“Ultimate vulnerability. That’s manly.” — Cameron Conaway, Cage Fighter
“It takes more courage to reveal insecurities than to hide them, more strength to relate to people than to dominate them, more ‘manhood’ to abide by thought-out principles rather than blind reflex. Toughness is in the soul and spirit, not in muscles and an immature mind.” — Alex Karras, athlete, actor and author
“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” — Ephesians 5:25
“Men, you’ll never be a good groom to your wife unless you’re first a good bride to Jesus.” — Timothy Keller
Redefining Manhood
In a world that often defines manhood by external achievements or rigid societal expectations, the true calling of men can feel elusive. This article explores the profound question of what it truly means to be made in God’s image, not just as a reflection of power or dominance, but as an invitation to engage in vulnerability, responsibility, and spiritual authenticity. It calls men to wrestle with their identity, seeking to redefine roles and purpose not from the world’s standards, but through the deep well of divine calling.
Here, the narrative unfolds around the idea that being made in God’s image goes beyond biological design and speaks to the heart of relational and spiritual connection. Men are invited to embrace their roles as stewards of both creation and relationship, one that is not defined by dominance but by humble strength, nurturing, and faithful leadership.
A Woman’s Perspective on Men
Finn came to see me for two reasons. First, he had witnessed a horrific, traumatic suicide and was mandated by his workplace to attend therapy. Second, his wife was at her wit’s end. Whenever conflict arose, Finn would shut down, sometimes literally, by falling asleep. She felt unheard, frustrated, and desperate for change. Finally, she issued an ultimatum: if things didn’t improve by year’s end, she would consider leaving.
From the moment Finn arrived, he was agitated. As we climbed the stairs to my office, he complained about the parking, the building, and the inconvenience, anything and everything in sight. The tension followed us into the room. I gently offered a contact statement to break through the surface resistance and speak to what might lie beneath: “I know you had to come here. But I’m wondering, what would make someone I’ve never met greet me with such anger? I’m guessing there’s a lot of pain under there, and I’d be honoured to listen whenever you’re ready.”
The shift was immediate. His anger softened, and he opened up about the relentless dreams and flashbacks that haunted him since the trauma. It reminded me again: anger is often just the front layer. Beneath it lies what truly needs to be heard.
As a female clinical counsellor, my task was more than helping Finn process trauma or navigate his strained marriage. I was also inviting him into self-reflection, to examine his inner world rather than blame his wife. And to do that well, I had to suspend my own experiences, assumptions, and biases.
Many men come to therapy expecting direct guidance, clear answers to problems they can’t quite name. But when those answers come from a woman, it can trigger defensiveness, as if they’re being criticised or pressured to change who they are. That dynamic means I must be intentional in how I engage. It also requires honest self-examination:
What assumptions do I carry about how men think, feel, or what they need?
- Am I imposing solutions rather than discovering them together?
- How comfortable am I in these conversations?
- What barriers might I unknowingly contribute?
- And how can I address them?
These aren’t theoretical questions. They shape how I enter the room, how I listen, and how I create space for growth.
I’ve learned to anticipate the subtle ways men mask vulnerability. Emotions are often buried beneath sarcasm, distancing, rationalising, minimising, or the classic “I’m fine.” Sometimes the defence is so well-crafted, it almost convinces me. But I’ve also learned that these strategies often hide deep fears, of failing, of not being enough, of losing connection.
With Finn, it was as if he had already decided I would be ineffective simply because I was a woman. He subtly reinforced that dynamic through sarcasm and detachment. Instead of reacting, I named it gently, without shaming him. I used stories from other men to foster connection: “One man told me this felt like… and this approach helped him. How does that land for you?”
I sought to build a non-competitive alliance with Finn, earning the right to enter his world on his terms. I let him begin with what he believed was the problem, not what I thought he should be addressing. My goal wasn’t to correct or instruct but to help him clarify his thoughts, affirm his worth, and join with his reasoning rather than dismissing it.
He wanted solutions, and that’s valid. The desire to “fix” a problem is, in itself, a strength. So, I acknowledged his efforts and affirmed his intentions. Above all, he wanted to be understood, not as a man who had failed, but as one who was trying.
I adapted to his language and metaphors, whether from sports, computers, finance, or construction. Many men respond best to logic, flowcharts, or visual models. To help Finn move from his head to his heart, I stayed curious about his worldview: how he related, how he handled conflict, and what efforts he’d already made. He didn’t want abstract theory. He wanted something that made sense.
So, I listened. I honoured the silences. I didn’t rush to fill the space, allowing him time to think and find his words. This respect for his pace showed trust in his capacity to grow. And when the moment came, I asked: “What would be most helpful for you right now? How can I support you?” If what he needed was to repair the loss of connection with his wife, I was ready to walk that journey with him. But therapy wasn’t about fixing Finn. It was about offering him a space where he could be fully heard, where his defences could soften, and he could begin to make sense of the pain beneath it all. Only then could we turn to his role in his relationship and household with clarity and care.
A Narrow Definition of Masculinity
The biblical mandate to “love your neighbour as yourself” implies that we must first know and accept ourselves before we can offer real love to another. But for many Christian men, the journey of self-understanding is tangled in church teachings on gender. From a young age, boys are often told what they must become, strong leaders, protectors, providers, but rarely are they invited into a process of honest discovery, vulnerability, or mutuality. This is especially true in conservative church contexts. The focus on doing rather than becoming can unintentionally overlook men’s emotional and spiritual development, leaving little room for weakness, emotional struggle, or soul-searching.
There are significantly more books on Christian womanhood, especially within evangelical and complementarian circles, than on Christian manhood. Several factors likely contribute to this imbalance:
- Target Audience and Market Demand: Christian publishers often cater to women, who are more likely to buy and read books on faith, relationships, and personal growth.
- Church Culture and Discipleship Emphasis: Many churches have well-developed women’s ministries that focus on biblical womanhood, while men’s ministries often prioritise leadership, accountability, and practical discipleship over identity-focused exploration.
- Historical Focus on Women’s Roles: Complementarian teaching has traditionally emphasised defining biblical womanhood, resulting in a larger body of literature aimed at shaping women’s roles as wives, mothers, and daughters of God.
By contrast, literature aimed at men often centres on external responsibilities rather than inner transformation. While John Piper and Mark Driscoll are prominent voices in the complementarian tradition, other Christian leaders offer alternative or blended perspectives. These include Charles Stanley, Timothy Witmer, Steve Biddulph, Matt and Sarah Brown, and John Eldredge, many of whom place greater emphasis on relational wholeness, emotional integrity, and mutuality in marriage.
As I reflected on these theological influences, I realised how easily both men and women can be shaped by narrow role expectations rather than by the transforming work of the Spirit. I found myself wondering: How can we invite men to grow into the fullness of their identity in Christ, not just as leaders, but as deeply loved sons, brothers, and image-bearers?
John Piper
One of the most influential voices in contemporary complementarian theology is John Piper. He envisions a man’s role in the home as one of loving leadership, provision, and spiritual responsibility. Drawing on Ephesians 5:25, Piper urges husbands to lead with Christlike, sacrificial love, guiding their families not with dominance or control, but with servant-hearted care for their spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being. In Piper’s (2008) view, a faithful husband will:
- Lead spiritually, setting the tone for prayer, Scripture, and worship in the home
- Provide materially for his family, regardless of whether his wife also contributes financially
- Protect his family from physical and spiritual harm
- Encourage his wife’s gifts while affirming distinct roles in marriage
Piper’s understanding of headship is deeply rooted in a theological conviction that God created men and women with different yet complementary roles. His teaching consistently emphasises that male leadership must be marked by humility, responsibility, and sacrificial love, not authoritarianism or passivity.
Strengths of Piper’s Approach
Despite the controversy surrounding complementarianism, Piper’s teaching has been appreciated even by those who do not fully agree with his conclusions. Some of the notable strengths of his framework include:
- Servant Leadership: Piper’s consistent emphasis on Christlike headship as self-giving love challenges cultural and religious models of male dominance. His call for men to lead with compassion rather than control has helped some men step into family roles with greater intentionality and care.
- High View of Marriage and Family: In a time when marriage is often devalued, Piper champions the spiritual and relational significance of home life. His insistence that men take responsibility has awakened some to the vital role they play as husbands and fathers.
- Thoughtful Engagement with Culture: Piper does not simply dismiss contemporary gender discussions but tries to address them biblically. His engagement with issues like women in the workforce or shifting gender roles shows a desire to wrestle with complexity rather than issue simplistic responses.
- Spiritual Depth: Piper’s broader theological vision, centred on delight in God and the pursuit of holiness, grounds his views on gender in something much larger than cultural tradition. His passion for God’s glory and biblical fidelity resonates with many seeking spiritual depth.
- Rejection of Misogyny: While critics find his restrictions on women’s roles too limiting, Piper clearly rejects hyper-patriarchal or misogynistic attitudes. He affirms the value and gifting of women within marriage and ministry, albeit within what he sees as God-ordained boundaries.
Critiques of Piper’s Approach
Yet his views are not without serious critique, both theologically and pastorally:
- Rigid Role Expectations: Piper’s framework can be experienced as too prescriptive, particularly for couples whose personalities, callings, or life circumstances don’t fit traditional moulds. It risks elevating cultural norms to biblical mandates.
- Vulnerability to Abuse or Passivity: While Piper cautions against authoritarianism, some argue his teachings can inadvertently enable controlling behaviour or discourage women from speaking up in harmful situations. Others note that some men feel burdened or inadequate under the pressure to always lead.
- Neglect of Mutuality: Egalitarian scholars point to Ephesians 5:21’s call to mutual submission as foundational to Christian marriage. They argue that Piper’s model doesn’t fully honour the biblical vision of shared partnership and often downplays women’s leadership capacities.
- Theological Assumptions: Critics question whether Piper’s claims, for instance, that men should feel an innate sense of responsibility for leadership, are more cultural than scriptural. Some suggest that his theology stretches biblical texts beyond their original intent.
- Incompatibility with Contemporary Realities: In today’s diverse family contexts, where women may lead spiritually, earn more, or men may be primary caregivers, Piper’s model can feel out of step. For many, his framework raises more questions than it answers.
Holding Tension: Identity Beyond Roles
As I explored Piper’s writings alongside my clinical and pastoral work, I saw how easy it is for well-meaning theology to turn into pressure. When Christian men are told they must lead but not struggle, provide but not doubt, initiate but never falter, they can become emotionally isolated, spiritually weary, or even resentful. And when women are told to submit without question, or to silence their gifts in service of a fixed ideal, the damage can run deep.
Yet I also hear the heart behind Piper’s teaching, a longing for men to rise with courage, to serve with love, to become who God has called them to be. The question is not whether we should call men to responsibility, but whether we can do so in a way that also invites emotional honesty, shared partnership, and spiritual transformation. What if we framed Christian manhood not simply in terms of leadership, but in terms of belovedness? What if the primary call was not to perform a role, but to be rooted in the identity of a son, redeemed, chosen, secure? That, I believe, is where change begins.
Mark Driscol
⚠️ Content Warning
This section includes explicit, offensive, and misogynistic language quoted directly from Mark Driscoll’s writings and sermons. These views may be distressing, especially to survivors of spiritual abuse, women, or those harmed by hyper-masculine church cultures. The language is included for critical analysis and is not endorsed by the author.
As a teenager, my son rejected the idea of modelling his manhood on Jesus, whom he viewed as weak and insubstantial. In contrast, Mark Driscoll sought to reclaim a version of Jesus that countered this perception, not “meek and mild,” but “mean and wild.” Driscoll reacted strongly against the notion of a passive Christ, instead presenting a hyper-masculine warrior figure who thrived on confrontation. While it’s true that Jesus demonstrated strength, he overturned tables, rebuked hypocrisy, and walked with unshakable authority, he was never mean. Strength without gentleness isn’t Christlike. It’s domineering. A bold voice for complementarianism, Driscoll drew massive crowds of young men to Mars Hill Church, a Seattle-based megachurch that became one of the most influential in America during the early 2000s.
Listening to The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill in Christianity Today, hosted by Mike Cosper (2021), I felt both saddened and appalled. Saddened because the podcast portrays Mars Hill as both “an amazing, life-transforming work of God” and “a dangerous, abusive environment.” Appalled because the deeper issues it exposed, money, power, celebrity, and spiritual manipulation, are not unique to Driscoll. They are temptations that can distort any ministry, including our own. The podcast resonated with me because it revealed how easily the seductive nature of leadership can drift into spiritual abuse.
Driscoll’s rhetoric on manhood was often extreme. He once declared that America had become a “pussified nation”, a crass way of shaming men who didn’t fit his mould of assertiveness and dominance. He blamed Adam, the “first of the pussified nation,” for listening to his wife, suggesting that the Fall was a result of failed male leadership. In this worldview, any man who listens to women, shows sensitivity, or engages in emotional vulnerability is feminized, weak, and spiritually compromised.
Rather than offer a point-by-point critique, I believe it’s more powerful to let Driscoll’s own words speak. The following excerpts are taken from his public statements and writings:
“We live in a completely pussified nation… all trying to keep their pee pee behind their zipper and do just like their momma told them and be good women.”
“The feminists continue their rant that it’s all our fault… And the more we do, the more hell looks like a good place because at least a man is in charge.”
“You quasi-homo thinking men have screwed the whole thing up… Do not lose sight of the issue. At some point, you will all learn that I don’t give a crap about how you ‘feel.’ That is the result of feminism, psychology, and atheism…”
To a woman who questioned him online, Driscoll replied:
“I speak harshly because I speak to men. A woman might not understand that. I also do not answer to women… If you are the pastor [and female], quit your job and repent.”
His views on sex and marriage were similarly concerning:
“Tell your husband… you’re convicted of a terrible sin in your life. Then you need to drop his trousers and serve your husband.”
“A wife who lets herself go… may not be helping [her husband]” (in resisting sexual temptation).
“Masturbation can be a form of homosexuality… particularly if [a man] is watching himself in a mirror.”
Driscoll coined many terms that reinforced his brand of spiritual masculinity:
- A “male lesbian” was any man who acted like a woman.
- A “rock free” was a man who attended a church with a woman pastor.
- A “half a man” believed marriage should be 50/50.
- A “homoerotic huddle” described men’s groups that encouraged vulnerability or affection.
These were more than crude jokes, they became formative for many men who looked to Driscoll for discipleship, leadership, and identity.
Angry Prophet Days
To his credit, Driscoll later referred to these years as his “angry prophet days,” claiming a shift toward a fatherlier leadership style. But by then, much harm had already been done. His increasingly hierarchical, male-dominated vision of Christianity alienated many, particularly women, survivors of abuse, and men who didn’t conform to his rigid definitions of masculinity.
Driscoll’s Legacy
Is Driscoll’s portrayal of biblical manhood something men should model? His legacy is tangled. In 2013, he was accused of plagiarism in Real Marriage, the book he co-authored with his wife. Further investigation exposed multiple instances of academic dishonesty. A lawsuit followed, alleging misuse of church funds. In 2014, twenty-one former elders released a report calling for his repentance and public apology. Mars Hill Church closed the following year.
Yet Driscoll was far from finished. He retained a large online following, moved to Scottsdale, Arizona, and launched a new church in 2016. Former Mars Hill elders continue to urge him to seek reconciliation. One former elder described gathering with other affected leaders as “sitting with a bunch of guys who came back from Vietnam with PTSD… I’ve never been in a room with that many men who couldn’t speak without weeping.” Driscoll himself once said: “There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus. By God’s grace, it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done. Either get on the bus or you get run over by the bus.” But I find myself asking: Does a biblical man leave a mountain of bodies in his wake?
What was it that drew so many, especially young men, to Driscoll’s brand of faith? Perhaps it was a longing for clarity in an age of confusion, for purpose amid passivity, for belonging in a fractured world. But when the image of Christ is recast into the mould of dominance and aggression, we trade transformation for control. We may gain a crowd, but we lose the Cross.
I believe that true biblical manhood is not about asserting power, it’s about becoming like Jesus, who laid down his life in love. It’s not forged through bravado or exclusion, but through humility, surrender, and the Spirit’s inner work. The question isn’t just whether Driscoll misused his influence. It’s whether we, the Church, are willing to examine the soil that allowed it to grow, and whether we will choose a different path.
Charles Stanley
In Man of God: Leading Your Family by Allowing God to Lead You, Dr. Charles Stanley (2013) presents a compelling vision of leadership, one that challenges men to centre their lives on God in order to lead their families effectively. His central message, that a man cannot lead his family well unless he is first submitted to God, serves as both a foundation and a guiding principle for men who seek to grow spiritually and step into their God-given roles as leaders. Stanley offers practical insights for men to cultivate their spiritual lives, which then informs their leadership at home.
Strengths of Charles Stanley’s Approach
- God-Cantered Leadership
Stanley’s focus on God as the ultimate authority in a man’s life is essential. It reminds men that leadership is not self-made, but God-given. Through prayer, personal growth, and dependence on God, Stanley emphasizes the importance of wisdom, humility, and a reliance on God’s strength rather than one’s own. This shift from self-reliance to God-reliance fosters a leadership style grounded in grace and guidance rather than power and control. - Emphasis on Servanthood
One of the most refreshing aspects of Stanley’s message is his definition of leadership, not as authoritarian dominance but as Christ-like servanthood. He encourages men to model their leadership on Jesus’ example, which focuses on love, sacrifice, and guidance rather than control. In a world where masculinity is often measured by dominance and assertiveness, Stanley’s call to servant leadership is an important corrective and an invitation to true strength, strength rooted in love, humility, and sacrifice. - Practical Application
Stanley’s book is accessible, offering actionable insights for men navigating their roles as husbands, fathers, and spiritual leaders. He moves beyond abstract theological concepts and gives concrete guidance on issues like marriage, parenting, and work-life balance. This makes his approach valuable for men at various stages of life, as it offers tangible steps for living out one’s faith within the framework of family life. - Encouragement of Emotional and Spiritual Integrity
Stanley’s inclusion of emotional integrity in leadership is an important aspect often missing in discussions of biblical manhood. He encourages men to cultivate emotional vulnerability, repentance, and honesty within marriage, pointing out that a man’s character is just as important as his leadership role. This focus on internal integrity challenges the often surface-level views of masculinity that fail to engage the deeper emotional and spiritual needs of men and their families.
Critiques of Charles Stanley’s Approach
- Limited Engagement with Cultural Challenges
While Stanley offers solid biblical teaching, his approach doesn’t fully engage with the modern complexities men face today. Issues like evolving gender roles, the impact of feminism, and dual-career marriages are not deeply explored. His approach leans heavily on a more traditional family structure, which may feel disconnected from the realities of many readers. A broader exploration of how biblical leadership translates into diverse family dynamics would make the book more relatable to a wider audience. - Potentially Idealized View of Leadership
Stanley’s depiction of biblical manhood is aspirational, and while it’s an inspiring vision, some men may find it challenging to apply in the messiness of real life. The principles Stanley outlines are strong, but the book at times lacks the nuance needed to address the struggles of failure, doubt, and broken family dynamics. A deeper exploration of how men can lead when faced with personal trials or failures would add a level of realism and grace to the book. - Lack of Emphasis on Partnership in Marriage
Though Stanley emphasizes the role of the husband as the spiritual leader of the home, his focus on the man’s responsibility somewhat eclipses the mutual nature of marriage. While the husband is indeed called to lead, the biblical model also calls for partnership, cooperation, and shared responsibilities in marriage. A deeper emphasis on the ways husbands and wives co-labour in leadership would provide a more comprehensive understanding of family dynamics. - Avoidance of Conversations on Power and Abuse
While Stanley rightly frames leadership as servanthood, there is an unfortunate absence of discussion regarding the potential for authority to be misused. The ongoing conversations in the Church about spiritual abuse, toxic authority, and unhealthy power dynamics are significant and should not be ignored. A clear, direct discussion on how leadership can be distorted, along with a warning against authoritarianism and manipulation, would add depth to Stanley’s message and help guard against misuse of authority within Christian homes.
Charles Stanley’s book is undoubtedly a strong resource for men looking to lead their families with humility, wisdom, and spiritual depth. His emphasis on God-cantered leadership, servant-hearted authority, and emotional integrity is timely and needed in a world where the models of masculinity often lean toward domination and self-reliance.
However, to fully meet the challenges of today’s diverse and complex family structures, Stanley’s approach could benefit from a deeper exploration of modern challenges, a greater focus on the partnership within marriage, and a clearer stance on the dangers of abusive power. Ultimately, Man of God offers a powerful vision for spiritual leadership, but one that could be enhanced with a broader, more nuanced conversation around authority, partnership, and real-life struggles.
Timothy Whitmer
Timothy Z. Witmer’s (2012) The Shepherd Leader at Home applies the biblical metaphor of shepherding to a man’s role in leading his family, drawing from pastoral theology to craft a vision of leadership that is deeply rooted in Scripture. The book presents a framework built on four core shepherding responsibilities: knowing, feeding, leading, and protecting. While the book provides practical, biblical insights for men seeking to lead their families, it also has areas that could benefit from deeper exploration.
Strengths of Timothy Witmer’s Approach
- Biblical and Christ-Cantered Approach
Witmer anchors his teaching in the example of Christ, particularly His role as the Good Shepherd (John 10), which serves as the foundation for his vision of biblical manhood. This Christ-cantered framework is essential, as it challenges men to emulate Jesus’ sacrificial leadership rather than a model rooted in dominance or authority. This is an important correction to the often-skewed understandings of masculinity prevalent in society. - Practical and Actionable Advice
One of the most valuable aspects of Witmer’s book is the practical, step-by-step advice he offers. From leading family devotions to fostering open communication, Witmer equips men with concrete actions to take in order to shepherd their families spiritually, emotionally, and practically. His approach makes the idea of leadership feel tangible and accessible, particularly for those who might feel uncertain about how to begin leading their families in a Christ-honouring way. - Holistic View of Leadership
Witmer provides a holistic understanding of leadership, moving beyond the traditional “provider and protector” roles to include emotional presence, spiritual guidance, and relational depth. This expanded vision encourages men to engage fully with their families, not just by providing financially, but by actively knowing their spouses and children, feeding them spiritually, and leading them with wisdom. This more relational and comprehensive view of leadership is refreshing and much needed in today’s world. - Challenges Cultural Notions of Leadership
Witmer critiques the cultural view of leadership, which often equates it with authority, control, and emotional detachment. Instead, he reframes leadership as service, love, and responsibility. His emphasis on knowing and understanding one’s family members, being emotionally present rather than distant, provides a counter-narrative to cultural norms that equate masculinity with emotional hardness and detachment. - Strong Marriage and Parenting Guidance
Witmer offers solid, practical guidance for both marriage and parenting. He urges men to cultivate an understanding relationship with their wives and to take an active role in discipling and guiding their children. His call for men to be spiritually intentional in their families, to lead devotions and engage in intentional discipleship, is an essential and timely message for Christian families today.
Critiques of Timothy Witmer’s Approach
- Limited Discussion on Shared Leadership in Marriage
While Witmer’s book rightly emphasizes sacrificial leadership, it does so within a complementarian framework that assumes the husband as the primary spiritual leader. This perspective may overlook the ways in which husbands and wives co-lead in marriage, especially when considering 1 Peter 3:7, which highlights the equal standing of husbands and wives as co-heirs. A deeper exploration of how spouses work together as partners in leadership would provide a more balanced view of marriage. - Assumes a Traditional Family Structure
The book largely assumes a nuclear family structure with an actively present father. While this is the ideal, the reality for many families is different, whether due to single parenthood, blended families, or the wife being the primary breadwinner. The book would be strengthened by addressing how its principles apply in these varied family dynamics, helping men in non-traditional family structures engage with the material in a more inclusive way. - Potentially Overburdening for Struggling Men
While the call to shepherd one’s family is noble and biblical, for men who are struggling with personal wounds, faith challenges, or feelings of inadequacy, this book may feel overwhelming. The demands to lead spiritually and emotionally, especially if a man is already wrestling with his own challenges, could create guilt or feelings of failure. Incorporating more grace, support, and the importance of community would help balance the call to leadership with the reality that growth is often slow and imperfect. - Lack of Engagement with Power Dynamics and Abuse
Though Witmer rejects an authoritarian view of leadership, the book does not sufficiently address how power can be misused, particularly within complementarian structures. Given the ongoing discussions within the Church regarding spiritual abuse and unhealthy authority dynamics, a clearer warning against the distortion of leadership would be helpful. Additionally, offering guidance on how to lead with humility, vulnerability, and accountability could help guard against abusive expressions of authority.
The Shepherd Leader at Home is a valuable resource for men who are seeking to lead their families with love, humility, and biblical wisdom. Witmer’s theological foundation is strong, and his practical advice is rooted in Christ-like leadership. However, the book could be more inclusive by addressing shared leadership in marriage, exploring how the principles apply to diverse family structures, and offering more grace for men who may feel inadequate in their roles. A more robust discussion of power dynamics and the potential for abuse would also add depth and clarity to his message. Overall, Witmer offers a helpful framework for men seeking to lead their families, but with room for further development in some key areas.
Steve Biddulph
In recent years, conversations about masculinity have taken on renewed urgency, with voices emerging from both theological and psychological fields to reimagine what it means to be a man. Steve Biddulph’s (2019) The New Manhood offers a distinct vision in emotional healing and social reform. Biddulph seeks to recover a vision of manhood marked by responsibility, relational depth, and inner transformation.
Strengths of Steve Biddulph’s Approach
- Emotionally Honest and Healing-Cantered
Biddulph’s emphasis on grief as a gateway to healing is powerful and rare in conversations about masculinity. His recognition that much male anger is actually unresolved sorrow offers a compassionate and psychologically astute path toward healing and transformation. - Challenges Toxic Masculinity without Shame
Rather than shaming men for their struggles or past behaviour, Biddulph validates their pain and invites them to grow. He avoids the extremes of both demonizing men and excusing harmful behaviour, offering a balanced and redemptive vision of manhood. - Focus on Relational Fathering and Mentorship
His insistence that boys need strong, nurturing relationships with fathers and male mentors challenges the cultural norm of male emotional detachment. He recognizes the intergenerational impact of fatherlessness and emotional neglect, and offers a corrective rooted in connection and community. - Invitational Rather than Prescriptive
The metaphor of the book as a signpost invites men to a journey rather than imposing rigid definitions. This openness may be particularly helpful for men who have felt boxed in by more prescriptive models of masculinity.
Critiques of Steve Biddulph’s Approach
- Limited Integration of Spiritual Dimensions
While Biddulph speaks of love and spirit, his work is largely psychological and sociological. For Christian readers or those seeking a deeper theological grounding, his framework may feel incomplete. Integrating a more explicitly spiritual or theological understanding of manhood could enrich the message. - May Overemphasize Emotionality as the Key to Growth
While emotional healing is essential, not all men will resonate with the strong focus on grief and emotional expression. Some may need other entry points, such as service, action, or spiritual disciplines, to access and process their inner world. - Assumes a Certain Cultural Context
Biddulph writes largely from an Australian, Western perspective, and some of his insights may not translate neatly into more collective or patriarchal cultures. A more nuanced exploration of how masculinity is shaped across diverse cultural settings would increase the global relevance of his work. - Does Not Fully Address Structural Challenges
Biddulph argues that a kinder world will make men kinder, but he gives less attention to systemic injustices that also need to be addressed—such as poverty, racism, or inequity in caregiving roles. Greater engagement with these wider social structures would deepen his vision of reform.
Steve Biddulph’s legacy lies in his courage to humanise masculinity. Rather than reacting defensively to critiques of male behaviour, he invites men to look inward, to grieve, to soften, to grow. His insistence that men need connection, emotional literacy, and healing has opened doors for thousands to break free from the limitations of stoic, performative manhood. While not all will agree with his every proposition, Biddulph’s enduring contribution is his compassionate call to a kinder, more wholehearted masculinity, one that serves not only men themselves, but the families and communities they are part of.
Matt and Sarah Brown – Man Up
In 2016, the three-part documentary Man Up aired as both a personal journey and a national wake-up call. Hosted by Triple M radio personality Gus Worland and funded by the Movember Foundation, the series was sparked by the suicide of Worland’s best friend Angus and his growing concern for his teenage son. It tackled a confronting reality: suicide is the leading cause of death for Australian men aged 15-44. “Between being a little kid to being 13 or 14, you’re called all sorts of names, and it’s such a negative for a boy to be crying,” Worland reflects. “We need to change that.” Man Up questions the cultural script that equates masculinity with emotional suppression and stoicism and instead invites men to open up without shame.
Breaking the Stereotype
Consumer psychologist Adam Ferrier, a consultant for the project, highlighted a central dilemma: “It’s really hard to appeal to a stereotype with a new message and then break that stereotype apart… people don’t like change.” Can a documentary really challenge entrenched beliefs about what it means to be a man?
One of the most powerful moments in the series comes in Episode 2, featuring Tom Harkin, a youth facilitator and executive coach. At the Reach Foundation, Harkin developed programs that deconstruct masculinity, not through blame or shame, but by encouraging self-reflection. In one poignant scene, 15-year-old boys playfully paint each other’s fingernails. When asked about it, they quickly dismiss it as a “girl thing.” Harkin gently challenges, “Who told you it’s only for girls?” That simple question becomes a portal to deeper conversations about identity, emotion, and inherited beliefs.
Harkin’s work invites boys and men to reimagine masculinity in a way that feels authentic rather than performative. As he puts it, it’s about “allowing boys and men alike to experience another way to be male… a version of manhood that will give them the freedom to live in a more effective and healthier way.” His vision feels especially urgent in a culture where too many men suffer in silence, burdened by expectations that leave no room for vulnerability or connection.
Healing Through Responsibility
Samoan-born New Zealander Taimalelagi Mataio Faafetai (Matt) Brown and his wife, Māori writer and producer Sarah Brown (Ngāpuhi/Te Rarawa), offer a powerful counter-narrative to violence and silence. Together, they are committed to creating violence-free communities, an urgent mission in a country where one in three women has experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence, and more than half report psychological or financial abuse. For men, the rate is one in eight. The Browns believe that healing and responsibility must go hand in hand if cycles of harm are to be broken.
She Is Not Your Rehab
Matt’s memoir, She Is Not Your Rehab: One Man’s Journey to Healing and the Global Anti-Violence Movement He Inspired (2021), is a raw and courageous call to men to take ownership of their healing. He writes not as an expert above others, but as a wounded healer, someone who has done the hard work of facing his pain rather than inflicting it. The book opens with this invitation:
“At My Fathers Barbers, Mataio (Matt) Faafetai Malietoa Brown offers men a haircut with a difference: a safe space to be seen and heard without judgment. From his barbershop chair, Matt has inspired a new generation of New Zealand men to break free from the cycle of abuse, and those men have in turn inspired him and his wife, Sarah, to create the global anti-violence movement, She Is Not Your Rehab.”
The Browns challenge the societal norms that link masculinity with power and control. But rather than demanding men adopt a foreign or inauthentic model of manhood, they create space for men to rediscover strength through softness, responsibility, and truth. Healing, they insist, is not a weakness, it’s the bravest thing a man can do.
John Eldredge
John Eldredge’s (2001) Wild at Heart struck a chord with many men searching for a deeper, more vibrant expression of their masculinity within a Christian framework. His call for men to reclaim their God-given strength, embrace adventure, and lead courageously resonates with those who feel constrained by passivity or emotional disconnection. At its core, the book champions a man’s pursuit of purpose and boldness while inviting him to confront his wounds and insecurities.
I remember the first time my husband read Wild at Heart. He was moved by the call to live with courage and authenticity, yet there were parts that didn’t quite fit. He wasn’t the cowboy or warrior archetype Eldredge described. He was a thinker, a gentle leader, a man who’d faithfully cared for his family and served quietly in ministry. Still, the book gave us a shared language to talk about his longings, for purpose, for affirmation, and for emotional honesty.
It was around that time we found ourselves in a season of disconnection. We’d returned from overseas work, emotionally exhausted. I was worn down, my nervous system frayed from absorbing others’ trauma. He, too, had carried burdens quietly, trying to hold things together. One afternoon, a small misunderstanding spiralled into a sharp exchange. I retreated emotionally. He stood there, confused and shut down. Later, in a quiet conversation on the couch, he said, “Sometimes I don’t know how to be the man you need. I feel like I’m failing.” That moment cracked something open. Beneath our roles and responsibilities were two people longing to be seen, understood, and loved without judgment.
Reading Eldredge’s call to face fears and attending his conferences inspired us. It was about confronting internal battles like shame and fear of failure. Our marriage changed when we identified these challenges and embraced our vulnerability.
Strengths of Eldredge’s Approach
- Engaging with wives as God intended: Eldredge invites men to relational depth, encouraging them to love with intentionality, intimacy, and honour.
- Embracing God-given strength: Rather than seeing strength as dominance, Eldredge reframes it as a gift to be used in service and protection.
- Boldness and courage: He encourages men to reject passive, risk-averse living and to step into responsibility and vision.
- Pursuing dreams: He legitimizes a man’s deep longings, connecting them to purpose and calling.
- Honesty about fears and insecurities: Eldredge values emotional courage, naming wounds rather than hiding behind bravado.
- Facing fears for genuine strength: Growth, he argues, comes not by avoiding pain but by engaging it honestly, in relationship with God.
Critiques of Eldredge’s Approach
- Overly Romanticised Masculinity
Eldredge often equates masculinity with adventure, battle, and heroism, shaped more by myth and cultural archetypes than biblical nuance. While this appeals to some, others, like my husband, may feel alienated if their strength looks quieter, more relational, or less action oriented. - Weak Biblical Exegesis
The book leans heavily on evocative storytelling but offers limited theological depth. Biblical figures are often used illustratively (e.g., David as warrior), sometimes detaching them from their broader scriptural context. A deeper theological grounding would enrich the book’s message. - One-Dimensional View of Christ
Eldredge presents Jesus as wild-hearted and fierce, an image that speaks to strength but neglects Christ’s gentleness, suffering, and servanthood. The Jesus who weeps, who touches lepers, who washes feet is equally masculine. A fuller portrait would give men permission to embrace compassion as strength. - Risk of Misapplication in Relationships
Some readers interpret Eldredge’s emphasis on male purpose as justification for relational disengagement. I’ve heard stories of men withdrawing into hobbies or ministries while wives carry emotional and relational labour alone. Without mutuality and accountability, the vision of adventure can become self-serving. - Lack of Nuance in Personality and Calling
By suggesting that real men long for adventure, the book risks marginalizing those whose masculinity is expressed in care, creativity, or contemplation. Many godly men thrive outside the wilderness narrative. Their strength is no less valuable. - Cultural and Psychological Generalisations
Eldredge’s gender descriptions often reflect traditional Western roles, men as initiators, women as responders. These patterns exist, but they are not universal. In multicultural or trauma-impacted settings, these roles can look very different. A more flexible and inclusive framework would better serve diverse readers.
Wild at Heart gave us language to name both desire and pain. It stirred a longing in my husband to live more courageously, not by climbing mountains, but by opening his heart, owning his story, and showing up emotionally. For me, it offered insight into how to affirm his strength without expecting him to be someone he’s not. While the book’s limitations require careful reflection, its invitation to authenticity, healing, and restored masculine identity is one that many couples, like us, have found life-giving when read with discernment and grace.
Rethinking Masculinity
What would a model of masculinity look like that men could genuinely be proud of? One that isn’t tied to dominance or emotional suppression, but also doesn’t deny what makes men uniquely male? Most of the authors, speakers, and pastors referenced here (with the exception of Mark Driscoll) call for a masculinity that is strong but not controlling, vulnerable but not weak, protective but not oppressive, one that empowers men to lead, love, and live fully.
Helping Men Face Their Feelings
For Finn, feeling his emotions fully was terrifying. He had spent most of his life numbing, denying, or avoiding them. He feared their intensity, that once he let them surface, they’d never stop. Worse, he was afraid his emotions might overwhelm him to the point of harming someone else. But unexpressed feelings don’t vanish; they grow. I reassured him gently, “You can tolerate your emotions. When you allow yourself to feel them, the intensity often shifts, sometimes it increases at first, especially if you’ve repressed them, but over time it lessens. You won’t stay stuck in them forever. And once you let yourself feel, you can finally deal with what’s behind the emotion. I know it feels unfamiliar and scary, but you’ll only discover the truth by walking through it.”
Connecting Feelings to Relationships
From there, I invited him to explore the emotions tied to his key relationships, his wife, children, father, peers, and colleagues. I listened for what he longed to change and gently asked:
· “When have you felt this before?”
· “What message did you take from that experience?”
· “What caused you to disconnect from your emotions?”
Learning to experience and express emotions takes time. But the goal is simple and profound: helping Finn become fully present in his relationships and capable of genuine love.
Grief: The Bridge to Healing
What Finn needed most was someone who could hold space for his grief, someone who wouldn’t rush him through it or diminish it but witness it. Grief is the bridge to healing. It’s not just about losing people; it’s also about the loss of love, hope, meaning, direction, or dreams.
As a child, one of Finn’s earliest and deepest wounds was the unbearable realisation that he could not make himself psychologically safe. The things he longed for most, to be wanted, welcomed, liked, loved, and seen as special, were beyond his control. These unmet needs, rooted in attachment pain, resurfaced in adulthood, especially in his marriage. Healing meant facing these wounds, allowing grief to do its work, and embracing the connection he’d always longed for.
But grief, when overwhelming, can be destabilising. Too many tears too soon can drown a man in despair. Finn needed someone to help him regulate the flow, to hold him steady. Because when grief is blocked, growth is also blocked. And when pain is suppressed, it often leads to a deeper futility: “I cannot undo the past. I cannot change what was done. And I cannot escape the ultimate futility – death” (Neufeld & Maté, 2010).
Stuck Tears
It takes real strength to cry. But when tears are stuck, they don’t simply disappear. They transform, into burnout, aggression, or both. As Neufeld (2010) explains, “When something is not working for you and you can’t feel sadness and disappointment, you go into a foul mood and attack verbally or physically.” Un-cried tears don’t just harden the heart, they also increase anxiety and stress (Frey, 1985).
Finn had shut down his ability to cry. He coped with loss by shutting down entirely, disconnecting from others instead of drawing near (Nelson, 2009). And yet, his deep hunger for connection made him capable of both loving and being loved. That same capacity also left him vulnerable to hurting and being hurt. In response, he developed a suite of protective strategies:
· Tuning out or shutting out distress
· Repressing painful memories
· Numbing emotions to dull discomfort
· Refusing to face mortality
· Pretending not to notice rejection or insecurity
· Settling for less
· Suppressing shame and vulnerability
· Denying failings and inadequacies
· Disconnecting from caring and responsibility
As Brené Brown (2010) writes in The Gifts of Imperfection, “If we trade our authenticity for safety, we may experience the following: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, addiction, rage, blame, and inexplicable grief.”
Ultimately, we are wounded in relationship and healed in relationship. My hope is to keep walking the path of authenticity and restoration alongside men like Finn, and the men I love, holding space for their tears with tenderness and respect. Healing doesn’t come through pressure, shame, or forced introspection. It comes through safety. Through presence. Through love.
Closing Thoughts
This chapter has explored what writers, speakers, and pastors say about biblical manhood in relation to a man’s wife. Some, like Mark Driscoll, present a hyper-masculine, authoritative model rooted in dominance and gender hierarchy. Others take a gentler, more integrated approach, one that moves away from judgment and shame, opening space to challenge male stereotypes and reimagine a manhood that is strong, grounded, and worthy of respect.
For women to engage men in meaningful change, we need that same blend of strength and gentleness. Many men struggle to articulate their emotions, especially if they’ve spent years suppressing them. Emotional connection isn’t automatic; it takes time, love, and patience. It also takes safety, the kind that doesn’t demand perfection but invites presence.
As for the men in my life, my father has passed away, but I’m deeply grateful we reconnected before he died. Even so, it was agonising to witness his inner torment, knowing it was too late for him to choose authenticity and honesty. That grief still echoes.
These days, my husband meets regularly with men of all ages, usually one-on-one over coffee. At first, he was searching for answers to his own struggle, how to love well when it hadn’t been modelled for him. But I’ve watched him wrestle with hard truths over the years, and I count him as a man of integrity, someone who has learned to love me well. His strength lies not in control, but in his willingness to yield when necessary while staying true to his core values.
And my son? We engage in a kind of conversational dance, tackling what’s wrong with the world, including the ways my flawed parenting wounded his sense of manhood, and what true masculinity really is. He is my “iron sharpens iron” son and friend. I treasure our mutual wrestling with truth, and he holds me accountable in ways only he, as a man, can. And for that, I am grateful.
If manhood is more than cultural roles or religious expectations, if it reflects something intricately designed by God, then we must take a deeper look. The next chapter explores the inner world of men: their longings, layers, wounds, and sacred design. Because to love men well, we must first understand them.
Declarations for Men
I declare that I will step fully into my God-given identity and rightful place in you. I am empowered to walk in your strength and authority.
I declare restoration, reconciliation, and healing in my manhood and in the way I live that out within my family. You have given me everything I need for life and godliness.
I declare that you are my Good Shepherd, my High Priest, who understands my struggles because you, too, were tempted.
I declare that you, God, designed me to be a husband who can be fully vulnerable with my wife, without fear, without shame.
I declare that I will lead my family as a servant, embodying both strength and gentleness through the power of your Holy Spirit.
Prayer
Holy Spirit,
Empower me in my relationships, career, ministry, and finances. Guide me in planning my days, helping me establish the right priorities in both my personal and professional life.
Fill my home with your gentleness, peace, and joy. Refresh me, physically, emotionally, psychologically, sexually, and financially, in ways that honour you.
Help me to strip off every weight that slows me down, especially the sin that so easily entangles me. Teach me to run with endurance the race you have set before me.
Lord, strengthen and encourage me when I feel overwhelmed by the cares of life.
In the authority of Jesus Christ, Amen.
Reflection Questions
1. What messages, spoken or unspoken, did you receive growing up about what it means to be a “real man”?
2. In what ways have you felt pressure to conform to cultural or religious expectations of masculinity that conflict with your true self?
3. Are there parts of yourself you’ve had to hide or suppress in order to fit into a particular male role? How has that impacted you?
4. Were you encouraged to express emotion as a boy? If not, what impact has emotional silence had on your relationships, faith, and mental health?
5. Have you ever felt ashamed for feeling weak, vulnerable, or afraid? What lies were you told about strength?
6. In what ways have feelings of fear or inadequacy influenced your interactions with others, your relationship with God, and your self-perception?
7. How can your masculinity reflect God’s heart more fully, not through dominance or control, but through love, integrity, and humility?
About the Author
Dr Paula Davis is a retired clinical counsellor, supervisor, and educator specialising in psychological trauma. She has lectured and supervised counselling students in university higher-degree programs in Australia and overseas. Her doctoral research explored the application of Western trauma models in collective societies, informing her work in Uganda, Kenya, India, and Sri Lanka. Together with her husband Barry, she co-authored A Safe Place: A Marriage Enrichment Resource Manual (2021) and has delivered marriage programs internationally. She is also the author of Eating Water, Drinking Soup: Finding Nourishment in the Deepest Pain and Exploring the Roots of Heartache: The Stories Our Pain Is Trying to Tell. Her forthcoming book, After the Breaking: Psychological Trauma and Collective Healing, continues her work of integrating trauma theory with culturally responsive approaches to recovery.
