A consensus has emerged in the field of HIV prevention in Africa: African men's behaviour is fuelling the pandemic and must change if progress is to be made against the devastation that AIDS creates. Men are not necessarily bad as individual people. Rather, they are socialised, peer-pressured and often cajoled by powerful institutions to believe that they are not men unless they conform to certain patterns of behaviour that clearly mark them as such in the public eye. This includes fearlessness, the exercise of power over women, and demonstrable proof of heterosexual virility. Putting on a condom or accepting no as an answer from a woman are thus not just small setbacks in the pursuit of egotistic pleasure. Under hegemonic masculinity, they are an affront to men's sense of identity and dignity as men. Appeals to science, gender justice and even self-preservation will likely be resisted or ignored as a result.

Many factors have contributed to the construction of hegemonic masculinity globally, but few dispute that Christianity has played a starring role. The enthusiastic uptake of Christianity by Africans in the last few decades especially owes much to a profound agreement between Christianity and traditional cultures on the issue of men's power over women. Is it possible for African Christians to break from that history, and to challenge hegemonic masculinity in truly transformative ways?

Adriaan Van Klinken addresses this question through two case studies based on ethnographic observation, interviews, and analysis of key documents from local Zambian churches, one mainline (Catholic) and one evangelical (Pentecostal). Van Klinken compares how they address masculinity issues among their congregations, then assesses local church practice with broad feminist theological theory.

The two churches differ in ecclesiology, style, class composition and many other issues. They nonetheless offer a remarkably similar critique of African culture and the current crisis of masculinity. Their shared vision is to re-make society to one where the measure of a real man is sexual self-discipline, respect for his wife's needs and dignity, responsibility to family, and service to the broader community. In the context of HIV and rising fundamentalisms, this makes them quite progressive. Yet both churches still believe that gender equality and sexual health can be achieved without compromising the principle of male headship in the family, and that the reproductive male/female dyad is the essential, non-negotiable building block of a moral, healthy society.

The main focus of the churches' attention falls upon fairly predictable recurrent problems: men's philandering, violence against women, alcohol abuse and neglect of families. Somewhat disappointingly, van Klinken does not discuss emerging issues such as online pornography, and the rise of overtly misogynistic and homophobic rival churches. I wondered, how do the churches cope in practice with the almost inevitable shame, guilt or self-hatred that typically accompanies failure to live up to professed ideals, especially since the economic situation in so much of Africa makes male headship so difficult to sustain?

A small number of African theologians have engaged these issues, led by African women reading scripture through feminist lenses. They are critical of any community of practice that leaves patriarchy – even ‘soft patriarchy’ – intact. Van Klinken is clearly sympathetic to this view, and indeed would like to see more engagement with the issue of compulsory heterosexuality. But he is troubled that it appears to be an elite critique of a popular movement. The final chapter of the book is an attempt to bridge the gap with ideas on how gender justice could be ‘sold’ to non-academic audiences.

Van Klinken is careful not to be prescriptive or to suggest a one-size-fits-all answer to these questions. His main conclusions are simply that over-generalising terms such as patriarchy and neo-traditionalism are not very helpful or even accurate in the context, and that, if we focus on men's actual agency rather than a critique of their often incoherent discourse, then efforts towards a ‘biblical’ or ‘redemptive’ masculinity can be seen as a positive step toward gender justice. It is a thoughtful contribution to the debates.