The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes. By Nancy R. Pearcey. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2023. 352 pp. $26.99 (hardcover).
In Nancy Pearcey’s latest offering, The Toxic War on Masculinity, she takes on a subject ripe for cultural commentary: the attack on men in contemporary society. With her characteristic wit and rhetorical precision, Pearcey seeks to challenge modern stereotypes about masculinity, defending the Christian vision of men as protectors, providers, and spiritual leaders. What she gets right, she underscores with rhetorical flair and sociological data, offering an apologetic for the church’s potential to heal cultural divides.
But as the title suggests, Pearcey’s book is framed as a response to a war—one waged not merely against men but against the order of creation itself. The author is strongest when dismantling the secular narrative that paints masculinity as inherently toxic, exposing the cultural and historical shifts that have distorted our understanding of manhood. However, in her effort to redeem masculinity, Pearcey falters where it matters most: in providing a deeply theological and creational account of male and female.
Pearcey’s primary contribution lies in her sharp critique of the cultural caricatures of masculinity. She illustrates how the Industrial Revolution, for example, redefined manhood by severing men from the home, stripping their roles of moral and relational depth. Her argument that biblical Christianity offers a vision of men as sacrificial leaders—anchored in love rather than domination—is both compelling and timely. Pearcey also rightly highlights the data demonstrating that faithful Christian men tend to excel as husbands and fathers, pushing back against the mischaracterizations often lobbed at conservative Christianity.
Her tone is winsome, and her reliance on data ensures her arguments feel grounded. She is persuasive in showing that the war on men is often rooted in misunderstandings of Christian teaching, and her effort to reconcile the sexes by re-centering Christ’s example of sacrificial love is admirable.
Yet, despite these strengths, Pearcey’s account remains incomplete. While she aims to root her vision of masculinity in Scripture, her framework is more sociological than theological. She does not sufficiently develop the creational order that underpins biblical teaching on men and women, nor does she engage the deeper metaphysical and covenantal significance of male and female.
Paul’s treatment of marriage in Ephesians 5:22–33 is particularly instructive here. Pearcey references this passage but does not fully unpack its theological richness. Paul explicitly grounds the mystery of Christ and the Church in the creational union of husband and wife (Eph. 5:31). This “one flesh” union is not a cultural artifact but a covenantal reality rooted in the created order of Genesis 1 and 2. Male and female are not interchangeable but represent distinct and complementary roles, revealing both similarity (as image-bearers) and difference (in their functions and symbolism).
Pearcey’s reluctance to fully engage with this creational framework leaves her account of masculinity and femininity unmoored. The result is a defense of men that feels apologetic rather than assertive, more interested in softening the biblical vision than proclaiming it with conviction.
To move beyond Pearcey’s limitations, we must recover a fuller theological vision—one that is deeply creational, covenantal, and Christological. The Scriptures teach that the creational order is not eclipsed by redemption but fulfilled and clarified by it. Male and female were created to reflect the glory of God, and their union points toward the ultimate marriage between Christ and His Bride, the Church (Revelation 19:7–9).
This vision requires that we engage the rich resources of the Christian tradition. The Church Fathers, for example, provide profound insights into the creational and sacramental dimensions of marriage and gender. Mary’s role in redemptive history, as articulated by writers like Carrie Gress, reminds us of the theological significance of the feminine. Similarly, John Paul II’s Theology of the Body offers a deeply nuptial vision of human sexuality, rooted in the covenantal love of God.
By retrieving these resources, we can better articulate the “similarity and difference” of male and female, not as a concession to cultural norms but as an essential part of God’s design. Such a vision does not apologize for male authority in the home or the Church; it proclaims it as a reflection of Christ’s headship and sacrificial love.
In conclusion, Pearcey’s The Toxic War on Masculinity is a valuable entry point into the conversation about men and masculinity in our culture. Her critique of cultural narratives and her defense of Christian men are important contributions. However, her analysis remains incomplete without a robust theological framework that grounds masculinity and femininity in the creational order.
To recover a true vision of manhood and womanhood, we must look beyond Pearcey to the richness of Scripture and tradition. Only then can we fully appreciate the profound mystery of Christ and His Bride and the creational and redemptive order that reflects it.
