'Christian men are wimps!' The charge is often to be heard on the lips of non-Christian men and Christian women. What is the true meaning of masculinity?
Previous generations of schoolchildren were stirred by the words of Hugh Latimer to his fellow-bishop Nicholas Ridley, as they were burned at the stake during the reign of Queen Mary: 'Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England, as, I trust, shall never be put out.'
Few today would use the phrase 'play the man', except in jest or with considerable embarrassment. But are there fundamentally manly qualities which has been instinctively recognised in all times and cultures? Or have we in the last few years finally recognised that it was all a massive confidence trick?
Cultural baggage
Before we congratulate ourselves on being the first generation to be able to loose its hold on a particularly heavy piece of cultural baggage, we should do well to reflect on the matter. It is worth considering, for example, just why it is that Latimer's sentiments would most certainly have been perfectly comprehensible to all the alien tribes and races who people the pages of Scripture. In fact, the apostle Paul gives the same command to the believers in Corinth. 'Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong' (1 Corinthians 16.13). The single word translated 'be men of courage' could just as well be simply translated 'play the man', or 'be manly'. The men of the church were to set the tone in what were perilous times. The four commands of the verse constitute a single composite thought. Watchfulness, constancy, and, particularly, strength, accurately summarise the Scriptural definition of manliness.
While the Greek word andrizo appears nowhere else in the New Testament, it is nevertheless to be found in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). Andrizo is used 20 or more times in the Septuagint, to translate one very common Hebrew verb, hazaq, which has a circle of meanings connected with prevailing strength and courage.
Like a man
Direct Old Testament references to what was expected of a man do not, however, depend on the Greek version. For example, the outlawed David refused to murder the sleeping Saul, but is filled with disgust for Abner, who should have been protecting the king. From the safety of a hillside, and brandishing the spear and water-jug he had silently removed from beside Saul, David mercilessly mocks the king's general in front of his troops. 'You're a man, aren't you? And who is like you in Israel? Why didn't you guard your lord the king?' (1 Samuel 26.15). Here, it is not simply strength that is regarded as essential to manliness (unless it be the strength required to stay awake). Abner is rebuked for his shameful lack of leadership in not setting an adequate guard. A real man will protect those for whom he is responsible.
The fact that it was God himself who thought in gender terms when speaking in Scripture, is reinforced at that dramatic point in the Book of Job when, having had to listen to the interminable opinions of mere mortals, the Lord finally speaks out of the storm. The devastating barrage of unanswerable questions that follows, begins: 'Who is this that darkens my counsel by words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me' (Job 38.2,3). That last sentence is repeated halfway through the humbling, disciplinary procedure (40.7).
We may infer that the Lord requires a man to speak and behave circumspectly in matters bordering on and beyond his frail capacity. We sense that it is precisely because he is a man that he needs to be taken to task. This is in line with God's response in the Garden of Eden. Despite the fact that Eve was the first to sin, it is the man who must take responsibility for the disaster (Genesis 3.22-24).
All the pictures sketched in Scripture of what a man ought to be, portray clearly the qualities of strength and leadership responsibility as being paramount. Incidental references to women reinforce this conclusion, with the concept of women ruling over the people of God evidently seen as a severe judgment. This is not because women are regarded as inferior beings, but because the Bible unquestionably views such a state of affairs as a reversal of nature, shocking to all right-minded men and women alike (e.g. Isaiah 3.12).
Breathtaking chauvinism?
What are we to make of these and similar texts? Seen through modern eyes, they are breathtakingly chauvinistic. But this is only because our culture deems it shocking for men and women to be regarded and treated differently, whereas the cultures of the Bible deemed it shocking for men and women to be regarded and treated as the same. The essential 'weakness' of women, while considered disgraceful in a man, was highly honoured as the essence of femininity.
The NIV is not particularly helpful when it refers to the woman as the 'weaker partner' in marriage (1 Peter 3,7). It is quite contrary to all the Scriptural evidence to suggest that the husband brings more to the marriage relationship than the wife. Peter's concept is of the 'weaker vessel'. When a man marries, he is to 'live with (his wife) according to knowledge as with a weaker vessel, the female, assigning honour as co-heirs of the grace of life' (literal translation).
The 'knowledge' he is to bring into marriage is the awareness and understanding of the differences between men and women enshrined in Scripture, expressed in the world around him, and, as I shall later suggest, imprinted on his own psyche. Obviously, this knowledge will be all the greater, the more he is consciously aware of these three sources of information and instruction. The 'honour' he is to assign derives from the essential spiritual equality of men and women in Christ, an equality in no way affected by the marriage relationship or by the fact that the woman is the weaker vessel.
Can we define more closely what the apostle means by the 'weaker vessel'? His use of the term is an incentive to the man to be understanding and protective. The emphasis, therefore, is on the aspect of the woman's vulnerability.
Woman's vulnerability
Let me enter three important caveats before continuing. Firstly, it ought to be obvious that Peter is speaking in generalities. Secondly, this strong/weak axis in Scripture is not to be associated with superiority and inferiority. It would have done both men and women a great service over the centuries if both Jewish and Christian commentators over the centuries had tumbled to this truth. Thirdly, the strong/weak axis is to be considered as a help to comprehending and evaluating the complementary nature of masculine and feminine characteristics. I hesitate to bring in an alien religious concept, but the Eastern idea of 'yin' (the feminine or passive principle) and 'yang' (the masculine or active principle) manages to reflect what is surely a universal human perception without pejorative overtones. The 'weakness' of women enables the exhibition of qualities that, in a context where there was no possibility of confusion, we should unquestionably call 'strengths'.
Physical, emotional, spiritual
Few would care to dispute that men are stronger than women in sheer physical power. Of course, women can run marathons and, maybe, endure greater physical pain. But not even the most ardent feminist would suggest the International Olympic Committee should combine the men's and women's events.
The emotional make-up of the woman also renders her more vulnerable. She is subject as a younger woman to a monthly cycle which affects her emotional stability to a greater or lesser extent. Inevitably, she is, therefore, more aware of ('in touch with') her feelings and those of others around her. This enables her to be more intuitive, and the man who ignores or dismisses this female expertise is a fool. While she may be more prone to fears (1 Peter 3.6), this vulnerability is the downside to a sharpened emotional sensitivity.
Straying even further under the guns of the feminists, I would suggest that the 'weakness' of woman extends to her spiritual nature. One of several reasons that the apostle Paul gives for not allowing a woman to teach or have spiritual authority over a man is that 'Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived . . .' (1 Timothy 2.14). Various unsatisfactory explanations are offered in the commentaries for Paul's deliberate contrast. The simplest explanation, however, is that the apostle is drawing attention to a vulnerability. The Lord did not design the woman to be the first line of defence when it came to spiritual discernment. That is why Satan, in the form of a serpent 'more crafty than any of the wild animals' (Genesis 3.1), decided to get to Adam through Eve. Satan's exploitation of male/female differences lay behind that original, disastrous reversal of leadership roles.
An universal imprint
Christians need to be aware of these in-built distinctions if they are adequately to defend the Scriptural roles of men and women in church and family from charges of mere cultural determinism.
Despite numerous attempts to reinterpret the ethnographical data, the evidence is overwhelming that all human cultures and societies are built on the premise of male leadership. Sociologist Steven Goldberg writes: 'All anthropologists agree that there has never been a society which failed to associate hierarchical authority and leadership in these areas with men'.(1)
More recently, David Gilmore has attempted to collate the findings of numerous anthropologists worldwide, in an ambitious attempt to answer the questions: 'Is there a deep structure of manhood? Is there a global archetype of manliness?' Again, the answer from this agnostic researcher is affirmative.(2) Even arch-feminists are bound to agree: 'All contemporary societies are to some extent male-dominated'.(3)
While this has sadly resulted (in almost all cases) in the sinful subjugation of women as a consequence of the Fall (Genesis 3.16), the existence of a universal patriarchy is as mystifying to humanistic anthropology as the existence of a universal morality.
The fact is that male leadership is the product of God's creation and not of male chauvinism. It is a vital part of the design plan for humanity. We are at present suffering the effects of a socio-political experiment in degendering that threatens the fabric of our society. There is no gender confusion in the Bible and that means there need be none in us. Certainly, in the light of these abiding Scriptural principles, we should re-examine the rigid roles sometimes laid down for men and women by traditional evangelicalism. But we should not be intimidated into throwing the baby out with the bath water.
1. S. Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, William Monow & Co. 1974.
2. D.D. Gilmore, Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity, Yale University Press, 1990.
3. M. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere, Women, Culture and Society, Stanford University Press, 1974.
This article by Jonathan Stephen, pastor of Carey Baptist Church, Reading, Berks. is taken from 'Men, women and maturity - serving together in the church', a symposium to be published by Day One Publications and the FIEC in April.
