Recovering Manhood Rather Than Abolishing It
Few phrases in contemporary social debate carry as much emotional weight as “toxic masculinity.” It is used to describe behaviours ranging from male violence and sexual aggression to emotional repression, domination, bullying and an unwillingness to seek help. Some of the behaviour identified under this label is unquestionably destructive. Christians should have no difficulty condemning cruelty, sexual exploitation, abuse of power or contempt for women.
The difficulty begins when criticism of sinful male behaviour becomes criticism of masculinity itself.
Christianity offers a different starting point. It does not begin with the assumption that masculinity is a social problem requiring reconstruction. It begins with creation.
“Male and female he created them.”
— Genesis 1:27
Both male and female are created in the image of God. Masculinity therefore cannot be inherently toxic. Like every other aspect of human nature, however, it can be corrupted by sin.
The Christian problem is not toxic masculinity. It is sinful masculinity.
Christianity’s answer is not the feminisation, deconstruction or abolition of masculinity. It is its redemption.
There Is a Real Problem
Christians should resist the temptation simply to mock or dismiss concerns about toxic masculinity. Men can behave terribly.
Men can become violent, sexually predatory, domineering, irresponsible, emotionally detached or obsessed with status and power. Churches themselves have sometimes failed badly in confronting domestic violence, sexual misconduct or abusive leadership. Christian theology provides no excuse for such behaviour.
A husband who terrorises his wife is not demonstrating biblical male authority. He is violating it. A father who neglects his children is not displaying masculine independence. He is abandoning masculine responsibility. A man who uses women for sexual gratification is not demonstrating virility. He is demonstrating slavery to his appetites. A leader who humiliates weaker people is not demonstrating strength. He is demonstrating insecurity.
The Bible is remarkably unsentimental about male failure. David abuses his power in taking Bathsheba. Samson’s appetites repeatedly overcome his judgement. Solomon’s sexual indulgence contributes to his spiritual collapse. Peter boasts about his courage and then denies Christ three times.
Scripture does not romanticise men. But neither does it despise them. The biblical pattern is repentance and restoration.
Misogyny, Narcissism and Counterfeit Masculinity
Two behaviours frequently associated with “toxic masculinity” deserve specific attention: misogyny and narcissism.
Misogyny is more than disagreement between men and women or recognition that men and women are different. It is contempt for women—the belief that women are inferior, exist primarily for male gratification, or may legitimately be controlled, humiliated or exploited.
Christianity provides no defence for this attitude. The Bible declares both male and female to be created in the image of God. Jesus consistently treated women with dignity in a culture where that was not always expected. The New Testament commands husbands not merely to avoid abusing their wives but to love them sacrificially. A man who despises women is therefore not demonstrating strong masculinity. He is rejecting part of God’s creation.
Yet Christianity must also resist an opposite error: defining misogyny so broadly that ordinary disagreement with feminist ideology, belief in biological sex differences, or support for traditional Christian teaching on marriage automatically becomes hatred of women. Genuine misogyny should be identified and confronted precisely because it is serious. Expanding the word until it includes almost every disagreement ultimately weakens its meaning.
Narcissism presents another counterfeit form of masculinity. The narcissistic man places himself at the centre of every relationship. He requires admiration, resents criticism, manipulates others and frequently treats people according to their usefulness to him. Strength becomes domination. Leadership becomes control. Confidence becomes arrogance. Sexuality becomes conquest.
It is important, however, not to use the term narcissism carelessly. A person may display narcissistic traits—such as arrogance, self-centredness, manipulation or an excessive need for admiration—without having Narcissistic Personality Disorder. NPD is a specific clinical diagnosis and should not be casually applied to difficult, selfish or domineering people.1
These qualities may sometimes look masculine from the outside, particularly in cultures that celebrate wealth, status, sexual success or aggressive self-promotion. Biblically, however, they represent almost the opposite of mature manhood.
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves.”
— Philippians 2:3
The Christian man is not called to think less seriously about responsibility, leadership or strength. He is called to stop making himself the purpose of those things. Christ demonstrates the alternative. He possesses authority without narcissism, strength without contempt and leadership without exploitation.
Some of what modern society calls toxic masculinity may therefore be better understood not as excessive masculinity at all, but as masculinity corrupted by pride, selfishness and contempt. Misogyny is not masculinity. Narcissism is not masculinity. They are corruptions of it.
What Secular Psychology Gets Right
The modern critique of masculinity did not arise entirely from imagination. The American Psychological Association has argued that rigid male norms can contribute to harmful outcomes, while also recognising that qualities commonly associated with masculinity—including courage, strength, compassion, leadership and assertiveness—can be positive.2
A large meta-analysis involving 78 samples and 19,453 participants found that conformity to some masculine norms was associated with poorer mental-health outcomes and less willingness to seek psychological help. Importantly, the relationship differed according to the particular norm involved. Self-reliance, “power over women” and promiscuous “playboy” behaviour showed consistently negative associations, while the primacy-of-work norm was not significantly related to the measured outcomes.3
Christians can acknowledge these findings without surrendering a Christian understanding of men. Scripture reached many of the same moral conclusions long before modern psychology: men should not dominate women; they should not be controlled by anger; they should flee sexual immorality; and they should carry one another’s burdens.
Christianity can therefore agree that some culturally celebrated versions of masculinity are destructive. Where Christianity differs is in its explanation of why they are destructive and what should replace them.
The Central Flaw in the Secular Argument
Much contemporary thinking begins with the assumption that masculinity is primarily socially constructed. There is an element of truth here. Cultures certainly influence how men express masculinity. A Victorian gentleman, an Aboriginal stockman, an American Marine and a modern computer programmer may express manhood very differently.
But Christianity argues that culture does not create sexual identity from nothing. Human beings are embodied creatures. Male and female are not merely social categories imposed upon otherwise interchangeable human beings. They are part of God’s created order.
This produces one of the fundamental weaknesses of purely secular approaches: they are often better at identifying destructive behaviour than explaining positively what healthy masculinity is. If masculinity itself has no objective purpose, by what standard should one form be preferred to another? Why should sacrifice be better than selfishness, courage better than cowardice, fidelity better than promiscuity, or protection better than exploitation?
A secular framework can develop ethical answers to these questions, and many secular thinkers do. But Christianity argues that those values require a deeper foundation. Christian morality does not merely say, “Do not misuse your strength.” It says: Your strength was given to you for a purpose.
Australian Christian College principal Brendan Corr expresses the distinction well: “If there is a type of masculinity that is excessive or exploitive, then let’s call that out and not dismiss the whole category of masculine.”4
That is precisely where a Christian response should begin. Sinful expressions of masculinity should be confronted, but masculinity itself should not be placed in the dock.
Strength Is Not the Enemy
One of the greatest mistakes in discussions of toxic masculinity is confusing strength with domination. They are not the same thing.
Physical courage can rescue someone from danger. Moral courage can defend an unpopular truth. Emotional courage can allow a man to admit failure. Protective aggression can confront someone abusing a child. Competitive drive can build businesses, discover medicines, win sporting contests and provide for families.
Masculine strength becomes destructive when strength is separated from virtue. The Christian answer is therefore not weaker men. It is better men: men whose strength is governed by love, sexuality by faithfulness, anger by self-control, leadership by service, courage by righteousness and ambition by responsibility.
A civilisation does not become safer when strong men disappear. It becomes safer when strong men become good men.
Jesus Christ and Masculinity
For Christians, the ultimate model of manhood is neither the macho celebrity nor the therapeutic ideal of an endlessly emotionally expressive male. It is Jesus Christ.
Jesus completely undermines simplistic caricatures of masculinity. He is compassionate enough to weep at the grave of Lazarus. He welcomes children. He speaks respectfully to women whom society had marginalised. He touches lepers. He forgives enemies. Yet this same Jesus confronts religious hypocrites, drives profiteers from the Temple and walks knowingly toward His own execution.
Jesus is tender without being weak, authoritative without being oppressive, courageous without being reckless and emotionally expressive without being controlled by emotion. He possesses power but repeatedly uses that power for the benefit of others.
“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
— Mark 10:45
That may be Christianity’s most profound response to toxic masculinity: biblical masculinity converts power into service.
The Paradox of Christian Male Leadership
The New Testament does not abolish male responsibility. It intensifies it. The controversial instruction that husbands are the “head” of their wives in Ephesians 5 is immediately followed by an extraordinary definition of what such leadership means. The husband is told to imitate Christ. And what did Christ do with His authority? He died.
Biblical male leadership therefore cannot legitimately mean, “I am the man, therefore you serve me.” Its model is, “Because I have responsibility, I will sacrifice myself for you.” Christian authority is cruciform.
The stronger protects the weaker. The leader serves those he leads. The husband sacrifices for his wife. The father provides for his children. The mature man restrains his appetites for the good of others. This is almost the precise opposite of the domination rightly condemned as toxic masculinity.
Christian Voices on Recovered Masculinity
Nancy Pearcey makes one of the most substantial recent Christian contributions in The Toxic War on Masculinity. She distinguishes between the “good man”—responsible, faithful, protective and committed to those who depend upon him—and the cultural stereotype of the “real man,” who is self-centred, sexually dominant, emotionally detached and obsessed with status.5
Her central insight is valuable. The behaviours now condemned as toxic do not necessarily arise because society taught men to be responsible husbands and fathers. They frequently arise when male strength becomes detached from moral responsibility. Pearcey’s broader historical thesis is open to debate in some details, but her distinction between power used for self-gratification and power directed toward responsibility is extremely useful.
Wayne Alcorn, National President of Australian Christian Churches from 2009 to 2025, gives this a practical Pentecostal expression. He urges fathers to model “Christ-like masculinity” through “humility, putting others first, respecting women, and being strong yet kind.” He says this helps daughters recognise and reject “toxic secular masculinity.”6
This is the necessary contrast. Christianity does not answer destructive masculinity by suppressing masculinity, but by forming Christlike masculinity.
Christianity Must Also Examine Itself
There is nevertheless a danger for Christians discussing toxic masculinity. We can become so concerned about attacks on men that we minimise the sins committed by men. That would be a serious mistake.
Christian institutions have sometimes protected powerful male leaders rather than victims. Biblical language concerning submission or authority has occasionally been distorted to justify coercive marriages. Sexual sin by male leaders has sometimes been hidden to protect institutional reputations. Christian men who do these things cannot defend themselves by appealing to biblical masculinity. They are violating it.
The Church therefore cannot merely preach male authority. It must disciple male character. Christian leadership without Christian character is not biblical masculinity; it is religious language being used to protect power.
The Secular Approach Can Become Too Negative
There is another danger at the opposite extreme. Young men constantly told that masculinity is dangerous may eventually conclude that society regards them as dangerous. That is unlikely to produce healthy men.
Australia already faces serious problems concerning male wellbeing. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that 2,529 males died by suicide in 2024, representing 76.5 per cent of all suicide deaths.7
Those figures cannot simply be blamed on attitudes toward masculinity. Suicide is complex and should never be reduced to a single cultural explanation. But the figures should make society cautious about constructing a narrative in which boys primarily hear what is wrong with men.
Young men need correction. They also need purpose. They need to hear that courage, responsibility, protection, provision, self-control and keeping one’s promises are good; that becoming a faithful husband and father is honourable; and that standing between danger and someone weaker is honourable.
Christianity offers boys not merely a list of masculine behaviours to avoid but a calling toward the kind of man they should become.
The Christian Alternative
The Christian response to toxic masculinity can be summarised in three movements.
- Confront sinful masculinity without hesitation. Violence, coercion, sexual exploitation, bullying, abandonment of children and abuse of authority should receive no defence from Christians simply because the perpetrator is male.
- Refuse to identify masculinity itself with those sins. Masculinity is part of God’s creation and therefore possesses positive possibilities and purposes.
- Call men toward redeemed masculinity modelled upon Christ. The Christian ideal is neither the domineering alpha male nor the passive man afraid of exercising strength.
It is the servant-warrior: strong enough to protect, humble enough to serve, courageous enough to confront evil, tender enough to comfort suffering, disciplined enough to control desire, faithful enough to keep promises, responsible enough to accept consequences and sacrificial enough to place the wellbeing of others ahead of himself.
Conclusion
The phrase “toxic masculinity” identifies some genuine human problems but ultimately provides an incomplete diagnosis. Christianity goes deeper. The fundamental problem is not masculinity. The problem is sin.
Masculinity magnified by selfishness can become domination. Masculinity disciplined by virtue can become protection. Strength combined with pride becomes tyranny; strength combined with love becomes sacrifice. Authority combined with selfishness becomes oppression; authority combined with Christlike character becomes service. Sexual desire without restraint becomes exploitation; sexual desire joined to covenant becomes faithful love.
The Christian therefore need not choose between defending every traditional expression of masculinity and accepting the claim that masculinity itself must be dismantled. There is another path: redeem it.
The world does not need fewer masculine men. It needs fewer selfish men, fewer violent men, fewer irresponsible men and fewer cowardly men. It needs more men whose strength has been surrendered to Christ.
The answer to toxic masculinity is not the abolition of manhood. It is godly manhood.
Endnotes
1. American Psychiatric Association, “What Is Narcissistic Personality Disorder?”, 30 January 2024. The article distinguishes common narcissistic traits from the persistent, impairing clinical disorder described in DSM-5-TR. https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/what-is-narcissistic-personality-disorder
2. American Psychological Association, “A Closer Look at the APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men,” 2019. The APA notes both harmful rigid norms and positive masculine-associated qualities such as courage, strength, compassion, leadership and assertiveness. https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2019/boys-men-look
3. Y. Joel Wong, Moon-Ho Ringo Ho, Shu-Yi Wang and I. S. Keino Miller, “Meta-Analyses of the Relationship Between Conformity to Masculine Norms and Mental Health-Related Outcomes,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 64, no. 1 (2017): 80–93, doi:10.1037/cou0000176. Abstract and bibliographic record: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27869454/
4. Brendan Corr, interview with Owen Strachan, The Inspiration Project, Australian Christian College, 20 December 2023. Transcript: https://www.acc.edu.au/podcast/owen-strachan/
5. Nancy R. Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2023). This paragraph summarises Pearcey’s recurring distinction between the older moral ideal of the “good man” and the status-driven cultural script of the “real man.”
6. Wayne Alcorn, “Tips for Raising Daughters Part 1 of 3,” 20 September 2023. The quoted advice appears under “Tip two.” Alcorn’s biography records that he served as ACC National President from 2009 to 2025. https://www.waynealcorn.com/blog-200923 and https://www.waynealcorn.com/
7. Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Intentional self-harm (suicide) deaths, 2024,” revised release, 7 May 2026. The ABS identifies 2,529 male deaths and states that males represented 76.5 per cent of suicide deaths in 2024; the figures are subject to the ABS revisions process. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/intentional-self-harm-suicide-deaths/latest-release ��
