Lots of talk in the feminist blogosphere lately about "real men" and insecurity. On Wednesday, Jill posted about a much-discussed MSN article in which a group of fellas discuss whether or not successful women intimidate them. Yesterday, Amanda joined in. And a few days ago, Ann Althouse took on the lamentable Harvey Mansfield, who has written a new screed entitled "Manliness".
I haven’t gotten around to reading Mansfield, but I don’t like the excerpts I’ve read. In her review of his book, Christina Hoff Sommers writes:
First of all, he thinks we should clearly distinguish between the public realm and private life. In public we should pursue, as best we can, a policy of gender neutrality. He firmly believes that the law should guarantee equal opportunity to men and women. However, "our expectations should be that men will grasp the opportunity more readily and more wholeheartedly than women."
Though he mentions it only in passing, it follows from his position that our schools should be more respectful and accepting of male spiritedness; they must stop trying to feminize boys. A healthy society should not war against human nature. It should, he says, "reemploy masculinity." That means it has to civilize it and give it things to do. No civilization can achieve greatness if it does not allow room for obstreperous males.
In the private sphere, his advice is vivé la difference! A woman should not expect a manly man to be as committed to domesticity as she is; nor should she assume that he is as emotionally adept as her female friends. Manly men are romantic rather than sensitive. They need a lot of help from females to ascend to the higher ethical levels of manhood, and Mansfield urges women to encourage them in ways respectful of their male pride.
(Emphasis mine). In what I’m told is a compelling fashion, Mansfield is not just defending the essentialist notion that "men just are the way they are." He’s doing something else that is much more insidious: insisting that women must serve as men’s catalysts for transformation into ethical, thoughtful human beings. This is complementarianism (the notion that the two sexes have predetermined, specific roles to play in human relationship) at its worst. It burdens women with the task of making men better. It liberates men from taking responsibility for taking the primary leadership role in nurturing younger men into ethical, responsible adulthood. And it implies, none too subtly, that destructive and violent men become that way because of women’s failures, not because of their own personal choices as males.
As a Christian pro-feminist man, few things make me angrier than the periodic re-emergence of the ugly "myth of male weakness." Those who praise traditional manhood celebrate certain qualities: courage, initiative, wildness, aggression, honor. But at the same time, the essentialists and the complementarians are convinced that "real" men are incapable of emotional sophistication. We’re "verbally challenged" when it comes to describing our own inner psychic terrain, and we’re destined to be blind to the subliminal clues that our sisters "naturally" pick up on. We’re also more vulnerable to temptations to sexual infidelity and violence. Women would do well to help guard us against temptation (because we are so weak), even as they tremble in excitement at our brave and heroic deeds. In Mansfield’s world, we men are these strangely incomplete creatures: at once dynamic and helpless; courageous in the face of gunfire but hopelessly overwhelmed by the demands of a simple conversation.
My pro-feminist side cries foul, because I’m tired of the line that male transformation is a woman’s job. Even Robert Bly (whose writings about manliness created the mytho-poetic men’s movement almost two decades ago) acknowledged that raising up boys into responsible, complete, adult men was primarily the job of other men. If Sommers is capturing Mansfield accurately, he’s letting us off the hook. Rather, it’s our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters who must push us and prod us towards the "higher ethical levels of manhood", since obviously, our fathers, brothers, and male role models lack the emotional vocabulary to do so.
My Christian side cries foul as well, even more loudly. As Christians, men and women alike, we are called to become ever more and more like Christ. We all know the Epistle:
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Paul didn’t write:
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. With the constant pressure and encouragement of women in my life, I became a man; I put childish ways behind me only because my mommy and my wife helped me ascend to the higher ethical levels of manhood.
Men and women alike are called to be "new creations" in Christ. As Genesis makes clear, rigid gender roles with their strict complementarianism are a holdover from the Fall, but in Christ all things are made new. To me, that has always meant that as a believer, I can never, ever, ever, ever, say "I’m just a man, I can’t help being the way I am." Christ destroys our old nature, including our fearful adherence to narrowly defined categories like "manliness" and "womanliness". In the refining fire of His love we become the complete, whole, human beings we were intended to be. It’s not an instant event, but rather an ongoing process. Paul encourages us:
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
One of the ugliest patterns of this sinful world is the idea that men "are the way they are", spectacularly capable of many things but utterly incapable of others! As a Christian and a pro-feminist, I don’t get to say "I’m not good at washing dishes" or "I’m not good at talking about my feelings". I can say "Lord, help me to grow in You, and help me to do what I was told was not possible." The last thing I need is to accept that my masculine identity will forever render me incapable of gentleness, nurturing, emotional perceptiveness. In relationship with Christ and my brothers and sisters in Him, I can become the full and complete human being He wants me to be — ambitious, brave, honorable, kind; a boxer and an earner and an adept changer of diapers and dispenser of hugs. It is not a woman’s task to tame me or transform me — it is something that I do with God, and for which He and I alone are fully responsible.
My acculturation as a man, my testosterone, my Y chromosome — none of these are obstacles to full and complete personhood. Of course, it’s much more comfortable to retreat to gender essentialism, because it lets me and every other man off the hook for anything much in the way of personal growth. I’m not saying its easy to overcome one’s biological impulses or one’s socialization. I am saying it is possible, because I’ve seen it done and I’m doing it. I am saying it is desirable, because when both men and women are allowed to embrace their full humanity, our world will be a more joyful, fairer, happier place. And for those of us who follow Christ, I am saying it is part and parcel of our conversion to let go of all of our sinful attachments to the idea that we just "are the way we are." What we are is broken, folks — and gender-based limitations are one whoppingly glaring sign of that brokenness.
UPDATE: Cross-posted at The Scroll, the group blog of Christians For Bibilcal Equality, where I will be cross-posting often from now on. Also, Ilyka Damen comments at length on this post; check it out.
Huzzah Hugo and nice parity with Paul. I am so tired of Christianity vomiting up some sort of upper middle class victorian values. Particularly where father is some sort of distant figure to be compensated by Nanny and rare appearances of “mummy”. Or where all girls become “little women” by the age of 14 or 15.
We have created a flexible, affluent western society with the concept of equality, meritocracy and potential - why don’t we start taking those values.
ANY person who doesn’t not want thier partner to be challenged and grow to the fullest of their potential, regardless of the adjustments, change and growth that will affect both partners, does not truely love the other individual. How can love be based on intentionally keeping an equal person down so that a person can be comfortable, or not challenged or use the other person as a crutch?
You know, this makes sense in that kind of glaringly obvious way…like- WHY did I never think of this before?
I love your blog. It gives me a lot of great things to think about, and a lot of help in trying to fight the battle that is being a feminist Christian surrounded by Christians who abhor feminism. :)
I’ll approach your question (the first) at a 90 degree angle - I have money. I have success. What else does such a woman bring to the table?
Yeah, my house upgrades are done with - no thanks to the weather.
As Genesis makes clear, rigid gender roles with their strict complementarianism are a holdover from the Fall, but in Christ all things are made new. To me, that has always meant that as a believer, I can never, ever, ever, ever, say “I’m just a man, I can’t help being the way I am.” Christ destroys our old nature, including our fearful adherence to narrowly defined categories like “manliness” and “womanliness”.
I like your post, Hugo, and have always liked your posts about the supposed ‘weakness’ of men and how that often gets ‘em off the hook and such. Still, sentiments like the above just confuse me regarding Christianity. Why can you disgard the rigid gender roles of the old testament just because Jesus came along? Does Jesus say to disgard them? If he doesn’t, then what other things might you disgard from the old testament? Did Jesus say we have to keep the ten commandments in mind? Why not jettison the whole darn thing?
Gonz, what question are you answering?
Jeff, the ten commandments does not includ “women must go in the kitchen and bake pies”. OT Law really doesn’t go into gender roles all that much.
The “Fall” is a reference to the beginning of human sin, not to Old Testament law. I’d assume Hugo is referring to “the curse” that follows “the fall” in Genesis 3 when he mentions gender roles.
According to Christian theology, Jesus came to bring redemption from sin and the possibility of a restored relationship with God and God’s creations. The law in the OT gives guidelines for right living and avoiding sin, but it doesn’t change the fact of sin and its repercussions in the world. Jesus does.
As a Christian and a pro-feminist, I don’t get to say “I’m not good at washing dishes” or “I’m not good at talking about my feelings”. I can say “Lord, help me to grow in You, and help me to do what I was told was not possible.”
Jesus won’t teach you how to wash the dishes. The only thing that will do that is practice, unless one takes pride in being an incompetent.
Vacula, your very succinct second paragraph handles Jeff’s question nicely. Thanks.
Are men intimidated by strong women? And the answer is “no.” There’s just not a lot of use for someone who brings the same things to a relationship we already have, and in abundance.
Heh. Also went and read Ilyka. Let’s see. I sew. I can cook Three regional Mexican Cuisines, Four Chinese, Greek, two Italian, German, and Japanese Cuisines (In addition to Tex-Mex, and Memphis, Texas, and KC style BBQing), I make soap, I can take wool from “Sheep to blanket” - Heck, I’m kind of of the same mind as the late, great Bob Heinlein, when he wrote in “Time Enough for Love”: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, and die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
Sheesh - every time I read one of these “Men don’t like strong women” moans and rants, I can only shake my head anymore, and want to say “No, men just don’t want you.” It’s the same brand of whining that the soi disant “Nice Guys” go through, trying to fob their problems off and blame in on someone else’s percieved shortcoming. We guys are changing - fifty years ago, with the advent of Freidan, et al, women changed themselves with little regard for men, and what men wanted - not complaining; but, it is our turn now to longer give a tinker’s dam, to please ourselves, and to make our own place with what concerns us, and what our needs and wants are. The old bicycles are finding out now that they don’t much need the fih either, ad now that we don’t have someone captaining our path, we can pedal ourselves pretty much where and as we please - and there’s always a landbound fish around looking for a ride around the park every now and again.
I think that’s what’s actually galling a lot of the Mo Dowds of the world: they expected us to fall apart, and find us doing just fine.
There’s just not a lot of use for someone who brings the same things to a relationship we already have, and in abundance.
[…]
“…Specialization is for insects.”
I admire a man who has no use for consistency!
every time I read one of these “Men don’t like strong women” moans and rants
Oh! Have you found a good one? Drop me a link! I’ve been looking for fresh cannon fodder.
Kidding aside, I’m not sure whether you’re referencing my post or not with that “one of these” business. If you are not, I’m not sure why you mention it at all, as it appears to have nothing to do with Hugo’s post, either; if you are, uh . . . are you sure you read it? Because I don’t recall saying anything of the kind therein.
Vacula (and Hugo)–
Thanks for responding.
As a sort of aside–
Hugo said:
“As Genesis makes clear, rigid gender roles with their strict complementarianism are a holdover from the Fall…”, but Vacula says (and Hugo seems to agree inasmuch as he supports Vacula’s answer to my question) that “OT Law really doesn’t go into gender roles all that much.” So, does it make it clear, or does it not go into it?
Back to the meat of my point–
I may not have been clear enough in my original comment, so I’ll try again, because I don’t agree that Vacula answers my question, but it’s most likely that’s the case because I wasn’t clear enough.
If, in fact, Genesis (OT, right?) “makes clear, rigid gender roles with their strict complementarianism are a holdover from the Fall…”, then said gender roles are moral roles, aren’t they? If I understand the Fall correctly, there was no sin before the Fall, right? No commandments before the Fall except don’t eat the damn apple. After the Fall, knowledge, morality and sin. Part of morality after the fall are the rigid gender roles, if I’m to take Hugo to heart regarding the above quote. Roles aren’t just practical considerations, they are often–and it seems in this case–moral imperatives. According to the OT, after the Fall, men ought to be x and women ought to be y. So, gender roles are one sort of moral imperative in the OT.
Also in the old testament, some other moral imperatives: The Ten Commandments.
So, my question is: Why are the moral imperatives of gender roles given a pass because Jesus came along, and the moral imperatives of the Ten Commandments aren’t? If the rigid gender roles are dictated by God because of the Fall, then isn’t going against ‘em a sin? And why is that sort of sin different from, say, coveting your neighbor’s ox (or wife, which seems to have the same moral weight in the Ten Commandments)?
Another way to put it: What you seem to be saying, Hugo and Vacula, is that there is still sin in the world after Jesus, it’s just that now we have a path to forgiveness. Murder is still a sin, but there is a way to heaven still, through Jesus, for the murderer who repents and accepts Jesus as his savoir. But Hugo seemed to imply that not following the gender roles in the OT isn’t wrong, even though one would think that if he is pro-feminist he would have to think following those roles as given in the OT is wrong. In your eyes, Hugo, are all feminists and pro-feminist men sinning if they reject the gender roles of the OT? Is it a case that they are sinning, but that they can be forgiven because Jesus came along, or is it the case that those gender roles were morally wrong (which, given God dealt them out, that might lead to a conundrum for Christians), and Jesus coming pointed that out?
Jeff, there’s a colossal difference between the gender roles of the Old Testament (which are not commandments) and the Commandments themselves. The Law makes it clear we are not to eat pork; the NT makes it clear we may. The Law makes it clear men are to be circumcised; the NT makes it clear that that’s not necessary. The Law makes it clear - at least in some instances — that men are to rule over women; the NT over and over again makes the case for egalitarianism. I do not sin when I eat pork, or if I don’t circumcise my son, or when I have a radically egalitarian relationship with my wife.
“Sheesh - every time I read one of these “Men don’t like strong women” moans and rants, I can only shake my head anymore, and want to say “No, men just don’t want you.”"
I also have to wonder if you actually read the posts that Hugo linked to. Mine, for example, points out that, in my experience, men DO like strong women, and that I think it’s ridiculous for women to constantly be told that we have to act weak and passive in order to find a mate.
It’s the peddlers of traditional gender roles who, as Hugo and Ilyka said, regularly insult men by arguing that they essentially need women to “civilize” them, and that as a class they are incapable of doing and feeling certain things.
Oh! Have you found a good one? Drop me a link! I’ve been looking for fresh cannon fodder.
Just reference every 3rd or 4th column by Moo-Moo Dowdy. Or her little “Who needs men?” or whatever it’s called.
I admire a man who has no use for consistency!
Yeah, but you’d join the Jehovah’s Witnesses if I called you a feminist, so I don’t expect anything but snippiness and shallow argument mongering from you.
Okay - I hang out with strong, inependent, successful, propertied people all the time - they’re called “other men.” We have a great time doing things together. About the only thing we don’t do is have sex.
Now, if you show me a woman who is all that, but we can have sex together…well, that’s the only really unique thing about her - I mjean, besides those things I can get anywhere else, if the only thing she brings to the table is sex…
I hang out with strong, inependent, successful, propertied people all the time - they’re called “other men.”
That would be great, for most people, but for you it must be hell, not being able to tell them apart. Really, you don’t think of them as individuals at all? Weird. But hey, if it works for you.
We have a great time doing things together. About the only thing we don’t do is have sex.
Now, if you show me a woman who is all that, but we can have sex together…well, that’s the only really unique thing about her - I mjean, besides those things I can get anywhere else, if the only thing she brings to the table is sex…
So, not actually an admirer of the “late, great Bob Heinlein” after all, then. Got it.
I hang out with strong, inependent, successful, propertied people all the time - they’re called “other men.”
I think I’ve found the problem, Doctor.
Maureen Down is a feminist like I am the Queen of the Moon.
Hugo: Though I admire some of what you do, this post reminds me of why I find certain religious approaches and certain strains of ‘gender team-ism’ abhorrent. The following sentences of yours crystalize what I find offensive:
In relationship with Christ and my brothers and sisters in Him, I can become the full and complete human being He wants me to be — ambitious, brave, honorable, kind; a boxer and an earner and an adept changer of diapers and dispenser of hugs. It is not a woman’s task to tame me or transform me — it is something that I do with God, and for which He and I alone are fully responsible. My acculturation as a man, my testosterone, my Y chromosome — none of these are obstacles to full and complete personhood.
Forgive me while I puke. Does God want women to be “boxers” too? Does God want women to be “ambitious” “earners”?
The fact is, patriarchy has its origins in male superiority in hand to hand combat. Even in our modern age, by and large boys are required to internalize a ‘capacity for violence’ and, importantly, a ‘responsibility for violence’ even or especially when they’re the victims of it. Girls — though increasingly exposed to violence — are still generally not expected to internalize this (though this is less true than it was in the past). This ’socialization for violence’ and the heavily competition-based interactions which still characterize a lot of boys’ play is the antithesis of the nurturing, vulnerable, spontaneous, and playful interactions which foster the kind of emotional connectedness needed for fully gratifying family relationships and genuine intimacy with friends. And, it’s important to point out that all too often these competitive/violent relationships generally pit boy against boy. As a result, being emotionally vulnerable with another boy is rarely worth the risk. The only acceptable emotional bonds for boys tend to be the wolfpacks (cliques, gangs, etc.).
As Nancy Chodorow and other writers have observed, many men therefore experience a disjointed emotional development pattern, with an extremely early encouragement to disavow their normal, childhood emotional vulnerability and attachment (typically for their mothers). As true emotional connectedness and validation is rarely experienced with their peers, these latent unmet needs often then re-emerge at their next emotional attachment to someone (most typically when they fall in love), and can reinforce the prototypical male breadwinner/female emotional refuge family core dynamic.
For you to dismiss the impact of this male acculturation with a rhetorical wave of your hand betrays a lack of empathy which frankly is a symptom of the very problem you pretend to address. And for you to decry ‘male privilege’ and then turn around and invoke the standard patriarchal ideals for male behavior (“boxing” “ambitious earning”) as emblematic of what ‘God desires’ is pretty repugnant.
Official declaration: I do not want a romantic relationship with Gonzman. Nor am I falling all over myself to become Gonzman’s buddy.
Conjecture: The majority of female feminists do not want a romantic relationship with Gonzman. Nor are they falling all over themselves to become Gonzman’s buddy.
Question to Gonzman: You say that you don’t want a romantic relationship with a woman, and that you don’t want any female buddies. So where’s the disagreement here between you and female feminists? It sounds like we’re all okay with your current romantic/friendship situation. (Maureen Dowd might not be, but as Mythago points out, she’s a feminist like Mythago is Queen of the Moon.)
As long as you treat female feminists with the appropriate respect when we’re forced to interact with you in everyday public settings, and as long as you don’t expect us to display any interest in fucking you, it sounds like everyting will be just dandy.
Maureen Dowd is a feminist like I am the Queen of the Moon.
That’s the truth. Frankly though, I have no idea if Maureen expected men to “fall apart” without women in their lives to handle the details…..I just know that neither I nor other feminists of my personal acquaintance (as opposed to the “official” feminists that are trotted out to us via mass media) ever expected that. We knew men would do just fine, just like we knew we would do just fine. Wanting broader (sorry) horizons for ourselves wasn’t about “nyah, nyah, we don’t need you cootie-covered boys”, it was about following our own dreams, our own interests, our own talents—without being prevented by law or by custom for doing so. It was always about the freedom to become a whole person, rather than the truncated version we were once expected to be.
I also can’t think of anything being more of a non-issue than “are men intimidated by strong women?” Anyone who leaves the house can see that isn’t the case. I’m a blue-collar woman in the conservative midwest, and most of my friends are men in the building trades whose politics are more conservative than my own. Every single one of them under the age of fifty prefers women who are educated, have careers, and actively pursue a wide variety of interests. In fact, they consider it a huge bonus if a woman is interested in “masculine” pursuits—it means they can share those interests rather than say, share nagging about how long the camping trip is going to last, LOL! Just like we have the “strawfeminist”, we have the “straw man-stuck-in-rigid-ideas-of-gender-roles”—not that those fellas don’t exist, just that they are clearly in the minority. The most common complaint I’ve heard over the years about wives or girlfriends? That they don’t have enough confidence in themselves. This is what the real live men are saying, as opposed to the strawmen in the magazine articles.
besides those things I can get anywhere else, if the only thing she brings to the table is sex…
Geez, I dunno Gonz, I’m not so willing to toss off the sex like that! ;-) There’s all the difference in the world between a buddy and a lover—but hey, it takes all kinds to make this big bad world go around. Some folks have a distinct preference for a partner who is quite different from themselves, and maybe you’re just one of them. That’s cool. The only question I would have is “what does a weak, clingy, destitute person have to bring to a relationship?” (in contrast to the “strong, independent, successful” person). Not judging, just curious to hear a different perspective.
The only question I would have is “what does a weak, clingy, destitute person have to bring to a relationship?” (in contrast to the “strong, independent, successful” person). Not judging, just curious to hear a different perspective.
The thing is, there are many shades of personality in between. And it all depends on what you and your SO’s goals are.
For instance, if you both want to be Fortune 500 CEO’s, it can get a little dicey to cooperate and raise a family. That is where differences in men and women can be of benefit and where that sameness can be a hinderance.
The benefit to complementaryism is that in theory, the sum of the two together is greater than the sum of each individually. Those differences are what allows that to happen. Being different doesn’t mean the woman has to be weak, clingy or destitute. It also doesn’t mean that rigid gender roles have to be followed.
Does God want women to be "boxers" too?
Well, my wife can out punch me any day of the week. The fact that she is mastering the sweet science at a faster rate than I does not mean that she is any less compassionate, tender, and generous. You misunderstand me, ballgame — I’m not just reveling in traditionally masculine pursuits, and neither is my wife; I’m saying that in an egalitarian marriage, we are both free to pursue traditionally masculine and feminine behaviors.
I’m saying that in an egalitarian marriage, we are both free to pursue traditionally masculine and feminine behaviors.
And with that we are in emphatic agreement, and I admire and envy your egalitarian relationship. (And feel free to enjoy your perfect ‘wife boxing’ rejoinder! I fear I may have been a tad set up!)
I do, however, feel you’ve sidestepped my main point. Perhaps I can clarify by rephrasing your words to target women who may be struggling with body image issues:
“In relationship with Christ and my brothers and sisters in Him, I can become the full and complete human being He wants me to be — slender, fertile, healthy, honorable, kind; a mother and an earner and someone who can defend themselves. It is not a man’s task to validate me or defend me — it is something that I do with God, and for which He and I alone are fully responsible. My acculturation as a woman, my estrogen, my lack of Y chromosome — none of these are obstacles to full and complete personhood.”
Would you not find this problematic on some level?
Being different doesn’t mean the woman has to be weak, clingy or destitute. It also doesn’t mean that rigid gender roles have to be followed.
Quite true, Uzzah. But in terms of media imagery, the traits “strong, independent, and successful”—when applied to women—have become loaded terms, designed to conjure up visions of ballbusting, selfish, materialistic bitches. Again, not that such women don’t exist, but that—like their male counterparts—they are a distinct minority, and in any case, educational or financial achievement is no indicator as to how obnoxious or selfish a person is likely to be. I’ve just grown real tired of a lifetime of seeing these hoary old stereotypes dusted off and put forth every now and then in the media whenever there’s a slow day for substantive news (well, not that you’re going to see much of that in the mainstream media, either—but you probably catch my drift). It’s a bogus attempt to stir up dust on a “battlefield” (remember the term “battle of the sexes?” well, that’s another example of what I’m talking about) that has long since been put to rest.
See, the dirty truth is that most men and women prefer a partner that is far more like themselves than different. So yeah, seeing yet another article on how men supposedly prefer women who don’t follow their muse is grating. Misandrist, even. Who are these articles for? Why do these articles exist? Like I said before, anyone who leaves their house can clearly see this isn’t the case. There’s a real Orwellian undercurrent to this crapola of trying to convince us otherwise.
For instance, if you both want to be Fortune 500 CEO’s, it can get a little dicey to cooperate and raise a family. That is where differences in men and women can be of benefit and where that sameness can be a hinderance.
By ‘benefit’ you mean of benefit to the man who already wants to be a Fortune 500 CEO, and a detriment to the woman ditto.
If you’re arguing the differences are innate, you’ve kind of killed your example. Your innately-different woman wouldn’t want to be a Fortune 500 CEO, therefore your couple where “both want to be Fortune 500 CEOs” does not exist.
For instance, if you both want to be Fortune 500 CEO’s, it can get a little dicey to cooperate and raise a family. That is where differences in men and women can be of benefit and where that sameness can be a hinderance.
By ‘benefit’ you mean of benefit to the man who already wants to be a Fortune 500 CEO, and a detriment to the woman ditto.
No, I don’t mean that at all. By benefit, I mean achieving the goals both want. Raising the children, becoming financially self sufficient, achieving life goals together, in other words, family oriented goals. Not that this is everyones goal. Just sayin, that it is easier if husband and wife cooperate or have the “willingness” to help each other to achieve whatever goal they want. Why should there be “detriment” to either man or woman if they are both achieving goals they mutually desire?
Because you posited a man and woman who have the same goal–being a Fortune 500 CEO. There are no “differences in men and women” in your imaginary couple that would solve their conflict.
Perhaps I misunderstood, and what you meant is that differences between men and women mean that most couples will not consist of two people wanting to be CEOs, and will consist of an ambitious, career-seeking man and a woman who really prefers to be at home with the kids. If this is what you were saying, then I’d suggest you look beyond any innate ‘differences’ to see if, perhaps, something else affects those choices. (Surely I can’t be the only one old enough to remember when it was perfectly legal to have “Male Jobs” and “Female Jobs” in the want ads, or when it was accepted practice to pay a woman less than a man doing the exact same job. Those were not the results of innate preferences between men and women.)
If I didn’t misunderstand, then yes, Mr. CEO gets a benefit because we live in a society that approves of men going off to work and women staying at home, and disapproves of things the other way around. It is a much smoother road, socially and professionally, for the man to pursue his CEO job than for him to be at home rearing children while his wife goes after the top slot.
In fact, they consider it a huge bonus if a woman is interested in “masculine” pursuits—it means they can share those interests
Those men sharing or developing “feminine” pursuits isn’t even under consideration?
rather than say, share nagging about how long the camping trip is going to last, LOL! Just like we have the “strawfeminist”, we have the “straw man-stuck-in-rigid-ideas-of-gender-roles”
…yeah. As long as we have the “Ha ha, women who don’t like ‘guy stuff’ are nags” bit flourishing, not entirely made of straw, then.
Those men sharing or developing “feminine” pursuits isn’t even under consideration?
Oh, of course! But keep in mind, that once there is a critical mass of men pursuing a so-called “feminine” pursuit, it is no longer defined as a “feminine” pursuit—it’s gender-neutral. Like mythago, I’m old enough to remember the “Men Wanted” and “Women Wanted” employment ads. Back then, I was the grade-school laughingstock of the neighborhood because my father did the cooking (on the flip side, I was astonished that the other fathers in the neighborhood only cooked on the barbecue—culture shock!). Now, cooking isn’t thought of as “women’s work.” The same hasn’t held true for women who enjoy “guy stuff”—even if a critical mass of women are doing it, it’s still “guy stuff”—funny how that works, no?
I get what you’re saying about the strawwoman nag, sophonisba, but I was using a typical example of breaktime conversation I’ve heard over the years, and one that seems to ring true no matter which gender holds forth—when you marry a person with whom you have few or no interests in common, and both you and your SO continue to pursue individual interests separately, conflict results. In my own case, it was my ex-husband who was the nag—part of his idea of the “proper role” of a wife was to drop all “outside” interests—you know, the ones that didn’t directly involve him!
Look, I just occasionally feel the need to speak up and defend the working-class brothers who tend to be held up as the usual suspects in being most resistant to women stepping out of “traditional” roles. Or, for that matter, being the least likely to pursue “feminine” interests. For what it’s worth, I haven’t found that to be true. The point I was trying to make was that these are the guys who are routinely held up by the media as having Neanderthal attitudes about women stretching the boundaries of gender roles—yet, if they’re not buying that bullshit, who is?
ballgame, I think you’ve misunderstood what I mean by “ambitious” — I certainly don’t mean caving into cultural pressure to make money. I mean always eager for self-improvement, always eager to grow spiritually.
Each of us deserves to find what it is that God has called us to do irrespective of our sex. We also get to pursue our passions. For me, that
means youth work and boxing, but it certainly doesn’t follow that every man must do that. For some women, it may mean motherhood — but it does not follow that motherhood is the sole path to maximum fulfillment for women. Breaking out of gender strait-jackets is not about obligations, it’s about opportunities.
La Lubu - no, I get it, and I don’t think the people you’re describing are bad guys to know, or anything. I shouldn’t have phrased that as just a response to what you said - it’s more that there’s this sort of unconscious assumption that if a couple doesn’t live in separate spheres, it must be because the woman’s been cool and nonconformist enough to learn to like (or to innately like) fishing, camping, sports, whatever. As if the husband learning to like (or innately liking) knitting or romance novels or volunteer work or whatever is just completely off the radar: couples can have separate interests or shared “masculine” interests, no other choices. Which isn’t true, of course.
I know that husbands who share their wives’ interests do exist, and that they’re as likely to be working-class as not. They often seem to be rhetorically invisible, but I know they’re real. I wish they were talked about more often, is all.
Oh, believe me, La Lubu, white-collar guys are not automatically more enlightened on this front.
Oh, for crying out loud Hugo. You were on a pretty good roll and then you spew out one of the most contradictory, inconsistent, and - yes I’m going to say it - hypocritical posts I’ve read lately. Good grief, there’s so much to disagree with and so much inconsistency to deal with I can’t take the time to address it all, but let me just respond to this nonsense of yours: “What we are is broken, folks — and gender-based limitations are one whoppingly glaring sign of that brokenness.”
OMG, the above made me laugh so loudly they could here me in the next room. No pal, I’ve said it many times before but it bears repeating: We’re not broken and we don’t need ‘fixing.’ Now, you may be broken, so by all means work on yourself, but don’t lay your personal problems on the rest of us. We by no means need you or other feminists/women to civilize us, fix us or otherwise rescue us. Therefore, the entire foundation of the string of articles that discuss various aspects related to difficulties associated with ‘women civilizing men’ is false. We men are quite civilized, at least every bit as much as women are - we’re just not women, and that seems to be the biggest problem you folks have with us tradionally masculine, non-feminine men.
We’ve been over so many of these topics in the recent past I can’t believe that you’d throw together such a mess as this post. For example, we a very long exchange about communication not too long ago (e.g., remember “plumbed like a man but acts like a girl?”), which you seem to still think is some sort of flaw that we men need to work on. However, it was made quite clear that we trad men have no problem with communicating, we just don’t do it like women. So what? And once again we’re presented the horseshit about men being “intimidated by strong women.” We’ve talked about that too and Gonz sums up nicely what we discussed, i.e., that most traditionally masculine men aren’t put-off by strong women, we just don’t like women who are so much like us that the only meaningful contribution they bring to the partnership is a vagina. Heh, if it boils down to that then what seems to be the real issue is that men have realized that professionals are a lot better a it and a much safer bet to boot. You know, fish, bicycles and all that, except that we modern trad men have realized that those fish riding on our backs have often been bent on crashing and otherwise wrecking us. So can you blame us when we say ‘no thanks?’
Sure, some common interests are desirable in a relationship - just as it is with the male friends that I have. However, the difference is that unless it’s completely Platonic, with a male/female relationship there’s always a sexual component (even in the absence of sex) and thus there’s an inherent demension of complementarity. And not only is there nothing wrong with that, it’s nice to be able to compliment each other. You know, the partnership being more than the sum of the two individual parts and such.
I think that you folks who believe that gender is nothing more than a social construct are every bit as big a mess as the “gender essentialists” that you rail against. Maybe even more so.
And I just love this - now that Maureen Dowd, who identifies herself as a feminist (along with most other reasonable, raional people who have read her stuff over the decades) writes something that the feminists here disagree with, all of a sudden she’s excommunicated from the ranks of ‘real feminists.’ Whatever happened to “there are all kinds of feminists” Big Tent? Whatever happened to letting feminists chose for themselves whether or not to identify as such? Apparently that only applies when feminists want to distance themselves from those in The Sisterhood who make them look bad at any given moment (e.g., Down, Dworkin, Sommers, et al.). LOL! Whatever.
Then there’s this gem from mythago: “If I didn’t misunderstand, then yes, Mr. CEO gets a benefit because we live in a society that approves of men going off to work and women staying at home, and disapproves of things the other way around. It is a much smoother road, socially and professionally, for the man to pursue his CEO job than for him to be at home rearing children while his wife goes after the top slot.” On what planet is this the case? Is this how it is in your Queendom on the Moon (realizing that Dowd is indeed a feminist, in her own words)? However, here on planet earth in the 21st century it is most definitely socially acceptable for women to be both mothers and CEOs - at the same time! - and men are rapidly being pushed out of both CEO and parental roles by political correctness and other social forces in order to make room for the new Queens of the Moon (or wherever). Seriously myth, the characterization that you describe is so 1950s (I was there and I remember), so let’s get with the times Ok?
Mr. Bad, the brokenness to which I refer is not unique to men. I’m referring to our broken human nature, referenced in Psalm 51:17.
Like I said Hugo, if you yourself are “broken” then by all means, knock yourself out. But don’t paint all of the rest of us with the broad brush of ‘broken’ based on you own personal situation.
Um, human sinfulness is not my own personal situation. This is a post about a Christian notion of masculinity — and a recognition of the reality of sinfulness/brokennness is at the core of the Christian understanding of human beings.
Traditional masculinity - the focus of your post - is considered “sinful” from a Christian perspective? That’s sounds silly, if not outright ridiculous. However, it reaffirms my decision to not embrace Christianity.
Hugo–
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment, with links to scripture even! I do appreciate you taking the time to educate me in this matter.
(Also, as an aside, you seem to have infinite patience with people like Mr. Bad, and I, for one, think it’s pretty impressive.)
So I think I get now that the Ten Commandments (for instance) are somehow fundamentally different from other edicts given in the OT, although I’m not exactly sure why–wouldn’t *any* rule laid down by god be sort of hard-and-fast? Still, there’s no reason for me to press this point–you know your bible better than I do, and if you say that the Ten Commandments are fundamentally different than the other edicts, I’ll take you at your word.
I do think, however, that you quote scripture as if that solves the issues about gender equality in the bible, but you seem to be cherry picking, if you don’t mind my saying.
Your first example of egalitarianism is this:
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Unfortunately, in the same book before this, the male pronoun is used, and it’s not clear to me that this isn’t excluding women implicitly…especially since the next two lines are this:
2Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Sure, the next few lines after that dictate how men should treat their wives, but these rules are different rules than the ones for wives to treat their husbands…egalitarian? Separate but equal? Seems you’d have to be sort of into Camille Paglia or something to go for that, and that doesn’t seem to be your general take on things.
Your second scriptural reference regarding egalitarianism is this:
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
This is certainly an egailitarian sentiment. Unfortunately, it makes the same mistakes that a strict Marxist makes regarding gender and race (IMHO)–they say that everything comes down to economics, so that if the economic power relations are made egalitarian, then race/gender/etc. problems will just automatically disappear. Whether it’s true or not (and it’s likely not, it seems), even Marxists have to deal with racism/sexism/etc. right now. Similarly, it may be the case that in some sense a person isn’t a slave because of Jesus, but in a very real, important sense, that slave is still a slave–is still owned by somebody else. (And I think it’s not an accident that Jesus never spoke out against slavery.) So, we may all be one in Jesus, but that doesn’t men that outside of Jesus God is telling us to be one–he may mean that you should have slaves, for instance, (or treat women as inferior to men), but that in the end we’ll all be one with God.
Your third scripture quote is this:
4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
I’m pretty impressed with this book of Corinthians as far as egalitarianism is concerned, actually. That is, the basic idea here is that we’re all equally servants of god. Still, doesn’t the sexist language here bother you–and doesn’t it point to the pervasive sexism in the bible? That is, who are virgins in this passage?–only women. And while women are mentioned, and things ascribed to what they ought to do, this passage, like most in the bible, is primarily directed at what the men should do–which doesn’t seem egalitarian to me.
Mr. Bad - Hugo and other evangelical Christians believe sin affects all humans. When he says he believes men are “broken” he means they aren’t “perfect”. Naturally, he believes the same thing of women. But we can all be imperfect in so many different ways!
Just because he’s pointing out some imperfections in traditional masculinity does not mean you need to be personally offended. If you want to believe that you’re perfect, go right ahead. No one will force you to think differently. But Christians and most other people will persist in seeing a few imperfections in you and the rest of humanity.
Jeff, emphasizing “edicts” in the OT kind of misses the point. The OT is a lot more than just the law, and the law really doesn’t concern itself with specific gender “roles” all that much. Hugo already gave a few examples of ways that specific OT laws were “overruled” in the NT. If you look at those examples in context, you’ll see a lot of explanation for how the OT laws were limited but the NT laws operate on the same principles or expanded principles that remove some exclusions of gentiles (and women, to some extent - I still don’t think the OT is as restrictive as you do).
There are many different ways to interpret scripture according to feminist (egalitarian) / traditional (complementarian / essentialist) theories of gender roles. Keep in mind it was originally written in several different ancient languages over a very long period of time and it was written “through” very different humans in very different cultures and very different situations. All lots of complications when you’re trying to figure out how you should think about what you’re doing today in light of it.
Ohhh, I think I maybe get it now. Feminists and certain types of Christians are repressively “civilizin’” the way the scandalized, fussy middle-class aunties tried to be with Huck Finn. When all he wants to do is light out with his buddies and go fishing. Something like that?
Vacula–Thanks for responding.
You note that “If you look at those examples in context, you’ll see a lot of explanation for how the OT laws were limited but the NT laws operate on the same principles or expanded principles that remove some exclusions of gentiles (and women, to some extent - I still don’t think the OT is as restrictive as you do).”
If you don’t think the OT is as restrictive regarding gender as I do (or, presumably, as Hugo does, as part of his point is that Jesus’ coming is what allows us to get rid of some of the restrictions of gender roles laid out in the OT), you must be reading a different bible. Do you, perhaps, have one that doesn’t make it ok to offer up your daughters to strangers to assuage their anger? Do you have one that doesn’t say it’s just great to stone your daughter to death if she’s not a virgin?
Leaving aside the OT/NT distinctions for a second, under what sort of interpretation, exactly, could Timothy 2:11-12 be construed as not sexist:
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” There’s nothing in there about a man having to learn in quietness and full submission. I’d like to see just how you might interpret this so that it’s not sexist.
Back to OT vs NT. One of Hugo’s points was that the NT changes things, even rigid gender roles. And I’m still waiting to hear how “2Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” isn’t ascribing rigid gender roles.
Your take on things is basically, “Well, it’s subject to interpretation.” Fine. Give me some interpretations where these sorts of things aren’t sexist. Please.
I should reiterate that, as someone who cares about men’s rights and men’s issues, I strongly dislike Harvey Mansfield and his message that we need to “return to when men were men and women were women,” a time that actually disadvantaged both genders simultaneously. Mars/Venus psychobabble, and I’m surprised to see so many conservatives fall hook-line-and-sinker to it.
Jeff, I’m not going to argue that the OT law isn’t at all restrictive: they were supposed to stone anyone who sacrificed babies, consulted spirits of the dead, blasphemed, broke the sabbath, converted to another religion, promiscuous daughters, adulterous couples, rebellious sons, etc. It certainly restricted women’s sexuality, but it didn’t outlaw women working or owning property or serving as spiritual leaders or getting an education. Look at Zelophehad’s daughters and Deborah and Abigail and Proverbs 31 for just a few examples of women who, with God’s blessing, went beyond the typical gender roles of their day.
As for the NT passages you quote, any interpretation needs to take into account the fact that they’re letters written to specific people. Most of Paul’s epistles are written to new churches that are dealing with very specific personality conflicts and heresies, often gnosticism and Jew vs. Gentile sensitivities. There are “clues” about the background arguments in the specifics of his responses. Some of the wierdest “gender role” stuff, like “women shall be saved by childbirth” and “if a woman does not cover her head she should have her hair cut off” are responses to gnostic heresies about the body and rituals from the pagan “mystery religions”.
Paul describes specific women (Priscilla, Lydia, Pheobe, and Junia, to name a few) supporting the church and/or working alongside him in ministry. Just because he thought the women in Timothy’s church should be quiet and learn (educating women at all was fairly radical for the time, btw) or thought the Corinthian women some should cover their heads doesn’t mean all Christian women should shut up and wear hats.
As for your last quote, I think it’s very easy to interpret the passage without imposing “gender roles” if you include the verse before it: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” It’s usually separated in the text, but that’s an editorial decision and an entirly different topic.
Vacula–
I really do appreciate your persistance in helping me here. I know it’s pretty obvious we’re coming at this stuff from quite different worldviews, and it’s nice to find somebody to learn with/from who doesn’t mind (yet!) educating me, which I do feel like you’re doing.
Your point regarding Timothy does confuse me, though. I understand the basic idea of reading something in context, but with the bible, isn’t it more problematic? If you can say that what Timothy was saying about women wasn’t meant to be universalizable to all women, but only applied (perhaps) to the women in Timothy’s church, then how do you ever say anything in any book of the bible is a basic moral tenet, universalizable–how come I can’t just disregard other tenets as ‘just for that particular church’? Or can I? And if I can, by what standard could I ever claim something in the NT has a general rule, handed down from god? If Jesus says ‘love they neighbor’ in Book x, why can’t I say he just meant that toward that particular church?
Also, I understand what you mean about Submitting to christ, but it seems disingenuous to me that if we take all of those lines together (Hugo had quoted the one you quote, I was trying, ironically!, to bring it into context), it still seems pretty sexist to me:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives and Husbands
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31″For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
So, sure, there’s talk about how men and women should treat each other here…but is it egalitarian? Doesn’t seem like it to me. Submit to each other, it tells us…but in addition, wives must do that submitting as if submitting to god himself! And men are encouraged to love their wives, but women aren’t encouraged to love thier husbands–rather, they are to submit and respect them. I just think you have to wiggle quite a bit to get ‘egalitarianism’ out of
Wives: Submit to each other, Submit as if your husband were god himself, submit to him “in everything“, respect your husband.
Husbands: submit to each other. Love your wife. By loving her you will cleanse her (y’know, because she’s dirty, unlike you).Love your wife. “feed and care for” her as if she were your own body (erm, she is her own body, isn’t she?). love her as you love yourself.
If things were really egalitarian, we’d hear about the wife needing to love her husband as she loves herself (but she doens’t really have a self, here, just something with which to subordinate) and we’d hear less about how the wife has to do some extra submitting–not just submitting to each other, but submitting to the husband as if to god himself.
Hugo, I hope we aren’t indulging in thread drift here! Jeff, I always appreciate a good discussion and I’m glad you’re trying to push this until it makes sense to you. You might not agree with my conclusions but I’m glad you’re trying to hear how this perspective works.
Like I said before, the Bible was originally written in several different ancient languages over a very long period of time and it was written “through” very different humans in very different cultures and very different situations. One complication I left out was “genres” - the Psalms are personal poetry, Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain the “law,” Judges is a historical book, Isaiah contains prophecies, Timothy and Ephesians and Corinthians are personal letters. The historical books, prophetical books, and the law show God speaking to humanity very generally - Moses, the prophets, Jesus all very definitely say “this is right and this is wrong”. We may still need to think about the context, but it’s hard to “explain away” their messages by talking about context because the whole Bible provides a lot of continuity for those messages.
On the other hand, the epistles and poetry deal with very random specific issues and usually specify who they’re for and why. It would be silly for me to try to stretch the angry, vengeful psalms onto my uneventful life or worry about the spiritual implications of circumcision in the church or whether or not I should eat sacrificial meat. But just because some passages deal with specific problems that I don’t have doesn’t mean they’re useless to me. I can use both the verses and the context to think about my own anger and disagreements and what my priorities should be.
Ephesians is a book that deals primarily with communal responsibilities in the church (lots of stuff about unity, forgiveness, tolerance, kindness, etc.). The marriage passage is an extended metaphor that looks both at marriage and Christ’s relationship with the church. Obviously this is a pretty big leap, but if you only look at the separation between the church (humanity=wives) and Christ (god=husbands) you miss a lot of the impact in the metaphor. What does it mean for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her? That’s a pretty tall order. I can’t answer all the stuff about cleansing - I’m not an NT Scholar and I’d want to know more about the cultural beliefs about women and Paul’s theology before I tried to interpret that out. I do think it does help that Paul ends the passage with a disclaimer that reiterates his points: This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
Paul goes on to describe relationships between children and parents, slaves and masters, telling both sides to honor the other and act with integrity. He doesn’t overturn the imbalances in their social structures, but he does undermines positions of power by telling husbands, fathers, and masters to show respect for wives, children, and slaves because God shows no partiality.
We don’t live with slavery and American women aren’t subject to their husbands the way wives were in the Greco-Roman world. But the church is still full of people pulling power trips over each other and not thinking about how they should submit themselves to Christ. In our individual lives there are still conflicts in our families and our workplaces. I still need to learn to “walk worthy” of my beliefs and to be patient and speak the truth in love. For that, Paul’s letter can still speak a great deal to me.
Vacula–
I, too, hope we’re not causing thread drift, though I think that talking about gender roles in the OT and NT is pretty on topic, isn’t it?
I suppose I have some trouble with the general push of your position (and you with mine, probably!)– I think it’s often useful to talk about putting things into context in order to understand them better, but I think one runs into some trouble doing that, in general, when you’re talking about a book that is supposed to be both a book written by human beings and a book that is supposed to be giving us some eternal, god-given Truths-with-a-capital-T. And I think that the problems with reconciling those two ’sides’ of the bible show themselves pretty well in the discussion of gender roles and the bible, but the problems themselves are more general.
Still, I can put the problems into both the general and specific formats, I think.
For instance, take what you’ve taught me about Timothy. It’s different than some of the other books because it’s a letter, and the various moral tenets expressed are (you, and I’m guessing many, interpret) only important to the people of Timothy’s church. Given that, I’d want to ask–why the heck are they in the bible at all? If we can discount Timothy’s words for our purposes because they only applied to those specific people back then, what do we gain from Timothy?
You’ve already provided something of an answer to that, of course, when you said:
It would be silly for me to try to stretch the angry, vengeful psalms onto my uneventful life or worry about the spiritual implications of circumcision in the church or whether or not I should eat sacrificial meat. But just because some passages deal with specific problems that I don’t have doesn’t mean they’re useless to me. I can use both the verses and the context to think about my own anger and disagreements and what my priorities should be.”
But it’s not apparent to me why it would be silly. If it talks in psalms about not eating sacrificial meat, don’t you have to make sure you don’t eat sacrificial meat? If it says god doesn’t or does want you to circumcise your children, why doesn’t that apply to you? And if it doesn’t because it was aimed at a particular group at a particular time, then why is it in there at all? How are you to use it to think about your own anger and disagreements and priorities when it wasn’t aimed at you? And if it is aimed at you…you see where I’m going, I suppose.
I guess I just think that people who take the bible as the word of god–literalists or not–often want to have it both ways; they want this to be Divine Truth, somehow less assailable than the moral truths that, say, an atheist might come discover/create. But they also want to interpret it as if it weren’t divine, because it was written by people at a specific time. I don’t see how you can have both. If it only applies to certain people because it was written by human beings in particular contexts, then the whole thing is open to question, it seems to me.
And along those lines, doesn’t it bother you that, as you implicitly point out, god (nor any of those who wrote the bible for him) “doesn’t overturn the imbalances in [the] social structures” of men/women or, perhaps even more blatantly, slavery? How can Jesus be held up as the ultimate in Goodness when he didn’t claim that slavery was bad (presumably because he was a child of his own era, if he existed), but that you should treat your slaves right?
And given all of this, I don’t understand why this book seems right to you, and, say, the Koran doesn’t. (If it doesn’t.) If you have to interpret things so deeply, why pick this book to interpret from?
(We can take this outside if you–or Hugo–would like. Feel free to email me: jpjesus at speakeasy dot net.)
Ohboy. Justify why you believe what you believe and try to write it very concisely on your lunch hour! It’s hard to address the “big picture” of what truth is and how you know it without coming off as naive or condescending. Give me the benefit of the doubt here and I’ll do my best to be clear.
What I believe about the Bible is obviously tied into how I interpret it. When I look at the Bible as a whole I see a “metanarrative” that begins with creation and the fall, follows the beginning of human cultures to the separation of the nation of Israel, follows the history of their relationship with God to the introduction of Christ, who redeems humanity from the fall and calls on his followers to continue to spread that redemption until he returns.
If you believe it is a collection of ancient texts tied together by its use in specific religious traditions, I would agree with you. But I would go beyond that because I believe God (one, true, all-knowing, all that) uses these scriptures over time to communicate himself to humanity. You seem to imply that divine communication would always be universal in its instructions or descriptions, whereas human communication is so specific it’s useless to anyone beyond the direct audience.
I don’t believe every verse or every story is intended to give me a moral lesson for “what I should do” (or not do) because I believe this book communicates the fundamental story of humanity’s relationship to God, one of alienation and reconciliation. I am not surprised to find a lot of stories dealing with human brokenness and conflict. David is described as a “man after God’s own heart,” but we see adultery and murder and incest and emotional abuse in his life and in his family. He wrote many of the most beautiful, gentle, joyful psalms and many of the most angry and vengeful ones too. We don’t usually learn as much from neatly packaged “lessons” our parents give us as we do from observing their lives. Because I can look at directions (law) and lives (history) and personal emotions (psalms), I can see my own life doesn’t need to match up to some stoic ideal of perfection. Seeing the how God works with people is just as important as seeing the what he tells them to do.
When I talked about sacrificial meats and circumcision I was referring to other controversies Paul dealt with in his epistles. The NT begins with 4 historical books that act as biographies for Jesus in his life and ministry. The next book is a historical overview of the beginning of the church. Almost all the rest of the NT are letters written to specific churches in specific cities or regions. Many are written to specific people in those churches. But the letters themselves and the historical book (Acts) give me a lot of contextual information that explains why certain issues were important for them and what the overall goals are.
Take the slavery issue: Sure, Jesus could have gone around railing against every single injustice in his society. But would that have served the overall purpose? Or would it just create more hairsplitting rule-following, the same kind he railed against in the religious leaders of his day? Paul had very little power in the society, people considered Christianity a suspect cult, and many Christians were facing severe physical and economic repercussions for their conversions. The time was not exactly ripe for a huge slave revolt. Helping new believers see how they should treat each other may not be a huge thing, but it was the step they could take at that point. Christians have much more power in America now and that colors our perception of these sorts of things.
I still haven’t given any explanation of why I believe in God and the Bible to begin with but I’m late to a meeting and that’s a really big question to answer succinctly.