MEN ARE FORMED, NOT BORN

The news of men has not been good of late. My friend Tommy died last week. The last I heard he was in the Roanoke Rescue Mission. But in the end, he was homeless, doing crack, meth, and heroin. The drugs took him at 52.

There’s the porn epidemic. As Catholic writer, Benjamin Wiker, has said, “Our sexual environment is about as polluted as China’s air, and the harm caused by such pollution is just as scientifically demonstrable.”[1]

Then there’s the swelling cohort of insecure, indecisive, incompetent young men whose directionless energies are squandered in endless pursuits of, well, that’s just it, nothing special. As Auguste Meyrat recently wrote, they are “hapless chumps” who can “make observations, crack jokes, ask questions…but they cannot make theses and support them.” Women may “friend-zone” these guys, but they won’t marry and have children with them.[2]

And its common knowledge that one of the greatest common denominators for mass shooters (not counting jihadis) is that they are young, alienated men, with absent, abusive, or just irrelevant fathers.

Males are born, but men are formed. And our culture is failing to form them.

Cultural trends for the last forty years mitigate against it. “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” founding feminist Gloria Steinem said, and a whole generation of women believed her and did without. That movement, along with constant media mockery of men as sleazy sex addicts or buffoonish oafs, removed much of the motivation men had to become something other than overgrown boys.

Healthy masculinity, the kind that gets tough when the going gets rough and tender when it doesn’t, has also been undermined by hypocrites like Bill Cosby and pedophile priests. But they are only the most famous of a multitude of men who hide predatory natures behind a faith and family friendly mask.

What’s to be done? Specifically, what can the church do? The most important thing we can do is buy into my thesis: Men are formed, not born.

There are definite attributes and specific disciplines that separate the men from the boys that can be passed down from one generation to the next. They have nothing to do with physical or sexual prowess and everything to do with character formation. We can work out the details of how to do that later, but we must buy in first. We must believe that positive masculinity can and should be formed in young men by older men.

Too many fathers and too many church men assume that “boys will be boys” and just let them raise themselves or worse, “let their Momma do it.” That’s not meant as a slam on moms who sacrifice endlessly for their children. But the truth is that young men do not respond the same way to women as they do men they respect. As a result, we have a generation of “feral children,” who—wishing they were real men—have mistaken real masculinity with owning powerful weapons and hyped-up pick-up trucks. Or else mistaken it for feminine virtues that, while admirable, aren’t masculine and therefore do not satisfy the innate need of a male to achieve manhood among other men.

My friend Tommy grew up a feral child. His father abandoned him early in life and rarely offered anything other than criticism for his son’s failings. Like all of us, Tommy made choices for which he alone was responsible. He had multiple opportunities to turn his life around. But I can’t help wonder how his life might have turned out if the right set of men had taken him in and committed to train him how to be a man.

[1] https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/08/04/sexual-pollution-is-a-scientific-and-destructive-fact/

[2] https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/ts-eliot-poem-describes-modern-males-perfectly

NON-TOXIC MASCULINITY

NON-TOXIC MASCULINITY

You’ve no doubt seen it, the Gillette ad titled: “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be.” Obviously, the shaving supplier’s marketing gurus hit a nerve. It had twenty-five million hits on You Tube and forty million on Twitter. But they may have also punched a hole in the bottom of the brand. Forbes reports, “reaction to the ad has been overwhelmingly negative, with comments on its YouTube channel running negative by an astonishing ten to one margin.”[1]

That’s not to say that everything Gillette was selling is wrong. Men and boys are having a tough time and need better role models. They are falling behind in education, are twice as likely to be diagnosed ADHD, commit most sex-crimes, refuse to get help when depressed, are more likely to commit suicide or end up in prison for murder. But the Gillette ad, and the American Psychological Association’s recently released guidelines for working with men and boys which preaches the same message, toe the gender-fluidity line of LGBTQ activist ideology. As John Stonestreet says in a recent Breakpoint, “the solution isn’t to caricature and then reject masculinity like a disorder. It is to re-discover and embrace real masculinity, which God declared to be “very good.”[2]

Stu Weber, in his excellent book, Tender Warrior, teaches that real masculinity can be broken down into four roles a man should play in all his spheres of influence: King, Warrior, Mentor, and Friend. “To the degree (these functions) are balanced the image is clear, and the man and those around him flourish. To the degree they are abased and abused, the image is distorted, the man withers, and those around him experience pain.”[3]

Of the four roles, King is the one least understood by men and most disrespected by pop-culture. The film, Black Panther, gives it a pretty good nod, but the authority and leadership inherent in the role are increasingly suspect. The best way to regain that respect is to properly fulfill the role.

Toxic masculinity abuses authority. True leaders exercise authority under authority. People were amazed at Jesus’s teaching because he taught as one who had authority (Matt. 7:29). But Jesus recognized that His authority was under authority. “I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.” (John 12:49).

Toxic masculinity serves only itself. Weber explains that a King is a Pro-Visionary, a man who looks far into the future to plan and provide for those he serves. Like the biblical men of Issachar, he studies and understands the times and how to navigate them successfully. And like the biblical kings of old, he does this in multiple spheres: his immediate family, his church, his community, and his country.

Toxic masculinity abdicates the shepherding role. But a King provides order, mercy, and justice, creating an environment where life can thrive in a disordered world. With dignity and restraint, he holds himself, his family, his church, his community, and his country to the high ethical standards revealed in scripture. When it’s time to execute justice, he is a velvet covered brick. Men who do this won’t always be popular in the short run, but the people they serve will experience shalom.

A man doesn’t have to own a country to be a king. He just has to play the role and the kingdom will come to him.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrtaylor/2019/01/15/why-gillettes-new-ad-campaign-is-toxic

[2] http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/01/breakpoint-pathologizing-masculinity

[3] Stu Webber, Tender Warrior.