funds, but lacked any sense of adventure.
We tried to learn from mens’ movements like No Man Left Behind without losing track of the broadness of the Gospel that movement like this sometimes do. It seemed to take hold, but shortly after my friend left office, the Brotherhood turned in another direction, and my hopes were dashed. I continued on a local level to try to begin a men’s group in my local church with the aid of another friend. While that group took ministry to men (rather than by men) seriously, my hopes of finding that adventurous spirit also fell short.
I will quickly agree that not every man is drawn to the image of the adventurer, the explorer, the warrior, but many are. What saddens me is that solid, Biblically and theologically sound Christianity has done so little to speak into those parts of these men’s self understanding. As a result, I see them turning to teachers like Doug Wilson and Brian Sauve who offer them a masculine Christianity, but one that is deeply warped by misogyny and violence. As I suggested at the beginning, I want to view this not as a failure, but as a challenge.
There is a reason that young men sit for hours either watching competitive sports or sitting in front of a gaming console shooting the daylights out of computer-drawn figures. They long for the opportunity to test themselves against others, to seek to win, to conquer. Not all of them, but some of them, and these are the young men (and not-so-young) for whom I hope we’ll find a new way of presenting the Gospel.
This, of course, is not limited to “men.” That’s a part of the problem with the Brian Sauves of this world. They can’t see past the chromosomes. When “men’s” ministry becomes truly healthy and whole, anyone, no matter how they identify, will be welcome to the battle lines. Real Christian masculinity isn’t threatened by “feminism.” Christian men welcome anyone who is moved to join them on the march.
I was once called down for my use of warfare imagery with regard to men’s ministry. I had a Viet Nam veteran in my group who had had quite enough of warfare in his life, thank you very much. I had to recognize that just as not only men are drawn to the idea of righteous combat, not all men are either. Some just don’t find it appealing, others are too wounded. So what I’m saying in this paper is fairly specific, aimed at including men who look for risk and adventure and the urge to conquer, to take territory for Someone bigger than themselves.
It seems to me that the reason such imagery has lost its place in the life of much of the church (When was the last time you sang “Onward Christian Soldiers?”) is that the idea of the growth of the Kingdom of God became entangled in, subsumed by the idea of the growth of earthly kingdoms, going right back to Constantine in the 4th Century. From that point forward, Christianity became the servant of political power, and earthly war was waged, human blood was spilled under the auspices of this politicized Christianity.
We rightly fled that horror, but in doing so, I think we threw out the baby with the bathwater. We gave up the travesty of driving people to Baptism through military and political means, but in so doing we also gave up the truth that it is the purpose of every Christian to spread the Kingdom of God to every corner of the world. Not to make Christians of every person, but to extend the Kingdom so that every human might know its blessings.
And let’s face it, this is warfare. We have real enemies. We are confronted by fear, by despair, by anger and hatred, by hunger and disease, by innumerable foes that make the Kingdom that Jesus came to inaugurate on earth invisible to so many people. We are liberators, but our weapons are not carnal, but spiritual, to the pulling down of the strongholds that keep our siblings captive. We have a great work to do. Unfortunately, that work is being made even more challenging by the reactionary teachers who would return us, return men to the prisoners of the stunted, distorted notions of masculinity that they preach.
I dearly long to see the church that I know and love, not just the Episcopal Church, but the larger church that still loves the scandalous Gospel of Jesus, to see this church take up this battle cry anew. “We are the church, founded on the Rock that is Jesus, and the gates of Hell will not stand against us!” I don’t know if you can hear what I heard as I wrote that, but there is a great roar waiting to be unleashed, like the one that brought down the walls of Jericho. One that will set people free. One that will shake the ground for leagues upon leagues and draw the curious and the hungry hearts to its glorious work.
One Response
As always, Fr. Jeff, you say so much of what needs to be said, and what the Church (and our part of it, certainly) needs to hear.
I’m reminded of what that Great Paragon of Christian Masculinity, the Rev. Dr. Fred McFeely Rogers (and I’ll stick to that!) had to say – “Try your best to make goodness attractive. That’s one of the toughest assignments you’ll ever be given. … Let’s take the gauntlet and make goodness attractive in this so-called next millennium. That’s the real job that we have.” Some of his fellow co-workers in public television and on his show – most of them Christian, all of them considering that program a ‘ministry’ (their words!) – were a little discomfited by this framing; they felt it was a bit too autocratic, smacking of “the violent taking the Kingdom by force.” Perhaps there’s truth to that; I didn’t know the man personally. But I think that Rogers saw with acute clarity the kind of danger you discuss here, just as he saw with clarity the dangerous uses to which mass media could be put. I think right now, so much of what is demeaning is attractive is not just in contrast to a lack of an alternative, but because there’s a liberatory sense to it, for so many of those attracted to these teachers. Perhaps it’s a failure of imagination on my part, but I can scarcely see how – there was an article in The Financial recently about “Corporate America going MAGA;” one banker is to have said that “I feel liberated … We can [swear, slur, etc.] without the fear of getting cancelled . . . it’s a new dawn.” Some liberation, I balk; but for so many people in our country, somehow very attractive.
I am largely ambivalent on the issue of triumphant, militaristic language, in much the same way that I am not a monarchist, but can comfortably celebrate Christ the King Sunday. I say this because for those who are discomforted by such language – not only my Moravian and Quaker friends, but those in our Anglican Communion more steadfastly committed to nonviolence than I (would that I had the faith to be a total pacifist!), there needs to be a place in the church for them. Likewise, for those stirred by that hymnody (and who wouldn’t be!), there ought to be a place in the church for them, too. Certainly, there are nods toward both in the Gospels – at least, by my reading. I think one can eschew violence, but still maintain the language of the Gospels. I am reminded of Jesus’ teaching that “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” – not a repudiation of the Sermon of the Mount, but an affirmation of just how costly that Gospel will be. I wonder how much of this all flows from the preaching of a cheap grace!
All of that is to say, I am not among those for whom the likes of Andrew Tate (or more varied figures – Jordan Peterson, for instance) have any particular appeal, I must confess But I know many who do. I see it as a much poorer Gospel – my mind goes back to the (fictional) confrontation between Jesus and Barabbas in the 1977 ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ series – but it is an attractive one, and working on some understandable impulses, as you note. I have no doubt that our church can meet the moment; I suppose my question is whether or not it will. Jesus’ Gospel will always be unpopular – and accusations of ‘femininity’ among that, as was the case in the 19th Century (Muscular Christianity?) – but is our church committed to seeing that this Gospel is not co-opted, but preaches that liberating grace? Such is my prayer – prayer for my church, and for a Christian imagination – and my very disorganized thoughts.
Thank you, as always, for your witness!