You do not have to look far to find evidence of the fact that males are in trouble in these confused and confusing times. On the university campuses, women undergraduate students outnumber young men by a clear margin -- 60% to 40%. A frightening percentage of young males are or have been behind bars, and the vast majority of young men are delaying their assumption of adult roles and responsibilities until well into their twenties or early thirties.

A crisis of fatherlessness marks the lives of millions of boys and young men, with boys growing up without fathers in the home now comprising a majority within some ethic groups and urban populations. At almost every grade level, boys are performing below girls, and are often left behind as girls go on to more advanced levels of learning. Then, adding insult to injury, reports from scientists indicate that both sperm counts and testosterone levels are falling among some boys and men -- blamed on anything from hormone supplements in the food chain to chemical contamination of ground water.

In many churches, young men and older boys are simply missing. The absence of young men ages 18 to 30 is just a fact of life in many congregations. Though this is especially acute in the mainline Protestant denominations, it is increasingly true of many evangelical churches as well.

One dimension of this problem is the difficulty of helping boys develop into manhood -- a responsible, healthy, and meaningful manhood. Put simply, many of the most significant man-making institutions of our society are either gone or in big trouble. Military service is now both voluntary and no longer male-only. Organizations like the Boy Scouts attract more opposition and fewer boys. Even as the Boy Scouts of America marks the organization's centennial this year, that proud American institution that shaped the lives of so many boys is marginalized and under attack.

Add the absence of fathers to all this and this society faces a challenge unprecedented in human history. A society cannot survive without a means of assisting boys to grow into responsible manhood. The same is true, of course, of the church -- only in the church the stakes are even higher.

An enlightening (and oddly odorous) illustration of this social problem comes from The New York Times. Reporter Jan Hoffman tells of young boys now using "hypermasculine" products in order to demonstrate their masculinity and advertise their male identity -- largely through the smells they put off.

Hoffman tells of Noah and Keenan Assaraf, age 13 and 14 respectively, who live near San Diego, where daily "they walk out the door in a cloud of spray-on macho," according to their mom. The smell, she says, "drives me nuts." Even as marketers insist the products are intended for young males ages 18 to 26, the products have now "reached into the turbulent, vulnerable world of their little brothers, ages 10 to 14."

As Jan Hoffman explains:

Boys themselves, at a younger age, have also become increasingly self-conscious about their appearance and identity. They are trying to tame their twitching, maturing bodies, select from a growing smorgasbord of identities — goth, slacker, jock, emo — and position themselves with their texting, titillating, brand-savvy female peers, who are hitting puberty ever earlier.

And armies of researchers note that tween boys have modest disposable incomes, just fine for products that typically sell for less than $7.

“More insecurity equals more product need, equals more opportunity for marketers,” said Kit Yarrow, a professor of psychology and marketing at Golden Gate University.

Insecurity seems to be a major motivating factor. Jake Guttenberg, a New York seventh grader, told the paper he uses one of these "deodorants" because, "I feel confident when I wear it."

Lyn Mikel Brown of Colby College was blunt in her assessment: "These are just one of many products that cultivate anxiety in boys at younger and younger ages about what it means to man up . . . to be the kind of boy they’re told girls will want and other boys will respect. They’re playing with the failure to be that kind of guy, to be heterosexual even.”

Interestingly, Hoffman reports that these products are often bought for boys by their mothers, "simply relieved that their sons are thinking about body odor." Just about any mom will nod in agreement at this point -- but where are the dads?

These boys are acting out what society is telling them -- urging them to be hypermasculine, hypersexualized, hyperconsumers. You don't have to consult with Karl Marx to be leery of the marketing of these products to preteen boys. You do not have to know these boys to be saddened that they, while understandably and naturally desire to grow up into manhood, think that "masculinity in a can" is the way to get there. Their desire to identify as masculine is natural and healthy -- even essential -- but the lack of real support in getting there leads them into confusion.

The New York Times also offers evidence of the crisis of manhood in a second article, in which reporter R. M. Schneiderman takes readers into a world of "mixed martial arts" in some evangelical churches and ministries.

"The outreach is part of a larger and more longstanding effort on the part of some ministers who fear that their churches have become too feminized, promoting kindness and compassion at the expense of strength and responsibility, he explains.

From his report:

In the back room of a theater on Beale Street [in Memphis], John Renken, 37, a pastor, recently led a group of young men in prayer.

“Father, we thank you for tonight,” he said. “We pray that we will be a representation of you.”

An hour later, a member of his flock who had bowed his head was now unleashing a torrent of blows on an opponent, and Mr. Renken was offering guidance that was not exactly prayerful.

“Hard punches!” he shouted from the sidelines of a martial arts event called Cage Assault. “Finish the fight! To the head! To the head!”

In order to reach young men, some churches are turning to mixed martial arts, defined as "a sport with a reputation for violence and blood the combines kickboxing, wrestling, and other fighting styles."

The main issue here is not the legitimacy of martial arts, but the fact that these churches are making a self-conscious effort to reach young men and boys with some kind of proof that Christianity is not a feminized and testosterone-free faith that appeals only to women.

Of course, Christianity honors the man who fights "the good fight of faith," and the most important fight to which a Christian man is called is the fight to grow up into godly manhood, to be true to wife and provide for his children, to make a real contribution in the home, in the church, and in the society, and to show the glory of God in faithfully living out all that God calls a man to be and to do. This means a fight for truth, for the Gospel, and for the virtues of the Christian life. The New Testament is filled with masculine -- and even martial -- images of Christian faithfulness. We must be unashamed of these, and help a rising generation of men and boys to understand what it means to be a man in Christ. The Christian man does not embrace brutality for the sake of proving his manhood.

This much is clear -- we are living in strange times, getting stranger by the minute. Churches and parents are right to be concerned about the new challenges of helping boys to grow into manhood. The crisis is real, and this one demands urgent attention.

Boys will never find real masculinity in a can, but boys and young men should find respect for and examples of genuine manhood at church. What about your church?

Perhaps like no other college athlete in history, Tim Tebow has lived in the glare of the media spotlight for the past four years. But in recent weeks, it has become clear that most of the media, for all of its veneration college football’s premier star, does not understand truly him. Perhaps clearest of all is this: the media does not understand his Christian faith and the kind of selflessness it requires. 

The latter is not exactly news, but it has become increasingly evident in the days leading up to SuperBowl XLIV in New Orleans. Focus on the Family will air an advertisement during pro football’s Emmy night that features Tebow and his mother, Pam.  It will tell of the circumstances of Tim’s birth: while pregnant with Time, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery through drinking water consumed onthe mission field; doctors told Pam that her child would likely enter the world with debilitating birth defects. They encouraged abortion. But the Tebows trusted God and gave birth a vigorous baby boy on Aug. 14, 1987. We now knows the rest of the story.

As one might expect, a firestorm of controversy has arisen surrounding Tebow and the commercial. In Monday’s USA Today, Tom Kratten maker, a thoughtful writer who recently published a book on sports and faith entitled “Onward Christian Athletes,” echoes the same refrain as much of his brethren in the secular media: Tebow has gone political with his faith. And he doesn’t like Tebow’s new team; Kratten maker called Dobson and Focus on the Family, “the embodiment of the staunch anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality politics that characterize the Christian right.” Further, the writer speaks of how his own tribe, the main stream media, has “deified” Tebow. The SuperBowl ad, he writes,provides  “a miraculous birth narrative to complete the deification of Tim Tebow.” Flag on the play: personal foul for unnecessary snarkiness. Krattenmaker is indignant that CBS would vet such an adfrom the “Christian right” and then allow its appearance as if only leftward-leaning viewpoints qualify under the First Amendment. But I digress.  This is merely one example among many and some are far more critical of Tebowand CBS.

The heart of the misunderstanding is not really so much about Tebow, but, is rather a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamental reason why many evangelicals are staunchly pro-life. Tim Tebow is not politicking for the religious right, whatever that is; he is defending life out of a belief in an inspired and inerrant Bible which teaches that abortion is the high-handed, premeditated murder of a human being. For Tebow, this is about theology and not politics or winning a culture war. No, his motivation is not to further his career (infact, one wonders how this will play in the sometimes politically-correct world of pro sports) or to prepare to run for office or any such machinations. Tim Tebow simply knows what a man of God is called to do: he must stand between his family or those who cannot help themselves and protect them from the world, the flesh and the devil. This is what biblical Christianity teaches, it is what biblical manhood does in response, and it is part of a Gospel-centered life; it compels a man to risk life and limb and even a good name or lucrative profootball career to protect the weak, the innocent and those whom he loves forthe glory of God. It is what a sinless Savior did long ago “on a hill far away” in standing between His rebellious people and the wrath that their sins deserved.

That is what Tim Tebow is up to with the advertisement. Krattenmaker admits that Tebow has proven that he is made of warrior material: “Tebow has proved like few others the ability to withstand the heat and stay in the kitchen.” Indeed, but the stakes are far higher on this issue than most in the mainstream media will ever understand. For Tebow it is a matter of life and death. Stand strong, brother: “Be watchful, a stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

(Editor’s note: The following article was written by David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, the oldest evangelical organization in the Church of England. The article originally appeared in its entirety here. Parts one and two ran earlier this week on Gender Blog. In today’s final post, the author picks up with the fourth of five grounds for the veracity of the argument that the acceptance of women’s ordination by a church or denomination tends toward the affirmation of homosexuality.)

Fourthly, as Michael Vasey demonstrates, evangelicals are not immune to misreading Scripture in order to conform to their own desires or to the spirit of the age. There are increasing numbers of people claiming to be evangelical who are arguing publicly that the Bible has been misunderstood and it really supports homosexual conduct. Whatever the details we have seen an apparent instance of this over the summer. A vicar of a church in Chelmsford Diocese who after only a few months left his apparently evangelical parish after the uproar when he preached that homosexual practice is wrong. Likewise when Jeffrey John was appointed as Dean of St. Albans we found that some who claimed to be evangelical were not only unconcerned but apparently welcoming of the fact that he teaches that homosexual practice is acceptable. For myself I think the matter is so clear that anyone who can read the Bible as permitting such sin is not an evangelical because they have a distorted way of approaching Scripture.

Fifthly, the nature of the arguments used in favor of both are disturbingly similar. I have already mentioned the trumpeting of justice and equality. It ought to be sufficient to say that it cannot be just to encourage people to disobey the Word of the Lord, but apparently our ideas of justice trump His. Others argued that the ordination of women is a ‘gospel imperative’ and in the last few weeks this has been articulated again amongst the largest of the break-away Anglican churches in the US which now wants to ordain women and so follow the same disastrous route as the body they left. The argument is that without this change the gospel we preach will not be taken seriously. Not only is this nonsense, it suggests that the gospel is not the power of God unto salvation and it is exactly the same argument some use in favor of accepting homosexual practice.

Then there are spurious arguments about words. The interpretation of the word ‘head’ is the most celebrated. People became convinced that ‘head’ did not mean what Christians had previously thought it meant. Indeed I have heard it said that those of us who read it as such are ‘uneducated’. The ‘educated’ view is apparently that there are a couple of readings in ancient Greek where it means something different and therefore these must be the meaning in the Bible. I find it hard to credit that people can take such an argument seriously yet it seemed to sweep all before it. Now we are seeing the same thing with arguments about words in Romans or Leviticus concerning sexual immorality. Many seem convinced that the real sin of Sodom was anything but Sodomy. The arguments can sound clever, even bamboozle people, but they are feeble and so devoid of any real evidence that unless people were obsessed with proving their argument it is hard to see why they would give them any credence, but alas they do.

I believe the same can be said of other arguments. For example it is argued that Mary Magdalene was sent by Jesus to tell the disciples of the resurrection. She was thus sent and so can be called an Apostle (which means one sent). Therefore women can be presbyters. This is a string of non sequiturs - they do not follow logically from one another. Moreover, it ought to be obvious that the argument is wrong because it reaches a conclusion that is contrary to what Scripture actually teaches. If this sort of argument can be allowed it is hardly surprising to find others saying that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers and therefore homosexual practice is acceptable. The premise is wrong, the logic is wrong and the conclusion is wrong, but who cares so long as we can make the Bible say what we want it to say? The damage has been done because people have been encouraged to mishandle the Word of Truth.

Therefore, recognizing that many will be far from pleased with the conclusion, I am forced to say that the acceptance of the presbyteral ministry of women within a Church more or less inevitably leads to the acceptance of homosexual practice. I hope this is not so, but I fear it will be.

Nevertheless there is still hope, hope that some will see the mistakes and that enough remain to argue the case. But, if other churches are anything to go by, without the Lord’s intervention the outlook is bleak.

(Editor’s note: The following article was written by David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, the oldest evangelical organization in the Church of England. The article originally appeared in its entirety here . Part 1 is available here .)

But is it fair to argue that the acceptance of one will lead to the acceptance of the other? What grounds are there for asserting this?

First, there are the facts of history. There are now too many cases to ignore – national denominations which have embraced the ordination of women which then went on to embrace homosexual practice. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of the US is the most recent casualty which in August voted to permit sexual immorality amongst its clergy.

Secondly, the shift seems inevitable because unbiblical innovation necessarily leads to division. When pretty much all of Christendom has been united in saying that the Bible says one thing and then people start arguing that it says something different there are bound to be some who disagree.

Some inevitably will feel unable to remain when a Church seeks to legitimize what they believe to be error. It is well known that more than 20 members of the General Synod left the Church of England after the 1992 decision to ordain women as priests. In total more than 500 clergy left, although some later returned and a few may have used it as an excuse to get out with compensation. There were not a few members of Church Society among them. What was left was therefore weaker and more liberal. The same things happened years ago in the US Episcopal Church. Indeed most of the protestant, reformed, evangelicals left a generation or more ago often turning to Presbyterianism. Things are different in the Church of England because it is our national and established church so fewer people have left over recent decades but the general point is valid, the ordination of women in the Church of England has weakened the ‘conservative’ voice. Furthermore, the women so appointed are more likely to be liberal because a woman who accepts the classical evangelical or Anglo-Catholic position is not going to seek such a role.

Thirdly, the pressure from outside the Church increases. My experience, and I think that of others too, is that it is often outsiders who spot the flaws in our cherished ideas. Media interviewers are particularly good at this. Some in the church have elaborate arguments as to why Scripture does not say what it appears, but interviewers cannot see how this differs from arguments about sexual conduct, they are quick to see the gaps and pounce. In contrast when we stick doggedly with what the Bible actually teaches they may think we are mad (though they don’t usually say so on air) but they also see that we are being consistent. Moreover, they can see that whatever else might be said Christians through history have held both issues to be wrong.

The final part of this series will run on Friday.