The Church and the “Boy Crisis”

Too many young men are aimless, angry and even hopeless. Suicide is now the second-leading cause of death among men aged 25 to 34. Approximately 7 million men between the ages of 25 and 54 are unemployed and, in most cases, not seeking employment. A troubling number are attracted to influencers like Andrew Tate, who champions a crass and chauvinistic vision for masculinity. Male enrollment at college has dropped so much over the past two decades that men now account for only 42% of undergraduate students.

In a recent opinion essay for the New York Times, the sociologists Robert Putnam and Richard Reeves compared what they call our “Boy Crisis” to a similar situation at the turn of the 20th century. Crime and delinquency were on the rise. Childhood poverty was rampant. These trends affected all young people, but they had a disproportionate effect on boys and young men. Putnam and Reeves argue,

Too many boys and young men are unwoven from the fabric of our society. In sociological terms, they lack social capital. This is dangerous for them and for everyone else. These lonely, detached young men can become susceptible to reactionary voices, mostly online, who turn legitimate suffering into dangerous grievances. But it’s important not to confuse the symptoms with the cause, which is disconnection.

A century ago, American society responded to the crisis. Policymakers championed universal public education. New civic organizations were launched, most notably Big Brothers, the Federated Boys’ Clubs, and the Boy Scouts. Team sports proliferated in local communities. Distinctively Christian responses included the growth of local chapters of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), the formation of Sunday Schools, and some of the earliest forms of modern youth ministries in churches.

Putman and Reeves lament the absence of spaces where boys are taught healthy forms of masculinity, especially from older men. Organizations that once focused upon males have opened the door for female participation. The authors also correctly note that the move to deemphasize gender requirements is asymmetrical, since nearly all organizations founded for young girls continue to exclude boys from participation. Few organizations are helping boys to learn how to be men.

They offer some suggestions to address the Boy Crisis. They applaud governors who have called for policies to help young men to thrive. They argue for new organizations that will recapture the original spirit of the Boy Scouts and the YMCA by focusing on young men. They plead for youth athletics, and especially travel sports, to rein in costs so that these opportunities are more accessible to low-income boys. This is all well and good, but Putnam and Reeves don’t say anything about the role local churches can play in addressing the Boy Crisis.

Our society remains deeply confused about gender. Transgenderism attracts most of the attention and comment, but it is hardly the only concern. A generation ago, most Americans made peace with Third Wave Feminism, which undermined almost all meaningful distinctions between the sexes. A feminized, anti-masculine worldview pervades elite culture, and is especially prominent in films, television programs, and pop music. There are disordered forms of masculinity, to be sure, but Nancy Pearcey is correct that the far larger societal trend is a toxic war against masculinity.

The church should be different. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible lays out a vision for gender complementarity. Our gender is determined by God and cannot be changed, whether by subversive alterations in appearance, harmful hormone treatments, or radical surgical procedures. Both men and women have the image of God and are fully equal in dignity and worth. Men and women also differ from each other, in both our biology and in our respective roles within the family and the church. Men and women aren’t generically interchangeable examples of the human species. Churches that are faithful to the Scriptures proclaim these truths without equivocation, even though they are countercultural, because they know that authentic human flourishing is only fully experienced when it is compatible with God’s design.

Fortunately, one trend about young men is cause for rejoicing: They are becoming more religiously observant and are especially attracted to churches that hold to biblical views of gender. The church is telling a better story about masculinity than the culture, and a growing number of young men are finding in the church the answers—and the affirmation—they seek. Part of Charlie Kirk’s appeal in recent years to young men was his call for them to get serious about their faith, get a job, get married, and start a family.

Unfortunately, it isn’t all good news. Women are disengaging from church, often because they are more progressive and struggle with full-throated affirmations of gender complementarity. That is a different topic, deserving of a separate column. However, Christians should continue to pray that young men and boys find their way to church, even as we commit to keeping our churches tethered closely to Biblical manhood and womanhood.