The Nobility of Being a Man

In 1990, Robert Bly fueled the fledgling Mythopoetic Men's Movement with the release of his groundbreaking and controversial book, Iron John: A Book About Men. The movement, also known as the "Iron John" movement, is a response to the perceived feminization of Western culture, wherein masculine traits have come to be regarded as negative and destructive, and males (both boys and men) are encouraged instead to embrace and express their more sensitive, less aggressive "feminine side." Many contend that this has created a disaffection among males because they lack a sense of purpose in the world and are unable to relate as they are being told. The solution to this disaffection, according to Bly, is to be found in affirming men in their masculinity and in helping them to live as their masculine nature compels them. The Iron John movement is not, however, just an angry male uprising. It is an attempt to positively and constructively help men, through mentoring, activity, and rites of passage to understand and embrace their masculine potential.

Bly's work is an analysis of the tale, Iron John, by the Brother's Grimm. He finds in it an analogy (or perhaps a commentary) on a boy's development into manhood. In this tale a violent wild man by the name of Iron John is captured and caged at the King's palace and subsequently bribes a young prince into releasing him. In order to do this, the prince steals--from under the queen's pillow--the key that unlocks the cage. Having done so, the lad fears punishment, so he runs off with Iron John into the forest.

In the forest, Iron John assigns the prince the task of protecting a well that turns all that enters it into gold. Ultimately, the young prince fails at his task, so the wild man sends him from the forest to labor in hardship and poverty. Yet, because the prince's failure was driven neither by greed nor malice, Iron John promises that in the event of great need, all the prince has to do is come to the edge of the forest and call out "Iron John!" three times and the wild man would supply him with all the resources the young man could need. This the prince does on two occasions--once when the city to which he traveled is being attacked (and the prince leads an army to victory), and once when he seeks to win the heart of a princess (and succeeds). At his wedding, the hard-laboring prince is reunited with his royal parents and with Iron John, who enters as a majestic king and reveals his own royal identity, long hidden by an enchantment which had made him a savage.

In Iron John, Bly argues for the need for male mentors, contending that the lack of them in modern society has led to mentally and emotionally underdeveloped men. Iron John is an appropriate mentor because he possesses both the innate wildness of every man and the potential nobility and virulence these supply when harnessed and focused. Bly also insists upon the need for meaningful "rites of passage," analogized through the releasing of Iron John, the prince's assignment of a task, his expulsion from the forest, his entry into battle, and his winning of the princess. It is suggested that the prince's theft of the key is his breaking away from a mother-figure to be mentored by a man (a necessary step toward masculine independence) and that the young man's labors in hardship are his acceptance of the responsibility that is required for true masculine maturity. In all, Bly advocates a stronger, wilder, and more dangerous vision of masculinity, and reaps the derision of many feminist and pro-feminist critics.

I am in many ways sympathetic to the concerns of the Mythopoetic Men's Movement, and yet I am bothered by some of its unintended consequences, and it is to both of these that I want to direct a few comments.

First, I believe that Bly is correct about men's natural attributes--their "masculine tendencies"--and a strong Scriptural case can be made for this. From the beginning we read that God created mankind "male and female." They were obviously different from one another and on more than just a physical level. The man was oriented toward his task, the assignment given to him when he was created, and the woman was oriented toward the man, having been brought to him and for him at her creation. When God said the man needed "a helper suitable for him," it implies that the helper--a female--would have strengths where the man was lacking. When they fell into sin, the curse affected the orientations of each. For her, the curse affected her at the level of child-bearing and relationship with the man. For him, the curse affected his mission. The author takes great care to clarify that both beings were created in the image of God, that together they fulfilled the meaning of that term, and that each was distinct in qualities and focus from the other--one was male and one was female.

Based upon this created distinction, the apostle Paul insists upon an essential equality and functional diversity of man and woman. Men are to lead in the home and women are to submit to their husbands, having been created "for the man." Men are to exercise authority in the church; women must not exercise a similar authority over men. Peter calls women "the weaker partner." I would argue this refers to her position, which in all of Scripture obligates the stronger (male) to demonstrate special consideration and honor to the weaker (female). She must grow in inner beauty, he must grow in outer courage and spiritual leadership. Failure to honor their distinctions will undermine the callings and spiritual progress of both sexes.

Apart from the Scripture, observation of tendencies within genders is unmistakable and well-documented. Little girls talk, little boys make truck sounds. Little girls play house with their dolls, little boys use them to fight bad guys and win wars. Women prefer love stories, men prefer action movies. Women want to express feelings, men want to fix problems. Many more generalities can be made and, without question, will fail to apply to all members of a gender, but the tendencies are regular enough to garner broad support among psychologists and humorists alike.

I believe there is much to be wary of in a culture that has become increasingly preferential to feminine tendencies. When a man finds inability or lack of desire to express himself in the culturally prescribed manner, we should expect a level of disaffection. This disaffection poses at least two dangers to our society. One is that men will fail to rise to their masculine potential. Being wired to performance and action they will find their efforts frowned upon and devalued, and there will be little encouragement to excel. There will also a lack of contexts in which his masculine potential is fostered in a way with which he identifies. This means that men will fail to perform as intended by God, according to their created nature. It also will compel women to fill the vacancy, hindering their best performance as intended by God. Each gender bears the image of God, but only expresses that image successfully when it does so according to created intent.
Another societal harm is that the man's masculinity will, of nature and necessity, be expressed, but having had no guidance and direction for constructive outlets, he will express his "wild side" in destructive ways--like Iron John before his imprisonment. Thus, I believe it is imperative for us to understand, embrace, harness, and mentor men in their masculinity to help them achieve their potential. Looking at youth, and especially urban youth, culture it is not difficult to identify a faulty, savage masculinity pervading its ethos. Men are over-sexualized, seeking women only for self-gratification and in some cases as a bread-winner. Music and prisons attest to a violence that is both gratuitous and aimless. The noble side of Iron John is not to be found and, likely as Bly suggests, the consequence of an absence of noble male mentors.

There is a nobility to being a man that we must recover, recognizing his distinction from the women with whom he interacts and the tendencies and orientation that are his by God's design, but recognizing also the potential savage within man when his masculinity is not fostered and guided.

With that said, there are dangers in the wholesale imbibing of the Mythopoetic Men's Movement that has taken place in some of the Christian world. The current interest in men's ministry did not originate with the churches. It started among secularists like Bly and his colleagues. The admittedly narrow historical overview given above serves as a warning against an unfiltered application of its convictions to a Christian pursuit of masculinity. In particular, the focus of the modern men's movement is toward a fictionalized warrior/superhero image of masculinity. Thus it pushes men into an unrealistic model of manhood rather than helping men to come to grips with the greatness and value of the tasks they've already been given--and which occupy most of their lives.

In his book, Waking the Dead, John Eldridge achieves a moment of personal enlightenment when he confesses to God his desire to be "God's Aragorn." Yes, Aragorn is a cool character in a fictional novel, but even if he was real, he was called to a particular mission at a point of necessity and most of Eldridge's readers are going to work from 9 to 5 (I have my suspicions that most of his readers are actually at home watching Oprah). This image of the warrior male, while bearing some illustrative value regarding courage, integrity, and a commitment to causes greater than the individual, is not where most men are. Nor is it where most men have been called to be. To set up this ideal before the hearts and minds of men, while perhaps motivational, is destined to disappoint them. Why? Because few have the opportunity to fulfill such a mission. If that existential experience is to define manhood, most will fail to attain it. However, if the image we set before men comes from Scripture rather than mythology, the potential for success becomes real and attainable.

Many men fail to see the reality and the significance of the mission that lies before them. Colossians 3 offers an instructive comment in this respect. "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving." What could be more noble than that! You, man, are serving the Lord Christ at work. The slaves Paul refers to have not been denied their opportunity to become real men. Rather, they have been given a context in which to express their masculinity through the faithful exercise of their calling.

Going to work is an act of nobility. Nurturing one's children or grandchildren in the faith is an act of nobility (Eph. 6:4). Enabling one's wife in her spiritual progress is an act of nobility (Eph 5:25-27). Providing for your family is an act of nobility (1Tim 5:8). Mowing the lawn, building a deck, balancing a check book, wrestling with your boys or reading with your girls, going fishing or hunting, etc., these are acts of nobility that are part of most men's worlds. They are each a part of the mission we've been given in Scripture: to create, to work, to provide, to sustain the garden and multiply fruitfully. Our problem is not that we don't aim toward greater images. It's that we've lost connection with the divine design and calling of our lives. I don't need to be Aragorn. I need to be Tim--and be him well.

A Christian men's movement needs to recapture the grand vision of life, family, and work that exists for them. It needs to promote the value of those things to which men have been called, and encourage men within their calling to be true men of God. Like Iron John's young prince, our manhood is developed in the wonder and responsibility of our toilsome labors.