[1] Christine Emba, in an insightful Opinion piece published by the Washington Post in July of 2023, presented a fascinating cultural problem that has been overlooked and underestimated by many in this country.[i] It has to do with a crisis of masculinity as a result of changing cultural and social values, a more expansive view of gender, and an economic reality that has left many behind. Young men in America are facing a crisis of meaning, partially created by a bifurcated masculinity of extremes, and a poorly articulated sense of what constitutes a healthy masculinity. We cannot ignore the fact that real pain and despair exists at critical levels as statistics on suicide demonstrate.[ii] Suicide rates among young men are rising. Young men are giving up on the job market and succumbing to the rising vitriolic culture of incel ideology and social media trolling. Feeling berated by liberals and challenged by a confused sense of self, many young men turn to the Jordan Peterson’s and Andrew Tate’s of the world for counsel and camaraderie. On the other hand, the most conservative, vociferous and extreme branches of American Christianity espouse a “benign patriarchy” and an unapologetic robust masculinity as a response to what they perceive as the corrosive “Jezebel culture.” This leads to the question: Beyond the extremes of feminized individuation and historical male toxicity, what would an alternative masculinity look like? Herein lies the challenge. Emba’s essay was extremely insightful and allowed me to reflect on issues I have been intimately engaged in for over a decade; as a member of the ELCA Women and Justice: One in Christ Social Statement Task Force, as well as the discussion on “Patriarchy and Sexism” that W. Bradley Wendel and I began in the second section of the Study Guide for the Social Statement Faith, Sexism, and Justice. I will examine Kristin Kobes Du Mez’ work in order to address the attempt to rehabilitate patriarchy and address the crisis of masculinity. I will conclude this work by discussing the social construction of masculinity, and briefly discuss what’s at stake.
[2] Kristin Kobes Du Mez’s stimulating historical account, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, examines the project of contemporary evangelical proponents of “biblical patriarchy” to recover a lost sense of masculinity. Du Mez, a historian at Calvin University, chronicled two trajectories: the first, a prominent socio-political trajectory, and the second a religious ideological trajectory. The first trajectory traces the symbiotic relationship between evangelicalism and conservative politics that began with the rise of the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family and culminated with the MAGA movement. The second trajectory recounts the evangelical attempt to recover an abandoned “vision of Christian manhood” resembling Theodore Roosevelt’s “muscular and militaristic” example. These are interconnected, although I will focus this review on discussions of patriarchy and masculinity. According to the prophets of Christian patriarchy, Christian masculinity has devolved and maladapted to a vision of “feminized Victorian” morality. The appeal of the MAGA movement lies in the promise of “restoring white patriarchal power [that will] make America great again” (p. XVI).
[3] The foundation of evangelicalism’s understanding of “manhood” is rooted in Roosevelt’s hypermasculinity, and was epitomized, lionized, fictionalized and mythologized in the American Cowboy persona of John Wayne. According to evangelicals, this robust notion of masculinity took a detour in the 1960’s as a consequence of the social upheavals surrounding the Civil Rights Movement, societal opposition to the Vietnam War, and feminism. In response the Cowboy myth morphed into Cowboy conservatism. This evangelical and conservative counterpoint benefited from Nixon’s Southern Strategy, Southern segregationists’ switch to the Republican party, the Lost Cause ideology and the promotion of “States Rights,” the Christian Nationalist writings of Bill Gothard and Rousas John Rushdoony, concerns about law and order resulting from urban riots, and the erosion of family values. In spite of the setbacks caused by Nixon and the Watergate scandal, the political culmination of these alliances was the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Regardless of Reagan’s moral shortcomings and religious apathy, he “projected the rugged masculine leadership [evangelicals] believed the country so desperately needed” (p. 106). Reagan’s cowboy diplomacy and preemptive military actions were celebrated since they “aligned with evangelical’s view of masculine power” (p. 113). The political battle had been won but the war on culture had just begun. It was time to reclaim masculinity.
[4] Evangelical leaders such as James Dobson and Bill Gothard believed that “the problems of the modern family, and of society could be traced to the erosion of patriarchal power” (p. 87). Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye held biblical beliefs that promoted male headship and leadership, benign patriarchy, aggressive and heroic masculinity, traditional gender roles, and female subordination/surrender to men’s “unrestrained libidos.” Falwell went as far as to blame the erosion of traditional masculinity on “effeminate depictions of Christ as a delicate man with long hair and flowing robes” (p. 99). Years later Mark Driscoll, founder of the Mars Hill Church movement, would say of Christ: “Jesus bore no resemblance to the drag-queen Jesus images that portray him with long flowing, feathered hair… draped in a comfortable dress accessorized by matching open toed sandals and handbag” (p. 194). Jesus was instead understood as a heroic “Ultimate Fighter warrior king with a tattoo down to his leg who rides into battle… on a trusty horse” (p. 194). Driscoll referred to women as “penis homes for lonely penises,” and promoted a stereotypical beta-male masculinity. John McDougall would publish Jesus Was an Airborne Ranger in 2015 and promote Jesus as a “spiritual badass in camo” (p. 247).
[5] Women also contributed toward “reclaiming masculinity.” In response to Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963), evangelical women countered with well-received books of their own. Marabel Morgan’s The Total Woman (1973), Elizabeth Elliot’s Let Me Be a Woman (1973), and Phyllis Schlafly’s The Power of the Positive Woman (1977) were instant best sellers. These women promoted expressions of conservative evangelical femininity, celebrated the biblical submission of wives to their husbands, encouraged the sexual satisfaction of their husbands, demonized the ERA and the gay rights movements, and advanced distinct gender roles.
[6] These attempts to promote an evangelical biblical understanding of masculinity and to salvage patriarchy were complicated by countless sexual scandals that spanned the period of the 1980’s to the present. Critics point out that resurgent patriarchy and toxic masculinity encourage toxic male behavior and scripture is used to justify such actions. These scandals were repeatedly defended, ignored or explained away. They created a vacuum that was filled by heroes like Oliver North, Kenneth Star, and America’s “servicemen.” Evangelical leaders sought to exploit the warrior-hero imagery by filling the Armed Forces ranks with like-minded believers and dominating the chaplaincy corp. Evangelical notions of masculinity had come full circle by connecting biblical mandates about sexuality, gender roles and family relationships to a warrior culture.
[7] These developments coincided with the ascendancy of the Men’s Movement (particularly the Promise Keepers) and the dominance of evangelicalism in Christian publishing. The Promise Keepers began as an attempt by a retired football coach, Bill McCartney, to guide men into a “soft patriarchy” that challenged stereotypical beliefs of masculinity and encouraged egalitarianism. This was viewed as a middle path between the extremes of hyper-masculinity and feminized masculinity. Men were encouraged to reject the oppressive patriarchal “chain of command,” and live out a “servant leadership” exemplified by sacrificial service towards their workplace, family, and community. Over time the movement was taken over by more radical elements and soft patriarchy was soon replaced by something more militaristic, insidious and patronizing. What began as a non-political and socially inclusive movement, morphed into a movement closely affiliated with conservative politics and an exclusively white audience. As the influence of this group waned, others quickly moved in to take its place. At present there are hundreds of men’s conferences and groups ranging from regional to national entities. These movements, with their accompanying conferences, have a number of things in common including an emphasis on sports, performative masculinities that have been interpreted as homoerotic by some in their own ranks, micro aggressive rhetoric towards men who do not exhibit heteronormative qualities, and biblical sermons focusing on male headship. On April 14th of this year a controversy arose at the annual Stronger Men’s Conference in Springfield, MO, which attracted national attention. As part of the entertainment, a shirtless acrobat proceeded to swallow a sword and perform on a “stripper pole.” Mark Driscoll was taken off the stage by the event organizer after he said that the “Jezebel Spirit” had entered the event. He attacked a couple of attendees accusing them of being transgender. His words, which were recorded and quickly uploaded to social media, were blunt and accusatory: “The Jezebel Spirit opened our event… there was a platform… On it was a pole… the same thing that’s used in a strip club for women who have the Jezebel Spirit to seduce men.” The controversy was amplified by evangelical media.
[9] Rick Pidcock of Baptist News Global (an online news source) reported on the promotional video for the Conference:
The promo video for this year’s Stronger Men Conference opens with a montage of men lifting weights, revving motorcycle engines and boxing. Then as the song soars with lyrics of ‘being ready to fight,’ a wrestler smashes a chair into the head of another man dressed up as a superhero, a monster truck flies through pyrotechnics, a bull rider gets bucked, a cowboy snaps his whip, and more chairs get smashed over superheroes’ heads interspersed with sermon clips.[iii]
The rise of the evangelical men’s movement coincided with the explosion of evangelical Christian publishing. It is important to note that much evangelicalism is motivated by a perceived culture war predicated by caricatures of extremely complicated social phenomena and concerns. Not only are concepts such as “biblical manhood/womanhood” and masculinity/femininity not clearly defined, but these concepts are also rooted in easily manipulated stereotypes based on idealizations and simplifications of nature, malleable cultural presuppositions, socially constructed roles, adaptable and contextualized metaphors, and archaic and misinformed assumptions about sexuality, sex and gender. Manufactured outrage, robed in scripture and theology, is monetized in the form of conferences, retreats, websites, podcasts, and publications. There is no denying that evangelicals have benefited from a massive and ravenous consumer base and an impressive network of publishers and retailers. Manufactured outrage sells. Marginal authors become overnight celebrities and their books are bestsellers. Their words are taken as authoritative and become the basis for instruction. It is not a stretch to suggest that consumers are exploited by profit-centered entities in order to promote ideas that justify and benefit the interests of their positions of power. The evangelical church is no different.
[10] This manufactured faux outrage over a perceived loss of biblical masculinity thrives on fear, ignorance, and cultural change. Hypermasculinity has been intricately connected to narcissism, insecurity, egoism, fear, and fear of inadequacy. In response, overcompensation takes hold in words and actions when men feel ignored, unloved and underappreciated by women. Negative male reactions may be expressed overtly (performative actions including violence) or covertly (subversive micro-aggression). Part of the problem lies in evangelical Christianity’s promotion of hyper-aggressive values which are internalized by men seeking to live as the Bible requires. Du Mez presents a persistent belief held by proponents of biblical patriarchy and militant masculinity; Christianity does not authentically express Christ, either theologically or in visual representations. Christianity depicts Jesus “as a meek and gentle milk-toast character.” The emasculated, unacceptably weak Christ makes it difficult for “real men” to follow him. Instead, they propose a warrior Jesus, allowing men to embrace a “hard masculinity” understood as willful militarism, competition, sexual virility, aggression, and dominion over the family (p. 161).
[11] While the Christian men’s movement encouraged this militant patriarchy, the evangelical establishment incorporated these ideas into their interpretation of “biblical patriarchy” and political empowerment. Patriarchy was recast in ways that diminished America’s sins of slavery, native genocide, neo-colonialism, and military adventurism. Patriarchy was promoted as the key to America’s success and exceptionalism (p. 190). “Military strength was [understood] as a blessing, and it [would be] wrong not to use it” (p. 240). They lamented that “the decline of heroic masculinity has undermined Christian nationalism and eroded patriarchal authority” (p. 244). Unfortunately, this amalgamation of nationalism and patriarchy led many evangelicals to endorse authoritarianism and “strongman” politicians. Alan Bean of the Baptist News undermines the democratic values which have sustained this country for over 200 years when he maintains that “the role of government was to be a strongman to protect its citizens against evildoers” (p. 258). Du Mez argues that John Wayne represented white manhood, in all its swaggering glory. Trump was the John Wayne stand-in “his evangelical supporters were looking for” (p. 258). Correctly she points to the locus of the problem: “the evangelical code of masculinity [that] links patriarchal power to masculine aggression and sexual desire” (p. 277). The main culprit and omnipresent threat is women, particularly unmarried women whose wiles are likened to the biblical Jezebel. In this worldview, patriarchy protects women and girls while correcting the corrosive influence of feminism by enforcing purity and ensuring submission to masculine authority. Political authoritarianism is just an extension of familial authoritarianism.
[12] Du Mez concludes her thesis by acknowledging that this “cult of masculinity” does not speak for evangelicalism as a whole. These ideas are predominately espoused by white men (although she does not address why women have bought into this ideology). It is not difficult to extend her conclusion to our evaluation of market forces; we cannot deny the influence of the market on this movement as these responses contribute to a billion-dollar industry including publishing, conferences, think tanks, and advocacy groups. These movements benefit the purveyors of biblical patriarchy and muscular masculinity.
[13] The strengths of Jesus and John Wayne outweigh its weaknesses. As a historian, Du Mez is able to provide a thorough examination of this religious/political phenomenon through exhaustive and meticulous research. She uses a multitude of sources including printed texts, media accounts, the internet, press releases, and sermons. Her writing style is engaging, provocative, and accessible.
[14] Many of her detractors seem to miss the point of her thesis. For example, criticisms have been made on the thesis’ focus on white evangelicals. They claim that her assumptions and claims can also apply to minority evangelicals and people of color. This misses a crucial point that political scientists and sociologists have tried to explain: Why did such a sizable portion of white evangelicals support Trump regardless of his lack of moral clarity? There is also the matter of a decades-long project to support conservative politicians. Statistically the majority of evangelicals and those in positions of leadership are white. Although there are large numbers of Latino and African American conservative evangelicals, these groups break with their white counterparts on politics regardless of shared social concerns.
[15] A further criticism concerns the book’s focus. The argument claims that she is too concerned with the 20th century and overlooks the historical roots of the ideas she challenges. This argument is problematic for a number of reasons. First, evangelicalism in its American version, is historically a fairly recent development. The same is true of fundamentalism and biblical inerrancy. Secondly, although the problem of patriarchy is ancient and has biblical roots, the debates concerning the gendered division of labor, roles and expectations, and the idea of the nuclear family are all modern contextualized (cross-culturally and cross-temporally) developments. Lastly, she is making an argument based on the interplay of conservative agenda politics and the strategy of using the culture war as a means to achieve these prescribed ends.
[16] Although the book does address the biblical and theological foundations of patriarchy, gender, and the family, there is no in-depth critical examination of language, hermeneutics and the social milieu as this is a work devoted to an historical examination. Du Mez is a historian not a theologian. Some critics have lamented the lack of a presentation of an alternative theory (or theories) of masculinity. It must be emphasized that this was not an ethical exploration since Du Mez is not a moral theologian or philosopher.
[17] A final criticism, which I mention in passing, is an accusation of bias and a lack of objectivity. This is not the case. There are only a couple of instances where she interprets the events and data. These instances were at the conclusion where she was wrapping up her thesis. The truth is that parties from both political and social extremes often claim bias when a theory or the data does not support their presuppositions. In Du Mez’ defense, she is writing from and to her evangelical tradition. This is a community in which she is immersed both academically and confessionally. Regardless of these accusations, these same critics will concede that this work was necessary, and that a conversation needs to take place in regard to the more radical versions of masculinity being promoted.
[18] As we conclude this review, it may be constructive and productive to discuss some of the significant concepts and issues pertinent to this debate and express their origin (the social construction of masculinity). There will be no attempt to salvage, repurpose, or rehabilitate patriarchy since it is contradictory to the divine intention of healing, redemption and reconciliation. We affirm our church’s teaching that patriarchy is oppressive, irredeemable, and sinful. We must also address the nonsensical claim that we are promoting a matriarchal system. The respect and promotion of the full humanity of all people requires us to reject any system that encourages the physical, spiritual, social, political, and ethical subordination, unjust treatment or devaluation of any human being. We must reject institutions, structures, and dynamics that undermine egalitarian perspectives and relationships.
[19] It would be disingenuous and myopic to deny that a crisis of masculinity exists. In addition to the aforementioned issues raised by Emba, other areas include education and vocation; gender violence and domestic/intimate partner violence; rape and sexual assault; and medical and mental health concerns. This is not a crisis in the sense that traditional masculinity has been abandoned and substituted by a feminized one. We are contesting a resurgent damaging, hypermasculinity influenced by confusion, fear, despair, and opportunism. We must reject simplistic explanations and stereotypes in order to foster constructive dialogue/discourse.
[20] In order to promote a new socially transformative paradigm, it is necessary to address a number of related issues that have been exploited, manipulated and misunderstood. Masculine and feminine roles and characteristics are framed and formed by culture, social standards, and subjective historical contexts. Patriarchy and androcentrism have contributed to an ideology of power that have overemphasized an oppressive form of masculinity to the detriment of women. Unfortunately, the rejection of patriarchy has been understood as the loss of masculine authority power, and control. The result is the rejection of collaboration. Reciprocity is understood as feminization. Servanthood is promoted as weakness. Fellowship is advanced as a challenge to individualism and freedom. The demand is for a recovery of muscular masculinity.
[21] Neither femininity nor masculinity are unmovable essences, reducible to stereotypical roles and normative expectations. Both femininity and masculinity are socially constructed. Consider the following mental exercise. Imagine if we could separate the human physical body from the roles and values associated with them. How would you define masculinity if you could disassociate it from the male body? (Likewise for women.) The fact that many of us do not have the imagination to consider masculinity from this proposal points to our thinking in terms of gendered essentialist bodies. Masculinity is historically situated. In other words, conceptualizations of masculinity will change or morph over time. This cross-temporal quality is clear when comparing historical periods. Take for example the post-enlightenment practice of men wearing wigs, caked powdered faces, frilly shirts with neckcloths, tight britches adorned by waistcoats and overcoats, elaborate headcover, fancy footwear, and long stockings held up with garters. Compare this fashion to today’s manly attire of baggy basketball shorts, ratty t-shirts and over-sized designer sneakers. What would today’s masculinity say to 18th century male fashion? What would today’s masculinity say to 19th century Victorian dandies or mid-20th century “Mad-Men” fashion? Let’s consider a second mental exercise. Imagine the future possibility of physical enhancement via genetic engineering. How would our notions of masculinity be impacted if we could genetically modify and enhance the male body? Would we consider men who prefer nature over genetic manipulation feminized? What would masculinity mean in an era where nature is replaced and augmented by technology? What would masculinity look like in a transhuman context? These examples show that masculinity is constantly created and changes throughout history.
[22] Masculinity is not only historically situated (cross-temporal), but also culturally situated. A cursory examination and comparison between cultures will demonstrate an obvious cross-cultural connection. Standards and norms of masculinity and femininity will vary greatly from one culture to another. (I am reminded of a recent study conducted where the diversity of female bodies was depicted from the perspective of different countries.) Even in this culture, there are differences. For example, if we were to compare a college professor to an auto-mechanic or construction worker, what conclusions could be drawn about physical characteristics and masculinity? What conclusions could be drawn about work/vocation and masculinity? It is hard to ignore the variety and complexity of masculine identities cross-culturally and in our society.
[23] The most alarming problem with the hyper-masculine patriarchal proposal is that it encourages an essentialist nature myth and uses the Bible to legitimate male supremacy. Masculinity in this religious and political context promotes a power dynamic that is unilateral, oppressive and inequitable. In this context masculinity serves a rhetorical purpose in order to bolster an ideology that is aligned with a specific political perspective. The dominant heteronormative ideology in this case is aligned with a conservative societal power dynamic that fulfills the evangelical agenda of influencing both culture and politics. The Routledge dictionary of philosophy defines ideology as:
[A] set of ideas, beliefs and attitudes, consciously or unconsciously held, which reflects or shapes understandings or misconceptions of the social and political world. It serves to recommend, justify or endorse collective action aimed at preserving or changing political practices and institutions.[iv]
The motivations of those proposing this biblical patriarchy/warrior masculinity are self-interested. It can be understood as the intentional recovery of a militarized masculinity predicated by a hierarchy of gendered culture. The underlying assumption was that this was a culturally agreed upon dominant ideology which had to be recovered. Consequently, this understanding of masculinity is circular and self-perpetuating. Not only is masculinity a product of society, but it is also a producer of meaning. An ideology can be created and propagated through varying social constructions, including images (artistic representations), metaphors, myths, discourse, media, and practices. For example, symbolic representations of masculinities pervade all aspects of society, including popular culture, the mass media, and advertising. These symbolic representations of masculinity do not require interpretation as these are assumed, agreed upon, revised, perpetuated, assumed, agreed upon, and so forth from one generation to another. For example, the cowboy masculinity which dominated Hollywood from the ’30-s to the 50’s was supplanted by astronaut masculinity introduced in the Space Age, which in turn was replaced by superhero masculinity of the new millennium. This circularity and continuity leads to the impression that masculinity is eternal and unchanging. Images and paradigms transcend particularities and contexts and are turned into myths vis-a-vis widespread cultural narratives of masculinity. These myths perpetuate ideals of masculinity that boys and young men assimilate. Pervasive images associated with typical masculine activities (sports, play, guns, hunting, fishing, etc.) are promoted as normative (performative). Masculinity is then defined in terms of performance: real men play football and not ballet; enjoy violent movies and not musicals; play with toy guns and not dolls; ad nauseum. When men perform these actions regularly, these actions not only construct masculinity but enforce it. There is double nature inherent in popular culture that perpetuate these myths and practices. Films and music create and reinforce a type of masculinity that they have created in the first place, and that normatively dominate a culture or society. In one sense, popular culture reveals a form of masculinity already present in culture. In another sense, popular culture constructs the masculinity that takes hold in culture. This leads men and boys to a performative masculinity that is not of their choosing or of their creation. Instead of authentic freedom, men are implicated in their own subjugation.
[24] As followers of Jesus we are called to reject any system or ideology that is complicitous with the interests, ideological frameworks, and institutions of the powerful. The starting point of ethics and missiology, as well as the starting point of healthy understanding of masculinity, is the acceptance of Christ’s (and subsequently our) vulnerability. A healthy understanding of oneself contributes to a healthy understanding of our relationship to others. Genuine interconnection leads us to unconditional service, which is the basis of Christian freedom. In other words, Christian freedom is relational. In this context, masculine experience must be reconciled with the marginalization created by our dominant ideology and system of patriarchy, in order to work toward the freedom of all people.
End Notes
[i] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/10/christine-emba-masculinity-new-model/
[ii] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide – :~:text=100%2C000%20in%202020.-,The%20total%20age-adjusted%20suicide%20rate%20in%20the%20United%20States,females%20(5.7%20per%20100%2C000).
[iii] https://baptistnews.com/article/what-happened-when-mark-driscoll-and-josh-howerton-showed-up-at-the-stronger-mens-conference-this-weekend/
[iv] https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/ideology/v-1 – :~:text=An%20ideology%20is%20a%20set,changing%20political%20practices%20and%20institutions.