Christian manhood must emerge from discipleship. There is no other way for Christian males to learn to sit under the authority of Christ, to have their lives governed by the word of God. Rooting Christian manhood in discipleship is hindered when gender stereotypes (masculinity and femininity) are used to describe what it means to be a Christian man. Still, gender stereotypes are “real” in the sense that they are commonly held perceptions that exert pressure on men and women in various ways. They do not, however, have a claim on us in the same way that truth, goodness, and beauty do. Gender stereotypes are options or preferences rather than a transcendent given. As D. C. Schindler argues,
“When we speak of the good, we are relating our will to what transcends the will, and so what determines the will…When we speak, but contrast, of an option, we are precisely excluding that transcendent dimension; we are defining the object of choice as nothing more than an object of choice, which is to say as something whose goodness or worthiness of being chosen has its principal source in the subject, the will that makes the choice.”
Using Schindler’s terms, discipleship is training toward goodness (and truth and beauty) because discipleship calls us to set aside our own desires and preferences and to adopt the mind of Christ. Cultural constructions like gender are largely options. The problem is not that such constructions cannot recognize certain aspects of the good, true, and beautiful,l but that they are unwilling to be governed by the authority of Christ. Discipleship, then, points us beyond ourselves to the Triune God and the order he has established, whereas training in masculine and feminine stereotypes traps us within the matrix of cultural preferences that refuse to point beyond themselves.
Embodied Embedding
Embodiment—also referred to as embodied cognition—refers to the ways in which our being-in-the-world makes it possible for us to “know” the world in the various senses in which we can know it (see “Discernment and Discipleship: Four Ways of Knowing”). Because we all embody the world in different ways in different contexts, we will be faced with different challenges and experience reality differently from others. Cognitive psychologist and philosopher John Vervaeke describes this phenomenon in terms of embodied embedding, such that “the biological fittedness of a creature is not a property of the creature per se. It is a real relation between the creature and its environment.”
What exactly does Vervaeke mean? A simple way to illustrate the idea of biological fitness is to think about general human incompatibility in water. Our bodies are not designed to breathe underwater. While we have a relatively limited (the world record is just under 25 minutes), if we want to stay underwater for any length of time, we need scuba gear. Even if we could solve the breathing problem, prolonged time underwater has adverse effects on the skin. Our bodies are simply not fit for prolonged life in the water.
Embodying a particular physical environment—like water—isn’t something to which our bodies readily adapt. We can use technology to overcome our bodies' limitations, but the presence of technology is a constant reminder that our bodies aren’t fit for the environment. The socio-cultural aspects of our environment are somewhat different. We can often adapt to conform more closely to the various norms of our socio-cultural environment. At times, such adaptation is necessary and appropriate. Paul, after all, becomes “all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:22). At other times, however, adapting to socio-cultural norms becomes problematic (Rom 12:2; cf. 1 Pet 1:14). In either case, the way we adapt will likely differ depending on a variety of factors—sex being one.
Consider another example. On a trip to Utah, my family and I went on a canyoneering tour that involved some bouldering, hiking, and repelling. At one point, we had to go through a relatively narrow crevice. My wife and kids had plenty of room to make it through. I ended up having to take off my backpack and helmet to make it to the other side, and I still came out with scratches on my chest and upper back where I had to squeeze through the narrow sections of rock. My 6ft, 220-pound frame was a disadvantage in the crevice. From the perspective of biological fitness, I was at a disadvantage in that situation; however, that doesn’t mean that my size is a disadvantage in every situation.
Environments aren’t only physical but also socio-cultural. For instance, while serving as an academic dean at a Bible college, I was asked to serve as a teacher on a donor trip to Israel. At the time, I had about three quarters of my right arm covered by a tattoo. I was asked to keep the tattoo covered during the trip to avoid any unnecessary tensions with those who might not be tattoo friendly. A (voluntary) physical characteristic (i.e., a tattooed arm) was unfit for the socio-cultural setting (i.e., teaching on a donor tour in Israel). The symbolic world I was being asked to embody required a body without tattoos—or at least a body whose tattoos could be hidden.
We should not assume that the physical and socio-cultural aspects of our environments are always—if ever—disconnected. For instance, the installation of ramps and handicap accessible structures on various buildings brings the physical and socio-cultural together. Ramps, we might say, are physical structures derived from a socio-cultural value—care for and inclusion of those who cannot access a particular environment via stairs. Their appearance is the working out of something that transcends the actual structure. They represent a point at which the physical and socio-cultural come together.
How does all of this contribute to the question of how men may live under Christ’s authority? While all humans share certain potentials and liabilities, males and females are not the same (e.g., they have different reproductive capacities). Commenting on essentialism—the affirmation “that men and women are fundamentally, or essentially, different”—Abigale Favale notes, “a woman is the kind of human being whose body is organized around the potential to gestate new life.” By definition, a man is not this sort of human being. The potential for a man to “gestate new life” is, as far as I am aware, non-existent. Men, on the other hand, are those whose “reproductive system makes, stores and moves sperm.” Scientific manipulations and atypical genitalia notwithstanding, this understanding of maleness points to an essential difference between men and women.
Are there others? Potentially. In a 2023 study of sex differences, the researchers conclude that there are certain sex differences in “brain activity, sex-specific cognitive and behavioral styles as well as susceptibility to illness and disorders.” However, they also recognize that distinguishing the extent to which sex differences are due to “nature” versus “nurture” is quite difficult. Unlike the design of male and female reproductive systems, other differences tend to be less universal or definitive in nature. In other words, males tend to exhibit a specific set of characteristics, but those characteristics are not exclusive to or universally found within all males. For instance, males are “on average” taller than females, but that doesn’t mean every male is taller than every female.
Why is this important? First, there is really no need to overcomplicate the distinction between male and female. Favale’s definition of a woman via the organization of the body and its potential to gestate new life creates a clear line distinguishing male and female. Adding in characteristics that are predominant but not universal is, in my estimation, unnecessary to maintain the male/female distinction. Second, as we begin to speak about characteristics “normally” associated with males, we will have a tendency to begin ranking males (sex) as more or less masculine (a gendered distinction). In other words, a descriptive statement can quickly become normative in ways that can be used to diminish certain males while elevating others—they begin to form our understanding of masculinity and femininity in ways that are not connected to scripture.
Masculinity and femininity are less-than-helpful categories because they lack precision. Ultimately, however, they are problematic because, despite their lack of precision, they are often activated in conversations about biblical manhood and womanhood. Perhaps worse, they are used within the Christian community to create what Hogg and Terry call “prototypes,” which are “not checklists of attributes but, rather, fuzzy sets that capture the context-dependent features of group membership, often in the form of representations of exemplary members (actual group members who best embody the group) or ideal types (an abstraction of group features).” To the extent that this description is accurate, we begin to see the potential for distortion if the “fuzzy sets” of attributes reflect our priorities rather than God’s priorities.
We catch a glimpse of this problem when Samuel travels to the house of Jesse to anoint a new king over Israel (1 Sam 16:1-13). Saul, the current king who God had recently rejected, is described as being “more handsome” and “taller” than all the other men of Israel (9:2). As Samuel interacts with Jesse and his sons, he sees Eliab, David’s older brother, and thinks, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him” (16:6). Eliab—like Saul—looked the part, yet God tells Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (16:7).
1 Samuel 16 isn’t about gender. That’s not the point. The point is that when we begin to create our own filters and categories to evaluate one another and weight those categories more heavily than the attributes God values, we are far more likely to make wrong judgments about one another than right ones. Masculinity, to the extent that it reflects culturally determined gender roles, has the potential to obstruct our vision so that what God values becomes less important than what we value.
Learning from Bondservants
Being masculine often seems to require an ambition for professional success. In Act Like a Man, Driscoll frames this in terms of “dominion,” noting, “If you’re a man, you need to know you were made for dominion. That’s why you were made.” Driscoll’s idea of “dominion,” however, seems to extend beyond a biblical understanding of the term in at least three ways.
First, after citing Genesis 1:26, Driscoll notes, “If you’re a man, you need to know you were made for dominion. That’s why you were made.” Driscoll makes a point of saying that “men are made for dominion, rule, and authority,” however, he ignores the contours of Genesis 1:26-27. When God says, “let us make man in our image” in Genesis 1:26, most commentators recognize the reference to man not as “male” but as “humankind.” For instance, commenting on Genesis 1:26, Victor Hamilton states, “the verse affirms that God created in his image a male ‘ādām (human) and a female ‘ādām (human).” The shift from the singular “man” in the first half of the verse to the plural pronoun in the second half (“And let them have dominion…”) suggests that “man” should be viewed as a collective noun and that dominion is given to all of humankind—both men and women (cf. also the usage of ‘ādām in Genesis 5:2, 6:1, 5-7; 9:5-6). Given this understanding, it seems better to say that males were made for co-dominion.
Second, when we think of the dominion humans are to exercise, it seems best to understand it in terms of the image of God and the creation account’s sanctuary symbolism. Regarding the image of God, Old Testament theologian Gerhard von Rad suggests, “through the image of God in man Creation, in addition to coming from God, receives a particular ordering towards God.” Humankind, in one sense, preserves an order that it oriented to pointing to and glorifying the Triune God.
Regarding sanctuary symbolism, humanity's dominion involves the extension of God’s presence throughout creation by extending the precincts of the garden introduced in Genesis 2. As G. K. Beale notes, “In light of Genesis 1:26-28, this meant the presence of God, which was initially to be limited to the garden temple of Eden, was to be extended throughout the whole earth by his image bearers, as they themselves represented and reflected his glorious presence and attributes.” Dominion, then, cannot be disconnected from the representation of God—it is the result of being made in his image. As such, learning to and teaching others to live under Christ’s authority is the non-negotiable way we exercise dominion today. The Great Commission is the continuation of the basic human mission described in Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:15-17. I say non-negotiable because construing dominion apart from living under Christ’s authority represents our slavery to sin and flesh (cf. Rom 6:15-23).
Driscoll does seem to acknowledge this understanding of dominion at certain points while also going beyond it. For instance, he suggests, “The good news for men who work is that your work will continue in the Kingdom…God told us to be fruitful and multiply, have lots of kids, and exercise our God-given dominion to subdue and create culture, make cities, start businesses, chase dreams, go on adventures, and get things done.” This statement—and various others like it—seem innocent enough but tend to skew toward stereotypical notions of masculinity rather than offering a more robust biblical reflection.
Consider, for instance, Paul’s instruction to bondservants. While bondservants were not exclusively male, there would have been males included in the category. As such, these instructions would inform one way of being a Christian—whether male or female—in the world. Note the following:
-“Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him…Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity)” (1 Cor 7:17, 21). Paul is not arguing that bondservants should not take opportunities to become free or even to pursue those opportunities. Instead, he is encouraging them not to think that they must change their situation in order to serve the Lord.
-“Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere hear, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is bondservant or is free” (Eph 6:5-8; cf. Col 3:22-25). The bondservant’s primary aim here is to serve as one who recognizes God’s authority. While one’s position as a bondservant requires different actions, the aim remains the same: live under the authority of Christ.
-“Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather, they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved” (Eph 6:5-8). The bondservant’s behavior is to be governed by a desire to honor God. Disrespecting one’s master could, evidently, have reflected poorly on God and the teaching of the church. Again, we see bondservants being called to adopt a certain demeanor that isn’t ambitious in a worldly sense but seeks to glorify the Triune God even by respecting an earthly master.
-“Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Tit 2:9-10). The final phrase offers the purpose of the previous instruction. Bondservants are to reflect the teachings of God by serving their masters.
From these passages, it isn’t clear that bondservants—for our purposes male bondservants particularly—could “chase dreams” or “go adventures.” It isn’t even clear that they could “start businesses.” They wouldn’t have been able to “create culture” by influencing society. Male bondservants, based on 1 Corinthians 7, would have been encouraged to serve where they were rather than aspiring to exercise authority over broader have been to live under Christ’s authority and to glorify the Triune God within their social position.
Christian men will end up occupying different positions within society. Some may be “masters,” others “bondservants.” In either case, they are to live under the Lord’s authority. Driscoll’s “either-or” framing of male dominion (i.e., “either God’s sons exercise dominion or Satan’s sons exercise dominion”) isn’t reflective of biblical teaching because God’s people aren’t necessarily called to take over and reform the world’s structures but to live faithfully within them. God’s people, including Christian men, exercise dominion in a particular way—by being and making disciples for Jesus Christ. Does that mean we can’t pursue positions of influence and leadership? Not at all. It does, however, mean that whatever we do emerges from discipleship—from learning to live under Christ’s authority. Christian men
Embodied embedding is a key concept in understanding what it means to live as a male under Christ’s authority. Males have a different experience of the world than females due to their basic biological (nature) and socio-cultural training and expectations (nurture) exert influence on them. As Christian men live in the world, they will certainly be shaped by internal, biological influences such as testosterone levels or various sex-biased genes. They are also influenced by socio-cultural factors, suggesting that men should be tough in a particular way, emotional in a particular way, and productive in a particular way. Those “particular ways” don’t necessarily require an unqualified devotion to the Triune God.
Christian manhood needs to emerge from discipleship because discipleship is the way men learn to live under Christ’s authority. Discipleship will allow Christian men to glorify God in the various positions in which they find themselves. As their position or their environment changes, discipleship will provide them with the resources to adjust and adapt to their new surroundings so that they still honor the Lord.
Photo Credit: ©Pexels/Andrea Piacquadio
