Commentary by Wanda
As a result of our recent postings, I have had the privilege of engaging in conversations with several of my male acquaintances about the meaning of manhood. My question to these self-assured individuals is “What does it mean to be a man in the 21st century?” Their understanding of manhood and how it functions in gender relations is intriguing. Many times my counterparts define manhood as God given responsibilities as leader, provider and protector of the family. But how do we see these roles being played out in our personal situations? Most of these men had working wives, typically she has more “Christian experience” than him, and they owned car theft and home security systems. There were also several generative themes that reoccurred: receiving respect, honor and support from their wife. When I reflect on this list of determining factors to affirming ones manhood, his needs didn’t seem any different from my needs as a woman. Overwhelmingly, these men defined manhood in terms of spiritual headship.
Understanding leadership as divine and orderly is a confusing theme to me. What is out of order, what is disorganized by virtue of the man not staking his claim as the leader of the family? In my opinion, full participation in the health of your family is not leadership it is assuming the responsibilities of your marriage vows and your parenting obligations. I acknowledge and celebrate the differences between male and female but those differences don’t determine “divine order” they demonstrate God’s unique creative abilities. However, we immediately resort to referring to biblical times to reaffirm the role of women – which is an enormous mishandling of history. First, male headship is not Judeo-Christian concepts; these ideologies can be seen in many socio-religious settings. Secondly, before the last 200+ years, women many times were illiterate, unless of the middle classes and nobility, and they did not possess rights to own land, right to vote and even power over their children, unless a widow, and even in those cases there were definite limitations. So manhood for those times could rationally be defined in terms of provider, leader, and protector. But how do you translate those societal norms into today?
Now, don’t misunderstand my diatribe against male headship, if you are a woman who agrees with male headship, more power to you! I know that many of us (women) feel that our natural inclination is to support and nurture others however that does not translate to the necessity of male headship. Although, I don’t agree with headship in any terms, I wanted to give you some food for thought:
If God, who could possibly be understood as female - since God creates, births, nurtures, loves all creation- wanted a head wouldn’t God have chosen the woman to be the HHIC? For the woman has the power of the womb and typically functions as the spiritual and moral agent through child rearing.
A Response to HHIC
by Cantice
Wanda is trying to have her cake and eat it too. She continues to attempt to incorporate the voices of men by speaking to them in person and through poetry, but she stops short of considering the validity of their desires to be given some controls and leadership in the family that are not accorded to women.
What Wanda and other women don’t admit is that in any institution, it is confusing for the subordinates and for the leadership to have no concept of there being a final authority. Perhaps this is the true reason for God assigning roles in the marriage relationship. The same hierarchy is demonstrated in the concept of the trinity as understood by orthodox Christianity. In the trinity doctrine, Jesus (God the son) is subordinate to God the father in the economy of redemption, even though the father and son are equal in being and attribute (Sproul 80).
Further, perhaps leading to Wanda’s confusion about leadership (“Understanding leadership as divine and orderly is a confusing theme for me.”) is Wanda’s unwillingness to recognize God the way Jesus described him. I think it would be confusing at best to understand God as female, mostly because Jesus (who knew God better than Wanda and I) understood him to be Father. The words Jesus uses for father are not gender neutral.
Lastly, Wanda says that “we” refer to biblical times to reaffirm the role of women. I’m not sure who “we” is, but I refer to the inspired manuscript, not biblical times to take my instructions on the roles of men and women in marriage and family. There is a big difference. Christian themes in the Bible, especially those for women, in the centuries immediately preceding and following the death of Christ were revolutionary (see MacArthur’s Twelve Extraordinary Women).
Having said all this, I’d like to bring this theme home in a literal way. The reason that I can embrace this male headship so whole-heartedly is because I have seen it in action in my husband. Few men embrace leadership the way Jesus demonstrated it—as a servant. My husband demonstrates servant leadership daily in our marriage and in his relationship with our children. His headship looks less “manly” than the men Wanda surveyed would expect. Few men have accurately grasped this concept of leadership, which is why few women are quick to comply. But, show me a man who is a servant leader, and I’ll show you a throng of women in line to follow him.
MacArthur, John. Twelve Extraordinary Women: How God Shaped Women of the Bible and What He Wants to Do with You. Nashville: Nelson (2005).
Sproul, R.C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith Wheaton, IL: Tyndale (1992).
Posts
