The Emasculation of the American Church

“I want him to ask me out, but he won’t,” a friend told me years ago. “I think he likes me back, but he’s scared. Is it wrong for me to ask him out?” I forget what I told her, but this was not the last time I’ve been asked this question. In fact, I get asked about this maybe once or twice a month from female readers or friends, and it reveals a pattern of soft, timid men. 

I have been told by numerous Christian women that they have a hard time finding good Christian men to date. As a result, many will begin to date outside the church because there is such a dearth of attractive (read: masculine) Christian men. All the Christian men they encounter are weak, weird, or boring. And it doesn’t help that the American church is roughly 60% women to begin with. 

Getting rejected by a woman you like is hurtful, and this makes asking her out especially terrifying. I’ve hesitated countless times in my life before making an approach or bringing up the topic. But the very fact that this is a common theme in American circles highlights a general aura of fear and passivity among our men. 

Maybe the men are unaware of the woman’s feelings, or maybe they don’t feel the same way. I’m sure these represent a percentage of the cases, but the majority seem to be a lack of courage. Even many of my male friends express terror of women, and a fear of approaching them. Remember that Adam’s first sin wasn’t eating the fruit; it was passively standing beside Eve while she did. He was passive in the face of imminent danger to his wife and did nothing to prevent it. 

Non-Christian men seem to have less trouble with this. Granted, there is a similar public conversation on ‘toxic masculinity,’ where men are either oppressors or effeminate, but I know many nonbelievers who have no problem approaching women in a bar or club and starting a conversation. Their testosterone has not been tamped down by love songs prescribed by the church, and prayer times where feelings are discussed. Mix that in with a purity culture which essentially made sex seem like the most heinous sin possible, and you end up with a generation of neutered men who speak softly and have little to give to the rest of the world, much less, to their women. 

The thing I’m concerned with, and which I’d like to explore, is the Christian culture which seems to manufacture these soft and quite frankly, effeminate men. Why, if I see someone decked out in “Christian clothes,” can I guess that they’re not going to be masculine, strong, or hip to culture? I’ve been with multiple Christian missions organizations, Bible college, seminary, and countless churches and conferences, and can tell you that this not out of the ordinary.

So before we get too far ahead, what exactly does it mean to be masculine or feminine? And why is it better for men to be one than the other?

Jordan Peterson has repeatedly pointed out that one of the most detrimental things a woman can have in her life is a weak man. And one of the best things for women are strong men.

This does not imply that women should then just be weak and passive, and if they have a strong man, they can chill. I have met numerous women who are driven, hard working, and when my hand crumpled in the grip of their handshake, I thought This woman could run a company without a problem and it would thrive. And that’s great! I love it. But the existence and prosperity of strong women doesn’t negate a need for equally strong men. 

Now, Peterson and I are careful to differentiate between strong and abusive. It seems that strength has nearly been demonized in our culture, as it has become twisted up with notions like toxic masculinity and patriarchal abuse and control. Very valid critiques and terrible, destructive things.

But is strength destructive in itself? Of course not.

A strong person defending weak people who cannot defend themselves is always an empirical good. It takes strength to hunt, to work, to stay committed to a vow, and the list goes on. 

You can argue that Jesus was one of the strongest people to ever live. Why? Because he attacked others and overthrew nations? No, because He restrained Himself and went through a torturous death when He could have tapped into some divine power and blipped His oppressors out of existence. There is incredible strength in self control, discipline, and even gentleness. 

Is a father showing weakness when he is wrestling with his toddler and lets the toddler win? Or is his restraint, his love, and his power demonstrated through gentleness and playful engagement?

By ‘strength,’ I obviously do not simply mean the ability to bench six plates. You don’t need to be physically ripped to be a strong person. Strength can take shape in numerous ways, as can weakness, and I’m leaving the rest of those definitions open to interpretation, as we can generally recognize strength and weakness when we see them. 

So back to the original question: Why do so many American Christian men seem to tilt toward weakness more than strength? Why is our Church so often represented by out-of-touch homeschoolers, more than respectable, strong men? (And women of course, but for the purposes of this article, I’m focusing on the male population)

Part of it has to do with the very practices and nature of our church for the past several decades. Think about it—if church is reduced to showing up, singing songs about romantically being held by another man, and then sitting quietly while we listen to someone teach, then why are we surprised at the castration of the American Christian man? He’s someone who sits still and listens. And maybe loves dudes…? The church for the past few decades has massively been aimed more at women than men, so it should not be a shock that many of the men raised in this environment have more feminine qualities.

I’m presently listening to the podcast series which investigated the rise and fall of Mars Hill Church, which was fronted by Mark Driscoll. Many of the episodes center on his misogynistic rhetoric and the way he called men to rise up from their passive, feminine roles in life and take hold of their true, biblical masculinity. 

His approach was aggressive and merciless. He did a lot of things wrong by emulating Fight Club more than Christ. But within his misguided approach is the recognition of a real issue: Men in America—Christians in particular—are not taking ownership for their lives. They are being passive, becoming soft, and being led by a culture which more and more wants to declaw its men. 

In our culture at large, there seems to be no middle ground: You are either a machismo toxic pig, or you’re a feminist who loves women. There is scarce representation of a good, manly man, save in fictional tales about Superman or Aragorn in Lord of the Rings. You’re either a liberal, limp-wristed sub, or you’re a trunk-honking, gun shooting, drink-away-the-pain type of conservative.

The church in many ways has followed suit right into those two categories: Being a good man means adopting feminist principles and not doing anything that might offend or stir up anyone. Or, in more conservative churches, the approach is Trumpian, where the machismo is embraced in a blunt and obnoxious way, no matter who is offended. 

The issue is that neither of these approaches imitates the example of masculinity given to us by Christ Himself, who had no problem offending people or becoming angry when the situation was appropriate, but who also empowered women (prostitutes, no less!) and was kind to the outcast. His strength was demonstrated in bold displays, such as turning over the tables in the temple when He witnessed injustice and exclusion, His blunt dealings with the Pharisees, or the way He dominated nature (calming of the storm) and demons. Jesus was also very in touch with all of His emotions, ranging from anger to compassion to grief and weeping. His image of masculinity is not scared to be expressive and emotional.

It seems to me that many churches overemphasize His other attributes more, like gentleness and suffering, without highlighting His strength. The Christian call to men is all-encompassing and brutal. Give everything to this mission, and/or die trying. Sell all you own; die to yourself, live dangerously, and stomp the sin out of your life. 

This call should inevitably lead a man to be gentle when the time calls for it (the father wrestling his toddler; inviting an outsider to church), but to be incredibly strong and forceful in other ways. Will human trafficking be overthrown by passive men who stand by and merely pray for something to change? Will the hungry of the world be fed without business-savvy men who can think of wild new ways to get resources to difficult places? (Again, women too obviously, but we’re talking about men here)

To broaden the spectrum, what about artists? Maybe construction and business aren’t one’s areas of expertise, but the arts are? Is it possible to be a manly creative, whatever that looks like? Of course!

Heck, I’m a writer and I’m strong as freak.

The point is, the church has room to grow. In my ideal vision, the future of masculinity, particularly Christian masculinity, is not the nihilistic, Nietzschian vision of Tyler Durden in Fight Club. Films like these can diagnose the problem, but they cannot reconstruct a solution (literally…he succeeds by blowing up the world and returning it to rubble). 

What if the church were the place where healthy masculinity were championed? Where strength, creativity, AND gentleness thrived and we could function as an example to the rest of the world, rather than an awkward pariah plastered with Jesus clothes and very little substance. Can’t we be strong like old trees with deep roots? The question to men isn’t how strong are you, but how strong is what you’re rooted in?

I believe that the Bible gives us ample foundation for men to be loving and strong; gentle and assertive, rooted in the sacrificial example of Christ Himself. So let’s strive to be more like Him: combining and balancing all those things and showing the world that there is a third option between two anemic extremes.

e