So, I was browsing through some files on my computer and I came across a paper that one of my friends posted a while back on his blog and thought that it would be nice to re-post it. So without further ado, I give you:
Submit Woman!
(The Decline of Manhood in Contemporary Society)
By Jason Vawter
With the peak of the feminist movement in the late seventies and the growing trend toward homosexuality, there has been a major shift away from gender based roles in society. In many eyes, there is no longer a need for “manhood” as defined traditionally and/or biblically. Furthermore, this concept of manhood is seen by many (both male and female) to be a veritable “thorn in the flesh” of the general trend toward complete equality of the genders. The term “manhood,” however is oft misunderstood and prejudged. Many times it is only seen in the light of male dominance. For Christians, there is always difficulty in dealing with how the Bible addresses this issue of equality between the genders in conjunction with their differences and similarities. Does the Bible endorse gender roles, and must one sex be greater than the other? In this grand and oftentimes convoluted concern, biblical integration of both female equality and submissiveness can only be addressed with a correct understanding and a humble as well as generous display of manhood through appropriate servant leadership.
First of all, the term Manhood:
Merriam‑Webster’s Dictionary defines manhood as “qualities associated with men” or “the condition of being an adult male as distinguished from a child or female.” However for the purposes of this discussion, John Piper’s description will serve even better. He offers this definition, “At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.”(35) He uses the term “mature masculinity” in line with Moore when quoted by Mohler, who explains that manhood, “is not simply a matter of being male and reaching a certain age. These are acts of nature; manhood is a sustained act of character.” (Barbarians) In this day and age, it is obvious that some people don’t see manhood as being defined in this way. Some women have even become lesbian separatist: so fed up with a male dominated society that they strive to rid their company of anything but. In cases of a more acute nature, when a lesbian couple gives birth by artificial insemination to a male, the consequences can be extreme. One lady “even feared that her lesbian partner would leave her,” and later “their friends largely left them” because their house “exuded maleness.” What type of maleness could incur so much hate and aversion? Jess Wells, the lesbian writer of Lesbians Raising Sons, tells of doing everything in her power medically (referring to sperm selection) to keep from having a boy. When she found out that she was going to have a boy, her only consolation was this thought:
“My son cannot take me away from the struggle for women’s rights, nor can he force me to take an interest in anything that I don’t deem interesting. He cannot be my oppressor because he is my child, and he cannot be a second chance to relive my life because he has his own life. He and I will explore each other’s cultures, sharing what we can and respecting what we can’t…Both of us, respecting each other’s sovereignty, can rejoice in our foreignness and celebrate our diversity.” (Mohler FIRST)
This woman plainly points out what kind of maleness she (and others like her) wants to avoid. In her mind males are oppressors and tyrants forcing women to do things against their will. That is without a doubt the definition of male dominance, but it is starkly opposed to the definition of manhood given by Piper.
Now to Equality and Submission:
According to Wells’ quote above, equality means mutual and complete personal sovereignty and submission is seen only in the actions of a servant or a slave. There are two verses that are central in biblical teaching on these issues. Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This very evidently speaks on equality; the surrounding context speaks on coheir-ship and the similarities of childlike obedience even to slavery itself. So even when the New Testament speaks on equality, it seems to do so in the context of servant-hood, not sovereignty. Likewise, the most quoted passage of scripture when it comes to the differing roles of a husband and wife, Ephesians 5:21-33, is preceded with an exhortation to all believers to submit to one another. Therefore, rather than submission being the degrading task of a slave or a yard-dog, the Apostle Paul elevated it to the high calling of the very children of God.
Equality never necessitates there be no differences in the people being equated. A musician can be equally good at music as a baseball player is at playing his sport. Their separate proficiency would be a very difficult thing to measure and compare and relatively pointless at that, but no one should argue that the musician is a better person than the baseball player (or vice versa). Similarly, Johnson points out:
“We excel at different gifts, and all the gifts are needed. Let us hope that, by recognizing the existence of gender differences, we can better understand each other and help to maximize each other’s potentials. Likewise, by accepting our God-given gifts, we can resist cultural pressures to become what we are not, to seek to master gifts we don’t possess.” (Piper 293)
Compare that to this quote from Mathews, a pro-feminist writer, on what he believes to be the anti-feminist reasoning’s:
Feminists had defiled women by attempting to force equality upon them whether wanted or not. Antifeminist women were saying in essence, “You have done men’s work. Fine, if you can do it. You have invaded men’s clubs, although it hardly seems worth the effort. And you have become, in effect men. Since you have already achieved what you want without ERA [Equal Rights Amendment], there must be some secret agenda that we women don’t know about. But we can guess. The only think left is to change the traditional norms of behavior so that you can become the model of what women out to do and be. You mean to make us like you, that is, like men. You have defiled us!” (166)
This seems to be a fair paraphrase of anti-feminist women’s reasoning except in one sense. The words “force equality” do not resonate with that line of thinking. One would be hard-pressed to find a woman, or any person for that matter, who doesn’t want to be considered equal in worth or value to the rest of humanity. This quote shows Mathews firmly believes that in order to be equal one must be devoid of difference. He is right that anti-feminist women don’t want to be forced into the same standards of performance as men, but wrong in thinking that these same women don’t see themselves as equals with their male counterparts. “Equal” does not have to mean “completely similar to.” Roles can still differ.
It is apparent that Wells could not in anyway endorse the combination of the two traits: equality and submission. To her the answer is either-or, but one must wonder, why does she see it this way? It seems that she and countless other women like her have seen a grand pattern of male dominance and a tragic lack of godly manhood.
Servant Leadership?
Men must be leaders. However, once again, a definition is needed. John Piper points out that leadership must be exorcised in many different ways. Here are a select few of his points on leadership that will assist this argument:
·1 Leadership never “demands to be served,” but to the contrary, takes the initiative to be the servant.
·2 Correct leadership does not “presume superiority,” but instead does it’s best to utilize the strengths of those it serves.
·3 A man should not feel compelled to be the sole initiator (leader); however, though the woman should have plenty of say in every issue (and should be allowed opportunities to lead), it would be a disservice to her to be forced to take initiative out of apathy and a lack of gumption on his part.
·4 As always, a good leader doesn’t tyrannically push and shove, but instead gently provides guidance and precedents to follow. (37-42)
Furthermore, a good leader offers solutions and choices but doesn’t impose them on those who chose to follow him. Piper closes his section on leadership with this point: “Mature masculinity recognizes that the call to leadership is a call to repentance and humility and risk-taking.” (41) Correct leadership is not easy because it is servant-hood. It is a service provided. Whether or not this opportunity to be served is taken up by the woman should continually be her choice. Male leadership that is forced upon a female is male dominance, not servant-hood.
Dominance:
In response to biblical evidence, Sanday considers even the Bible itself to be an example of patriarchal tyranny. She considers the early church leaders (whom she points out to have been all male) to have unfairly and systematically squelched the Gnostic tradition that was just as biblically sound as the traditions of orthodox Christians. She sites The Gospel of Phillip, The Dialogue of the Savior, The Apocryphon of John, and The Gospel of Mary as examples of Gnostic beliefs about the role of women in the church. She believes very adamantly that these books were excluded from the cannon mostly for their pro-feminine qualities. (227-231) The original canonization councils gave many other, more persuasive reasons for the books’ exclusion which they considered to be much more pressing. The pattern she speaks of in church leadership however is clearly that of male dominance and not that of servant leadership. Her problem isn’t with male servant-leadership, but with a perceived tyranny of the male gender within the church (and elsewhere). Lesbian separatists also speak of a patriarchal society dominated by male leadership that is completely against the advancement of women in any form (Mohler FIRST), but once again, this is male dominance, not servant leadership.
If there had been correct, servant leadership by responsible males, the issue of feminine equality wouldn’t be an issue. Females cry out for equality because the males they work with don’t have a correct understanding of servant leadership. Many men in America today often go to one of two extremes as pointed out by Mohler, they tend to be either “barbarians” or “wimps.” Barbarians have little consideration for the female gender. They “demonstrate a crudeness, profanity, and violence that treats women merely as objects for sexual pleasure. Barbarians show women no respect, and are completely lacking in the manly virtues of protection and respect for the well being of women.” (Barbarians) These seem to be the type of males that the feminists are mainly against (though they often find many other fault-full men), and rightly so. This attitude flies in the face of Christianity and any red-blooded female as well. However, the type of male that the feminists seem to approve of the most (or have the least objections towards), is one that stands for nothing. Mohler quotes Moore’s description of wimps: “whiny, incapable of making decisions, and in general of ‘acting like men.’” Why do feminist seem to like this type of male? Wimps constantly “look to women for emotional support, consider girlfriends to be conversational partners, and look to women for pity.” (Barbarians) In general this seems good—a fine improvement—but it is still lacking something. What happens when a woman looks to this man for emotional support? He can’t give it. He “is always looking for the easiest way out of a problem.” (Mohler Barbarians) So what is left?
The Gentleman:
A gentleman has to stand between these two types, firmly grounded in a correct understanding of “manhood.” He knows what true equality is. He understands that equals are almost never completely devoid of difference. He would never expect a woman to do a “man’s job,” but would be more than willing to give her that opportunity, if she wanted. In a personal relationship of any level (intimate or casual), the gentleman would do his best to lead the woman in a way that she would be comfortable following. As a servant leader, he must look out for her first and himself last. He would protect her interests, her safety, her purity, her emotional well-being, and most especially her relationship with God. He would do this at the cost of his own interests and desires. A true Christianly gentleman in a deeply committed, intimate relationship with a woman would sacrifice most anything but his own walk with God for her benefit. When a leader strives to be worthy of the task of leadership, his team is much more willing to support him and follow his lead. This is true in any leader/team relationship; how much more so in the most important and team of them all: a team that was instituted by God Himself.
But why Male Leadership?
A marriage, or any committed, two-person relationship for that matter, is undoubtedly a team of sorts with a leader and a follower. This is seen easily even in gay and lesbian relationships; though the two consider themselves fully equal, one generally leads and the other generally follows. This is easily seen in the existence of “butchish” women and effeminate men. In these gay situations, who leads? For lack of a better term, the more “manly” of the two. This has been the pattern from the beginning. Some believe that man’s “dominance” over women was Eve’s part of the curse, during the fall. Ortlund states that, “It follows, in this view, that a woman’s redemption in Christ releases her from the punishment of male headship.” So if “male headship” was part of the curse, then why did God make them “male and female”? (Gen. 1:27) He did not have to make the difference of gender; humans could have been asexual beings: both completely equal to one another and completely similar. But He did. In Ortlund’s essay, he points out the following:
·1 God created Adam first and gave Adam charge over the garden.
·2 When the fall happened, God went to Adam first.
·3 It was clearly Adam’s responsibility to take care of the garden and keep it in order.
·4 Adam, the first and only male, had the sole leadership role. (95-112)
However, Ortlund is also uses the pre- and post-fall episodes to carefully point out the inherent equality between male and female. He states this, “They [man and woman] are spiritually equal, which is quite sufficient a basis for mutual respect between the sexes. But the very fact that God created human beings in the dual modality of male and female cautions us against an unqualified equation of the two sexes,” (emphasis is mine, though he adds it later). (99) He goes to great pains to point this out, later stating, “There is no necessary relation between personal role and personal worth,” (emphasis his). (111)
As a wise friend pointed out, “Either way, in a team of two, one person is going to end up being more of a leader; why shouldn’t it be the one God intended all along?” Doesn’t this make since? But once again, it can never be correctly realized without a mutual understanding of the full equality of the genders. Both man and woman are completely equal, while at the same time completely different.
Conclusion:
Without an understanding of what a true gentleman should embody, there can be no understanding or apprehension of the idea of submission. The Bible never instructs women to submit to “barbarians.” And submission means nothing unless both manhood and leadership are defined. It is only once these terms are grasped and their false ill-connotations rejected, that the biblical perspective can rightly fall into place and men can stand up and be the men that God has called them to be.
Works Cited
Holy Bible, New International Version. International Bible Society, 1984. BibleGateway.com. Gospel Communications International. 23 Oct. 2005 .
Mathews, Donald G. Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA : a State and the Nation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Merriam‑Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam‑Webster, Incorporated, 2005. MERRIAM‑WEBSTER ONLINE. 23 Oct. 2005 .
Mohler, R. Albert. “Barbarians and Wimps: America’s Boy Problem” Commentary by R. Albert Mohler. 12 July 2004. 19 Oct. 2005 .
Mohler, R. Albert. “FIRST‑PERSON: Lesbians raising sons; got a problems with that?” BPNews 30 Dec. 2004. 20 Oct. 2005 .
Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Female Power and Male Dominance : on the Origins of Sexual Inequality. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
