Talk 2 | Our Lost Boys
Little Boy Lost, sang by Johnny Ashcroft, was the number one hit song of 1960. It captured the imagination of Australians as it was the true story of a little boy, named Steven Walls, a four year old boy who lived on a farm, ‘Tubbamurra’, in the New England ranges. In February 1960, William Stanley, an Aboriginal tracker and more than three thousand people and seven aircraft searched the rugged ranges for him. Steven had become separated from his father while they were herding sheep on their property. After four days, he was found alive and well. There was a ‘national shout of joy’. Later in 1960, Sydney schoolboy Graeme Thorne, Australia’s first kidnap victim was later found murdered. So, Johnny Ashcroft removed his song, ‘Little Boy Lost’ from the airways in deference to the trauma that those words may cause to Thomas’ family.
Do we have that same heartache and passion to search after our lost boys? Many of our parents and grandparents of boys in our schools are anxious about what is happening to their sons. It is clear that we are experiencing a culture that is in many ways hostile to masculinity. In an effort to address the historical treatment of women as inferior to men, and address male sexism, domination, aggression and violence, the term ‘toxic masculinity’ came into our mainstream consciousness and has sent the wrong message that there is something inherently flawed in the male character.
Our boys are hearing this message with grave consequences. They feel disillusioned, devalued and disempowered. At school, boys are tending to perform worse than girls at all levels of education. Many boys are experiencing the ‘Peter Pan’ syndrome – failing to launch as they have no foundation to launch from and are susceptible to the cultural winds that promote self‑centredness and immaturity. In his book, The Demise of Guys: Why Boys are Struggling and What We Can Do About It psychologist Phillip Zimbardo sees that spending so much time online viewing Porn and being addicted to video games, is creating a generation of young men who are emotionally immature and socially awkward who are unable to navigate the real life complexities of school, relationships and employment. They lack purpose and are having a crisis of relevance. Feminism has contributed to this by proclaiming a woman doesn’t need a man as she can do everything herself. A male partner is there to serve her needs. Camille Paglia, an outspoken feminist, warns that “when an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women are perpetually stuck with boys who have no incentive to mature or to honour their commitments.” [1]
The impact of this is being felt in communities. Youth crime, according to the ABS, rose by 6% in 12 months up to June 2023. Two thirds of offenders were boys ranging from 14 – 17 years old. The most common offences were violent acts to cause injury, property crimes of burglary and vandalism and illegal drug crimes.
In our Christian schools, if boys are affirmed in a Biblical view of masculinity, they will be under less pressure to live by the secular script that diminishes their manhood. What does this vision look like and how does that impact how we educate our boys? The vision of shalom, the life God intended, is beautifully described by Cornelius Plantinga,
“… the webbing together of God, humans, and all creation in justice, fulfillment, and delight … Shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight – a rich state of affairs in which natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom he delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be.” [2]
This gives us a framework to understand the male nature that God originally created. This means God created men and women as His image‑bearers with equality and dignity. Men were not inherently toxic, just as women were not inherently inferior. Both were damaged by the Fall, so how do we distinguish between the original “software and the virus?” [3] How do we educate our boys to restore to them the goodness of God’s original purpose for manhood to relate to women and God’s world?
Men and women were given the responsibility through the cultural mandate (Genesis 1: 28) to be “fruitful”, starting with families and communities and nations that have schools, churches, marketplaces, together with laws. “Subdue the earth”, meant Adam and Eve were called to the task of taking care of the earth and cultivating its resources to unfold His goodness and beauty and build culture that expressed the image of God. Our first parents needed each other to build culture and civilisation. Both are called to reflect the character of God. The fruit of the Spirit is the same for both sexes (Galatians 5: 22 – 23) but can be expressed differently in the experience of males and females. The gifts of the Spirit are likewise the same for both sexes (1 Corinthians 12: 7).
However, whenever you discuss difference, you can run the danger of making sweeping generalisations. Clearly God created men and women biologically different, and this is the most obvious difference, where men and women complement each other. Men are physically stronger, and women are more equipped for nurture. In most cultures, men are the protectors. Larry Crabb, a Christian counsellor, commented that while men are concerned with ‘entering’ their world, ‘… through action and objects, women seem far more interested in ‘inviting’ others into their world, ‘bonding’, ‘enfolding … ‘
The Bible makes it clear that men are to take responsibility to build something and lead others, their wives and their families, to enable them to flourish. He is called to lead sacrificially where he dies to self that others may live. God calls men to be both courageous and caring. The tragedy of the fall was that men would dominate their wives, using their power to exploit women. Hence, the focus on the ‘virus’ of toxic masculinity. But the rise of feminism has led to women seeking not just to be treated as equals, but to be independent from men and seen as better than them.
How do we, as schools, work towards the restoration of masculinity? Firstly, we need to heed the words of Gordon Dalbey, that our work “is not to feminise our masculinity, but to redeem it; not to make men more like women, but to make us more authentic men.” [4] For male teachers, there is a need to provide godly role‑models for our boys in their relationships with both men and women on their staff. Mentoring programs can assist boys to grow in faith and develop traits of courage, fidelity, self‑control and commitment whilst giving them accountability. For boys in our schools who have no father or an absent father, a father substitute can have a huge impact.
As female teachers, we need to have a view of masculinity immersed in a Biblical understanding that values its uniqueness. Boys are not “deficient girls”. [5] Our teaching and learning and cultural practices need to empower our boys and young men to have purpose and to take responsibility. We need to give them opportunities to change their world, inviting them to provide solutions to problems. We need to demonstrate in our communities the value of their roles as future culture makers, husbands and fathers.
An effective Christian school is one that teaches and demonstrates a God‑centred view of masculinity. May we help our lost boys to be secure in their masculinity and as true partners, to bless the girls in their common purpose.
“For manhood is fulfilled in the opportunity to serve and protect.” [6]
“A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.” (Luke 6:40)
Grace and Peace
The Excellence Centre Team
[1] Nancy R Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity – How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes, (Michigan: Baker Books, 2023), 23
[2] Cornelius Plantinga, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be – A Breviary of Sin, (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1995)
[3] Nancy Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 27
[4] Nancy Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity, 26
[5] ibid, 23
[6] Ibid, 270