Everyone is talking about the crisis young men face in the modern West. The boys are not alright. And we all know it. Book after book, article after article, podcast after podcast have diagnosed the conditions. Offering a way forward is a taller order. Joe Barnard has been ministering to men since before the meaning crisis was even a blip on the radar screen. His most recent book The Road Back to God: Faith for Men Dissatisfied with the Modern World is an attempt to provide men with direct steps to make changes in their lives. As he puts it:
What kind of man will benefit from this book? The answer is anyone who has a flicker of interest in Christianity and who is willing to undertake what amounts to an intellectual pilgrimage of faith. The two entry requirements are nothing more than a curious mind and a willingness to second-guess the habits of secular heart.
Barnard understands that there are many interrelated problems men face. “Men are not just needing to journey toward faith, they are needing to exit out of what constitutes a modern identity, even more specifically, a modern male identity,” he writes. Which means that “the journey of faith starts much further back than might be expected. We can’t get to the foothills of religion until we first find a way out of the spiritual malaise that is endemic among men raised in the backwaters of therapeutic consumerism” (7).
Instead of me just telling you about the book, I thought it would be fruitful to dialogue with the author.
Joshua Pauling (JP): Thanks Joe, for agreeing to discuss The Road Back to God. The book really has two stages to it. One dealing with what I might broadly call anthropological and practical issues, and one dealing with what I might broadly call theological and religious issues. I know this might be a bit of an oversimplification as they are certainly intertwined. But you are intentional in holding off on getting too religious too quickly. It takes about a hundred pages or so before you get to an explicitly religious message of Christ. That’s a lot of groundwork to lay. Why do you think that is necessary to do today? What roadblocks—especially for men—need to be removed to clear the way for Christianity?
Joe Barnard (JB): Kierkegaard talked about the need for people to pass through three stages of existence: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. I think modern men have to go through a similar progression. First, a lot of guys are stuck in what Walker Percy calls the “everydayness” of life. They haven’t yet begun a sincere and resolute quest for truth. Thus, the initial need is to get men to ask bigger questions—questions that may start at the level of superficial life-planning but, God willing, end at a much deeper level of what Percy labels “the search.”
But this intellectual jump-start is insufficient to awaken the souls of men. The problem is not just in the mind; it’s in the will. Guys need to be stung by the truth. They need to not just feel intellectual curiosity; they need to feel existential urgency. They need to reach a point of feeling as if the search for truth and goodness is not just a gentleman’s hobby but a matter of life and death. It’s very difficult to get men to this condition in a secular world that blinds and numbs them from reality. This is where the wisdom traditions of both the Hebrew and Classical worlds are of such usefulness. Neither Solomon nor Seneca believe that Lady Wisdom will disclose herself to the half-hearted. To know truth, you must be all-in. This is the testimony of the ancient world.
But a third barrier is the dilapidated state of the modern imaginary. A person cannot appreciate the Christian gospel unless he has certain things shaping his existence. Two of these are sin and holiness. Here again we stumble against a major obstacle. A lot of men are bereft of such mental furniture. This means that they have to undergo a baptism of the imagination not unlike what happened to C.S. Lewis when he first read George MacDonald.
JP: Now for a follow-up question. How do you rightly pave the way for the gospel, but without going too far in creating the false conception that “I need to get my life in order before I can come to church or believe”? The whole point of Christianity is that we can’t get our life in order on our own. The church isn’t a place for good people getting better; it is a place where one beggar tells another beggar to find bread. What is the proper way to approach this?
JB: This is where the gospel differs from the ancient schools of philosophy. The Bible reveals a moral framework in which good and evil are of utmost significance. But the Bible then tells us that our sin is of such profound consequences that we could never fix ourselves or attain our end by self-mastery. The only solution is for God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. And this is the message of grace and of the gospel. The one criterion for coming to Jesus is the self-awareness that we are sinners in need of forgiveness. The church needs to be a place that doesn’t just preach the message of grace; grace is the very culture and ethos of the community.
JP: So much of our religious language easily turns into jargon that has no remaining power and punch; it means nothing—especially to outsiders. I like how you awakened some tired religious terms. As an example, your definition of sin was helpful: “To stand before God with an impure heart is something far worse than being stripped naked in the presence of a king. A better image is that of a leper, someone whose flesh is repulsive to see, being stripped naked and having to stand in the presence of angelic glory” (89). What religious terms do you think need translating today to enable them to break through with meaning?
JB: The church is a cemetery of metaphors and rituals. So much of what we say and do has to be resurrected for a post-Christian audience. It’s hard to pick just a few terms. We need to reinvigorate sin, grace, truth, glory, beauty, righteousness, holiness—even humanity—with fresh life. I was recently reading a wonderful short book on the opening chapters of Genesis by Dru Johnson. His translation of “Adam” was “dirtling.” What a brilliant way to capture the significance of man being fashioned from the soil! Lest we succumb to pride, never forget that to be human is to be a “dirtling.” This is the perfect counterbalance to the awe we should feel in realizing we are made in the image of God. The same type of refurbishing needs to be done to other religious cliches we use unthinkingly in church.
JP: You specifically address the word believe, and how it is such a weak, mushy word today. You suggest submit as something that carries with it the potency of the Biblical command to “repent and believe” (153-155). Can you unpack that a bit more for us? Why the word submit?
JB: The problem with “believe” is that most of us are more Cartesian than we realize. We confuse belief with the subjective feeling of confidence or assurance. The litmus test we use to decide if we are believers or unbelievers is how we feel in relation to a presentation of the gospel. This can create a terrible sense of limbo. How, after all, can I believe if I still feel as if I have doubts!
There is a better path, the very one we use for every discipline other than theology. To grow in truth in science or history is to submit oneself to authoritative guides. We don’t weigh the truthfulness of the periodic table based on our feelings; we invest our trust in a tradition of knowledge. We follow what Augustine called fides quaerens intellectum, faith seeking understanding. Men need to see this as a viable path for religious knowledge.
But there is another angle from which to think about “submit.” Christian truth is not abstract and mere intellectual truth, but personal truth. The gospel comes with the illocutionary force of a herald speaking a command on behalf of a king. Understanding this ought to change our sense of what it means to respond to the gospel. To accept the gospel means both to assent to truth and to bend the knee. You are either with Christ or against him; there is no third way. Guys need to feel the spiritual pressure of their predicament. The word “submit” shakes them out of detachment and draws them into the space of encounter.
JP: Throughout the book you reference a variety of theologians, philosophers, novelists, and artists. It seems like Kierkegaard especially resonates with you. Is that true?
JB: I am drawn to the great tradition of existential theologians. In my mind, this list includes Augustine, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Chesterton, Ellul, and Percy (who lived in my hometown). I’m drawn to thinkers who feel like truth is discovered in crisis and that, like Jacob of old, we must wrestle with mysterious forces in order to limp in the joy of divine blessing. There is no such thing as an armchair theologian. To find truth, you must get on the mat and grapple with God.
JP: As you near the conclusion, you highlight how faith in Jesus isn’t a Lone Ranger affair but is communal. You write:
Christians do not read the Bible alone (most importantly), but rather in community with others. This is why preaching holds such a central place in our worship services. One of the main reasons we attend Sunday gatherings is to hear a faithful reading of the Bible that includes contemporary, personal application. The intention is for Christians to walk away from such sermons feeling a bit like a pilgrim who has just received instruction about a next stage of travel. We are more equipped to face imminent challenges because we have a better understanding of what it means to know Jesus and walk beside Him through the struggles of life.
I couldn’t help but think that such an explanation for why one should go to church might fall flat for many men today. Aren’t the type of men that are getting close to going to church likely to be already getting instructions for life from the likes of Jordan Peterson, Jocko Willink, and many more? Is what the church offers just a Christian version of those instructions, with inspirational lectures about God? Why go to church for that when men can get all the instruction they need from podcasters? If all that happens at church is an intellectual exercise in my head or an emotional feeling in my heart, many people will think they can do that anywhere, anytime, and with better musicians and preachers on YouTube to boot. Which brings me to one of the things that I wanted to ask you about. There seems to be a conspicuous absence in the book: sacramental, liturgical, and ancient Christian doctrine and practice. Which also, coincidentally, happen to be the very things that many men are longing for today. Perhaps this is an unfair characterization of your perspective. What would you say to this, though? With all the talk of mystery and enchantment and spiritual experiences today, doesn’t Christianity offer the true version of those things in Christian worship, where God truly speaks to us in his living Word, and truly comes to us in his living body? And such a divine, sacred encounter is something that cannot be replicated alone or while online since it is embodied and experienced with real tangible things: Word and Water, Bread and Wine, which God has mysteriously connected himself to through his Word and promise.
JB: In many ways my book is subject to the same criticism that can be leveled against Bunyan’s classic, The Pilgrim’s Progress. You might even say that my book is subject to the same criticism that can be lodged against Bunyan himself and against the whole of the Puritan tradition ranging from John Owen to J.C. Ryle. It’s Word focused. There is little discussion about the sacraments and liturgies of the church.
Two things by way of response: First, my book is limited in purpose. The book is a success if it stirs men out of a consumeristic mindset toward religion and drives them into living congregations. I want guys to realize that the place to experience Christianity is not on YouTube, but among gathered believers. I succeed if they cross an actual threshold and attend an in-person service. I fail if they stay at home.
Second, the book is evangelical in the rich, old sense of the term. A lot of modern men are longing for mystery like they are longing for romance. The interest is not based on any definite understanding of—or commitment to—truth. I believe this is dangerous. Marriage is full of wonder and mystery, but men should not get married for the sake of wonder and mystery. They need to understand the meaning and claims of marriage before they wed themselves to a spouse. My book is trying to help guys understand the meaning and claims of the gospel. My hope and prayer is that once men find the church, and bind themselves in vows to her, that she can then lead them into the marital chambers of her mysteries.
JP: Very well-said. Thank you for that response. In a recent article, you made a compelling argument that the modern evangelical church is not prepared for this moment when many men are seeking religious depth and meaning in their lives. You laid out five symptoms of unpreparedness in the evangelical church, and five suggestions for moving forward. Take us through some of that argumentation, as I think it is very relevant to the themes of your book, and I think would be a good place to end, with actionable food for thought for all of us.
JB: If a marketing firm did an audit of evangelical churches, I’m confident that the research would conclude that they are uninterested in targeting men. This would be evident for the following reasons: (i) the predilection for informality and all things contemporary contradicts the rising interests of men; (ii) men’s ministries typically assume that all men are Neanderthals unable to read and unwilling to think; (iii) a lot of churches (especially in the UK where I serve) are embarrassed by the very quality that is of universal interest to men, maleness; and (iv) men who don’t like to sing Celine Dion in the car very likely don’t want to sing love ballads in church. In short, our churches are more emasculated than we realize.
What, then, might it look like to show some interest in men? I’d suggest the following. First, help men diagnose the pain they feel. Guys have a sense that modern culture is a cancer eating itself up from within. The world is not progressing; it’s decaying. We need to give men a framework for understanding what’s wrong with society around them.
Second, we need to get better at brandishing the credentials of tradition. For a long time, evangelicals have tried to justify the faith using the help of science and psychology. A lot of modern men are not that bothered by evolution and not that interested in enneagrams. They want to dig up the floorboards of Western Civ to see what was propping it up. The church needs to get more comfortable talking about its past. There is a reason Tom Holland and Jordan Peterson are so popular.
Third, we need to be unashamed of the gospel. Cultural apologetics can quickly become too clever for its own good. It’s not understanding Darwin, Marx, and Freud that saves souls; it’s the foolishness of the cross. We can’t forget this.
But, finally, we need to get men off screens and inside of churches. The medium is the message. If guys encounter Christianity on YouTube they will end up thinking that religion can be practiced on a screen or in a living room. We are corrupted more deeply by consumerism than we realize. If guys want to find truth, they need to go where Truth discloses Himself. That’s not YouTube, Spotify, or X. It’s church. The message of Jesus cannot be abstracted from the people of Jesus. When it comes to Christianity, there is no Uber Eats option. To meet with Jesus, we must be willing to take a seat at His table.
Image from “The Art of Beautifying Home Grounds of Small Extent” (1870) via Internet Archive.
