If, as I suggested in article 1, gender role orientations like masculinity are inadequate to inform any understanding of what it means to be a male who lives under the authority of Christ, it would seem necessary to offer a different paradigm that avoids at least some of the trappings associated with gender role orientations. In setting the authority of cultural conceptualizations of gender role orientations aside, I am not suggesting that males and females inhabit the world—the mix of physical and symbolic/conceptual spaces that constitute our lived environment—in the same way. Instead, I am suggesting that Christians cannot assume that stereotypical gender role orientations should be determinative for the way they understand themselves.
We should recognize that one’s sex exists within a constellation of other physical (e.g., height, weight, strength, etc.), social (e.g., relative wealth, educational achievement, upbringing, etc.), and symbolic (e.g., one’s beliefs about the activity and presence of a “higher power,” understandings of the afterlife, what makes for a “good” life, etc.) characteristics and convictions that influence our way of experiencing the world. In the Christian perspective, however, the Bible is the final authority for life and faith. As such, Christians (a) affirm those aspects of the world that gesture toward the good, true, and beautiful while (b) expanding and giving definition to right cultural perceptions so that they are directed toward the reality of the Triune God and (c) calling out and resisting falsehoods that distort, diminish, and deny the theological reality of the world.
Applying these tasks to cultural conceptions about gender role orientations requires Christians to be diligent in keeping their thoughts under the authority of God’s word. For instance, we need to take care not to affirm cultural conceptions about gender role orientations that do not align with scripture. This caution is not limited to discussion of gender role orientations, but to any human ideas—including those held by Christians. During his lecture titled “The Church is Dead,” Bonhoeffer notes,
“Has it not become terrifyingly clear again and again, in everything that we have said here to one another, that we are no longer obedient to the Bible? We are more fond of our own thoughts than of the thoughts of the Bible. We no longer read the Bible seriously; we no longer read it against ourselves, but for ourselves. If the whole of our conference here is to have any great significance, it may be perhaps that of showing us that we must read the Bible in quite a different way, until we find ourselves again.”
The Bible can reinforce some of our views, but we must avoid the temptation of thinking it will reinforce all Christian ideas let alone all the ideas advanced by the world. Gender role orientations are—as I’ll suggest below through a consideration of Paul’s writing—particularly difficult to navigate making it difficult to not to confuse biblical and cultural conceptions of masculinity and femininity.
Paul and Gender Role Orientations
In 1 Corinthians 16:13, Paul encourages the Corinthians—male and female—to “act like men” (andrizomai). The Greek word andrizomai is etymologically related to the Greek word anēr or “man.” As such, many commentators note that andrizomai is a “masculine” term used to exhort the Corinthians. So, is Paul affirming a cultural notion of masculinity by using this specific Greek term?
In the context of 1 Corinthians, the call to “act like a man” is intended to push the Corinthians—both male and female—toward more courageous living. While masculine concepts are often juxtaposed to feminine concepts in the ancient world, Anthony Thiselton notes, “The gender issue threatens to obscure the force of be a man!” He goes on to suggest that man (anēr) has two semantic oppositions, not one: it does not simply pose a contrast with supposedly ‘feminine’ qualities; it also stands in contrast with childish ways, as strikingly in 1 Cor 13:11…Hence the Greek suggests both maturity and courage: show mature courage.” Given Pauls’ concern that the Corinthians move toward maturity in their thinking (14:20; cf. 13:11), this reading seems wholly appropriate.
Still, we should not ignore the Old Testament background. In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, andrizomai occurs twenty-four times often in conjunction with ischuo in the phrase “be strong and courageous” (Deut 31:6-7, 23; Josh 1:6-7, 9, 18; 10:25; 1 Chron 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chron 32:7; 1 Macc 2:64; Dan 10:19). This combination is often contrasted with being fearful (Deut 31:6; Josh 1:9; 19:25; 1 Chron 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chron 32:7). It is also associated with keeping the law or following the ways of the Lord (Josh 1:7; 1 Chron 22:13; 28:20; cf. Josh 1:18). The word andrizomai also occurs in conjunction with “be strong” krataioo, as it does in 1 Corinthians 16:13, at various points in the LXX (2 Sam 10:12; Ps 31:24).
How should we think about the connection between andrizomai and masculinity? Does it suggest that only men should be concerned with developing maturity or courage? Should they be particularly concerned with developing maturity and courage? Some commentators seem to suggest as much. For instance, Kevin DeYoung suggests that while andrizomai may be applied to both women and men, “Paul says ‘act like men,’ not because women should not also be brave, but because there is something particularly unmanly about shrinking back and shirking one’s duty out of fear.”
How should we think about the connection between andrizomai and masculinity? First, it does not suggest that only men should be concerned with developing mature courage. Paul is writing to both men and women. As such, Paul’s exhortation isn’t a statement about masculinity, but a call to those in Corinth—male and female—to pursue a life of faith despite other fears.
Second, it seems unlikely that Paul is suggesting that men should be particularly concerned with developing maturity and courage, though some commentators suggest that is the case. For instance, Kevin DeYoung suggests that while andrizomai may be applied to both women and men, “Paul says ‘act like men,’ not because women should not also be brave, but because there is something particularly unmanly about shrinking back and shirking one’s duty out of fear.” DeYoung’s sense that cowardice is “particularly unmanly” isn’t a statement about a characteristic inherent to the male sex but a culturally determined gender role orientation. If men felt greater societal pressure to be courageous; however, such a feeling has less to do with a differentiation between male and female and more to do with a “story” that has been applied to the male body. Courage is not a natural male trait—something that men in particular need to exhibit as opposed to women. It isn’t encoded biologically or anatomically.
Third, given the Old Testament usage of andrizomai with krataioo and ischuo, we should consider the possibility that Paul is drawing on this background. The use of andrizomai to translate what are more general Hebrew terms for strength and courage—often a combination of chazaq and ’ammiyts—shouldn’t necessarily suggest that the underlying Hebrew carries the same associations with masculinity as andrizomai. Paul may be using something of a stock Old Testament phrase that doesn’t carry any particular masculine nuance.
Finally, it should be noted that assuming anything about Paul’s notion of masculinity from the use of a single word is problematic. Even if we could assume that Paul wants all the Corinthians—male and female—to “act like men,” it isn’t at all clear from the near context or from the letter as a whole what it might mean to “act like men.” Though Paul often addresses specifically male roles such as husband, father, and, likely, master, it is difficult to find references in which Paul comments on male characteristics outside of a given role or to identify characteristics that were to be specifically male. Oftentimes, the characteristics Paul ascribes to men in one context, he applies to women in another (see “What are the Characteristics of a Christian Man?”).
Paul’s relationship to the masculine norms of his day is complex. In part, this is because masculine norms themselves were complex. As Susan Hylen notes in “Malleable Masculinity: Rethinking Paul’s Masculinity in Light of Valerius Maximus,” “The variety in masculine norms makes it difficult methodologically to contrast Paul with ‘Greco-Roman masculinity’, whether positively or negatively.” She goes on to conclude, “The varied possibilities make it difficult to select an attribute like ‘dominance over others’ and to use it as a measuring stick for Paul’s actions.” It would be difficult to assume that Paul is buying into a particular cultural view of masculinity because the ancient view of masculinity wasn’t uniform.
It seems likely that Paul would have been conversant with the variety of ancient norms related to masculinity; however, that doesn’t mean he is accepting them without fitting them within the theological framework of Christianity. For instance, Jennifer Glancy reviews the variety of ways different scars would have been viewed in Greco-Roman society. She notes that scars to the front of the body resulting from battle were viewed as marks of courage, whereas scars on the back of the body resulting from battle suggested cowardice. Scars from flogging were a different matter. She notes, “Because vulnerability to beating was a servile liability, any free person who was whipped or struck suffered an injury to honor far in excess of whatever temporary pain or permanent mark was inflicted.”
As such, Paul’s “marks,” particularly the fact that he boasts in those marks, would have been confusing within the conceptual world of the day. Commenting on Paul’s “marks” (stigmata) in Galatians 6:17, Glancy concludes:
“Habituated to a first-century corporal idiom, the Corinthians could not read a straightforward tale of manly valor in Paul’s storytelling body. Paul. Does not suggest they should. Rather, he makes clear to the Corinthians that in his own body he knew the sufferings of Christ…Paul boasts of beatings for strategic reasons: his abused body is already the subject of discussion and even derision in Corinth. He also boasts of beatings for theological reasons: he believes that the story of Jesus’ death is legible in the scar tissue that has formed over welts and lacerations inflicted by rod and whip. Paul’s share in the sufferings of Jesus is a source of corporal knowledge and ultimately of personal power.”
Glancy’s discussion provides a helpful illustration of one of the ways Paul plays with the cultural expectations of the day by modifying them through his theological framework. The goal is not to suggest that there is nothing good in the values of his day, but to recognize that such values are incomplete apart from Christ. They require expansion, definition, and correction in light of God’s word, not simple affirmation. To use Bonhoeffer’s language, we need to read against our perceptions of masculinity rather than for them.
Contemporary Confusions- An Example
In Act Like a Man, Driscoll claims, “In the Word, sex is fixed. It’s binary: male and female. Gender is fixed and is binary: masculine and feminine.” Driscoll’s characterization of gender as “fixed,” however, doesn’t seem to eliminate the ambiguities associated with “masculinity” and “femininity.” First, it isn’t clear from the immediate context that Driscoll isn’t just collapsing sex and gender. While I think some of his other assertions in the book betray his belief that there gender is, in fact, more of a spectrum or range than a characteristic inseparable from sex, this particular passage leaves the question open. Second, and perhaps more problematic, is that the assertion is never argued. Throughout Act Like a Man, Driscoll assumes some concept of masculinity without making what he assumes explicit.
For instance, in a separate section, Driscoll suggests, “Most unhealthy men think there are feminine and masculine emotions…This isn’t true. Men and women both bear the image and likeness of God and have the same emotions; they’re just expressed in masculine and feminine ways.” While it may be tempting to say “amen” and move on, it is important to recognize that apart from a cultural script about gender role orientations, what it means to express emotions “in masculine and feminine ways” is non-sensical. Can we really identify Jesus’s tears at the death of Lazarus (Jn 11:35) as masculine and the weeping of Mary during the same incident (11:32-33) as feminine? Aside from the difference in their sex (i.e., Jesus was male and Mary female), there is no indication that Jesus weeps in a masculine way while Mary weeps in a feminine way. Jesus and Mary just weep.
At various points, it seems that Driscoll’s work has less to do with biblical manhood and more to do with “machismo”—a sort of bravado that uses the scriptures to reinforce cultural stereotypes rather than challenging them. Even the book’s subtitle—"9 Ways to Punch Life in the Mouth”—gestures toward a sort of swagger that doesn’t seem particularly well aligned with the Christian faith. Yes, Driscoll’s book contains some good insights, but those insights are blunted by implicit and explicit cultural assumptions about masculinity. Rather than push toward a robust biblical understanding of how men can point to and glorify God, the book tends to encourage men to reject a liberal notion of “gender” (which is not a bad thing) and embrace a more “conservative” or “traditional” idea of masculinity (not necessarily a good thing) that isn’t necessarily aligned with scripture (definitely a bad thing).
While there is certainly nothing wrong with utilizing the insights of academic disciplines like sociology, psychology, biology, etc., Driscoll isn’t doing that—he is claiming that the Bible teaches that “Gender is fixed and is binary: masculine and feminine.” That claim, as I’ll discuss in the next article, is difficult to sustain from the biblical text. That is not to say that the Bible endorses an infinite number of genders—I don’t believe it does—but that differentiating exemplars of faithfulness to God from exemplars of masculinity or femininity is quite difficult. To put it differently, it isn’t clear that the Bible is as concerned with masculinity or femininity—if it is concerned with such “gendered’” notions at all—as it is with faithfulness.
In the so-called “Hall of Faith” of Hebrews 11, the “cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1) that surrounds the church is comprised of women and men who exemplify what it means to trust the Lord. Trust is not a gendered orientation or activity. It is not masculine or feminine. While there are certain roles and positions only one sex may occupy (e.g., only men can be fathers and husbands, only women can be mothers and wives), the way they occupy these positions is not a matter of embodying some ideal masculinity or femininity but of learning to live with “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen’’ (11:1). Such learning occurs through discipleship—learning to live under the authority of Christ.
Photo Credit: ©Zac Durant/Unsplash
