Non-Toxic Masculinity

A Review of Zachary Wagner's Book

Last fall on my way to the Center for Pastor Theologians’ conference in Chicago, I asked the two fellow pastors I was traveling with, “what does it mean to be a man—like, in theological terms?” I explained that I felt like I could say a lot about the meaningfulness of being a woman. The virgin mother is a great place to start. “But,” I confessed, “I don’t know how to think about being a man.”

This is a real life pastoral issue for me. Women have been and continue to be a majority in the American church, and I’ve wondered what that means. Would having a robust understanding of what it means to be a man perhaps encourage masculine participation? Of course, the pitfalls are many. Evangelicalism has had a long history of coming up with half-baked answers like comparing Jesus to John Wayne. Or there’s the shallower, implicit claims of men’s breakfasts and prayer retreats that being a man means shooting guns at clay pigeons or shooting people on a tv screen. When real violence isn’t possible, Evangelicalism has advocated fake violence. It’s a parasitic violence.

Identifying masculinity with violence, which is to identify masculinity with exercising power to gratify, is what has led critics to coin the phrase, “toxic masculinity.”

Upon arriving at the conference, I was delighted to see a banner in the book sales area with Zachary Wagner’s name on a forthcoming book entitled, Non-Toxic Masculinity. Surely this would give me some food for thought. Wagner was also hosting a breakout session on the topic. I got to meet him. We follow each other on social media now, and I think we might be friends. Given the increasing success of my Substack, his publisher sent me a free copy in exchange for a review. You can buy it here.

I’ll briefly describe the contents of the book, highlighting its strengths, before offering some remarks on what I would have done differently.

The Argument

To the extent that Wagner has an argument it is this: Purity culture is a problem because it made false promises, wasn’t practical, and engendered dysfunctional sexuality in Christian marriages. The solution (at least as it relates to men) is a renewed vision of masculinity. As Christians, we need to declare that to be a man is in fact a good thing.¹ The path forward begins with a defense and endorsement of fatherhood, and ends with an eschatological vision of redeemed, renewed, and vindicated masculinity in the life of the world to come.

He defines purity culture historically as a conservative Christian response to the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s. He says that "purity culture is the theological assumptions, discipleship materials, events, and rhetorical strategies used to promote traditional Christian sexual ethics”in response to that historical situation.²

Two things to note about his definition:

First, Wagner is clear that the Christian sexual ethic is not the problem; the methods of promoting it are.

Second—and I think this is a problem—the definition is incredibly expansive. His definition would include Catholic resources. Wagner implies that he means all the materials employed in Evangelical America, but even with that guardrail, it’s sweeping.

Nevertheless, I think Wagner is right to identify purity culture as a sort of mis-fire of Christian teaching. Christians who have a problem with purity culture aren’t throwing out the Christian sexual ethic. They’re just saying that purity culture isn’t fixing any of the problems it claims to be fixing. I’m not sure if I agree with them entirely, but that seems to me to be a fair representation of purity culture critics.

Now, I say “to the extent that Wagner has an argument” because this book in my reading is less like an argument and more like a probing, unveiling, and critical appraisal of a broad movement. There’s a lot in this book that doesn’t fit neatly into the argument that I summarized above. That’s not a criticism. In fact, I think it’s one of its strengths. Wagner is extremely vulnerable about his own story, failures, and fears. He shares of his own struggles with pornography addiction and of the challenges his marriage endured when his wife’s traumatic sexual past bubbled to the surface. Shelby Wagner, his wife, writes the preface to the book endorsing his vulnerability even about her story. So this book comes from the grass roots. It comes from eyewitnesses of the dysfunction that can still afflict Christians despite their commitment to traditional sexuality.

Wagner’s probing and conversational approach to all the facets of purity culture read like reflections that began in a healthy counseling session.³ Wagner talks about his own experience with a therapist, and this book might be a good place to start for those who are trying to process their upbringing in purity culture. Wagner is a fellow counselee in the safety of a therapist’s office and a pastor’s confessional.

The Issues

Perhaps the biggest issue I take with Wagner’s work is that I think he might be placing more blame and responsibility on purity culture than it can actually bear. Wagner himself seems to concede this tacitly throughout. For example, in his chapter on the dehumanization of men he admits that the problem of toxic masculinity is not “in its essence” a Christian problem; “rather, it is a problem of human nature.”⁴ I agree. But the majority of the book seems to pin the responsibility on purity culture. Would it not be a better project to unmask and oppose the West’s dehumanization of men and women with its demonic take on sexuality? Let me expound on this with two examples.

First, Wagner relays a conversation he had with a non-Christian coworker in which this coworker accused Christians of being obsessed with sex—that is, as if obsession with sex is a peculiarly Christian hang up. Wagner seems to concede this point. While he says that he at first rebuffed the idea, he concludes that his coworker was onto something. However—and please hear me on this—the last I checked, churches were not in the business of making pornography. Pornography seems to me to be the self-evident, undeniable proof that it is the non-Christian West that is obsessed with sex. Not to mention the way that the LGBTQ+ ideology has partnered up with pornographic representations of human sexuality⁵ and has reduced all of human identity to sex.

Second, and related to the first, is Wagner’s repeated use of the word “dehumanization” to refer to what purity culture does to people. Clearly, dehumanizing things are said and done in the American church. But I think it’s important to remember that:

A) the best representations of purity culture (however misguided) believe that they are attempting to rehumanize their disciples, and

B) the porn industry is the prime dehumanizing force in our society as it relates to sexuality. The extent to which purity culture is dehumanizing is the extent to which it fails to break from the ideology of porn, not the other way around.

Where To?

So, did Wagner help me think more deeply about what it means to be a man? At the very least, I think he helped me to say out loud what I’ve always wanted to say, but was timid—namely that our take on masculinity should be grounded in fatherhood. Singles might cringe, but I stand with Wagner on this. Biblically speaking even those who don’t procreate are supposed to think of themselves as mothers and fathers. Didn’t the apostle Paul call himself a father to his church plants? Didn’t Joseph play the role of Jesus’s father? Not only that, but there’s been a long Christian history of calling people in the church who bore no children “father” and “mother.” Contemporary francophone African Pentecostals along with the Catholic Church carry on this tradition.

Whatever else we want to say about sex and gender, I think Wagner’s take necessitates the conclusion that masculinity and femininity are different and differently appraised at least to the extent that they play different roles in child rearing. There’s a lot to say on that front, with inherent philosophical and theological risks, and it would no doubt invite the vitriol of gender abolitionists. But I think that’s a project worth exploring.

If Wagner is going to consider another project, I would hope for the theme of fatherhood and its eschatological fulfillment to be investigated, defended, and proclaimed more deeply—on biblical, theological, and historical terms.

Your take on the successes and failures of the purity movement are welcome in the comments.

1. “It’s a wonderful thing to be a man.” p. 96.

2. p. 19

3. I’m grateful to Abby Anderson for helping me come up with this language.

4. p. 43

5. https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/photos/yesterdays-gay-pride-parade-in-pictures