The popular question of the moment is ‘what is a woman?’ and the failure of our leaders & churches to be able to answer the question is a blight on them and on the rest of us. But the less asked question is its opposite, ‘what is a man?’ and I very much doubt that anyone has any good answers to this one either.

It’s also a question which Christians are struggling to answer well. Complementarians seem stuck in stereotypes and egalitarians seem afraid to even try to answer the question positively for fear of giving fuel to the other camp (if anyone can point me towards egalitarian answers to the question, ‘what is a man?’, I’d love to hear of them). Yet it is becoming increasingly critical that we attempt to answer it and think through the implications of our answers for family, church & society.

The discussion around masculinity and masculine virtues (and not just vices) is increasingly being discussed: the John Wayne man has been rejected but what about the Johnny Cash man or some other man? In some senses the failure of the church to know its stuff means that when the culture goes looking for answers they find the church to be just as confused if not more so than everyone else. That being so it’s imperative that we rediscover a vision of non-toxic masculinity.

As Jackson Wu points out defining masculinity and femininity biblically is harder than you think but when we do we easily fall into toxic gendering yet I’m not quite sure Wu is right when he says, “The church’s role is to develop in one gender those biblical virtues that our culture generally cultivate in the other gender (rather than only stereotypical virtues).” Is it right, that the church should help women develop biblical virtues that our culture cultivates in men? Or vice versa? Is that true for every culture or just America?

There is a challenge for Christians in this, because our role model is Christ and yet his virtues are not just male virtues they are universal virtues which both men and women are called to aspire to and emulate. Alexi Sargent and Noah van Niel as they sought for manly virtues and men of fidelity felt an obligation to point out if we’re talking about brave men, of course women can be brave too and if men are called to fidelity, well of course so are women.

David French makes this point in his article ‘Against the Extremism of the American Masculinity Debate’, “Women can and do display every virtue that is stereotypically male, just as men can and do display every virtue that is stereotypically female. A good man can be extraordinarily nurturing, for example, and a good woman can display remarkable physical courage.” But French goes on to make a crucial additional point that I think is absolutely vital and that many others either haven’t made or shied away from. It is a point that I believe has deep resources in helping us forge a new way of talking about men and women in the church that does better at upholding the complementary and creating new avenues for richer partnerships between men and women at every level of engagement: marriages, families, church & society.

Here’s the point French makes, and I’ll quote in full.

Because men and women are different, universal values will often manifest themselves differently. This is how good men and good women—brought up in the same universal values—can still tend towards different temperaments and professions. Let’s talk about physical courage again. A man or woman can be equally courageous, but if a man is bigger, faster, and stronger, then he’s going to have a greater aptitude in a host of professions that require physical courage—such as infantry officer, firefighter, or police officer. 

A man can be and should be nurturing, but there is simply no way for a man to replicate the experience of bearing and feeding a child from his own body. There is something profound, mysterious, and different about that inescapable biological distinction. 

Thus we simply can’t look at disparities of interest and outcome between men and women and presume that something is wrong. While we should diligently fight invidious discrimination (a legal term of art that generally means discrimination that is “arbitrary, irrational and not reasonably related to a legitimate purpose”), attempting to impose a leveling sameness between the sexes will always be both culturally impossible and individually destructive. 

The evolution of economies and cultures would be challenging enough for men and boys. Filter these changes through our polarized, extremist politics, and radical ideologies proliferate. It can now take actual courage to simply be reasonable, to treat your child as a distinct individual but also recognize the existence of general tendencies that cross millennia and cultures. 

The goal isn’t to embrace or reject stereotypes, but rather to realize that no matter your son’s temperament, there is always a path to raising a boy to be his own version of a good man. (emphasis added)

Let’s take a brief look at how that might play out. I deeply appreciate Jon Tyson’s work raising up a generation of intentional father’s who lead their sons into manhood. In his book Jon defines a man this way:

A man is an image bearer and son of God entrusted with power and the responsibility to create, cultivate, care, and defend, for God’s glory and the good of others.

p.37

But couldn’t you say exactly the same thing about women? And the answer is according to French and with which I agree is ‘yes but’. But there is an aptitude and I would argue an extent or range to these things that are meaningful, that result in real world difference. So to apply that to Tyson’s definition we could recognise that power, responsibility, creation, cultivation, care & defence might all manifest differently, be experienced differently and result in a differing range of impacts when expressed by a man than those very same qualities when manifested in a woman. We have differing impacts in different areas and these differences are not inherently a bad thing or something in need of fixing, as French says ‘attempting to impose a leveling sameness between the sexes will always be both culturally impossible and individually destructive.’

I think this can help us avoid stereotypes, personality types and the search for uniquely male traits or a definition like Piper’s that leads to a disposition to lead or a disposition to follow. I think this does cash out when it comes to marriage, parenthood, societal contributions and church leadership but it won’t cash out in a way that pleases everybody.