What Is “Biblical Masculinity”?
OK, I know I’ve been on a bit of an evangelical feminist kick here lately. I promise you, though, after reading John Stackhouse’s Finally Feminist last weekend, I went out and split a face cord of firewood. I even spit a few times.
Over the past few days, Rick Phillips has been posting his views on “biblical masculinity” (Read here, here, and here). These posts have been a follow up to his assertion that “the best remedy to feminism [apparently feminism is a disease - The Sage] is a good dose of masculinity.” Rev. Phillips apparently believes that the Book of Proverbs provides the ingredients for this patent medicine, and he lists them in the posts linked above. Briefly summarized, the qualities named so far are fear of the Lord, fruitful labor, and industry.
OK. I’m down with that. But, hold the phone, shouldn’t a biblical woman be all those things also? Maybe I’m missing something, but where in the entire Bible is it stated that fearing the Lord, laboring fruitfully, and avoiding laziness are exclusively (or even primarily) masculine characteristics? Rev. Phillips simply asserts the connection without every demonstrating it. The one possible exception is labor, which he grounds in the direct command to “the man” in the Garden to “work and keep.” Fine, but what about Proverbs 31? The woman described there has all three of Rev. Phillips “masculine” characteristics: she is productive, she works hard, and she fears the Lord.
Maybe she was one of those “women” that used to compete for East Germany in the Olympics.
So what do you think? Are there characteristics of masculinity specifically laid out in the Bible? Is the use of a masculine pronoun enough to prove that the characteristic is intended to be exclusively masculine?
UPDATE: Anticipating the question I know hundreds of you will want to ask…no, that is not me in the picture above. Thanks for asking!
Share on Facebook
January 31st, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Mark, my man. You have seriously filled out since I saw you last. And what’s with that cute blond hairdo! Dude!
January 31st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Hey, at least I’m not posting pictures of myself naked in a bathtub LIKE SOME CHURCH PLANTERS I KNOW!!
(OK, you were a little kid, but still!!)
February 1st, 2007 at 2:02 am
I am hereby protesting this blog for its inflammatory remarks against the East Germanic female constituency. Have we learned nothing from Driscoll
February 1st, 2007 at 6:18 am
Touche, Art!
February 1st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Thanks for the common sense, Mark. You’re absolutely right. I’m frankly tired of all the femininity vs. masculinity discussions that Phillips and his ilk engage in ad nauseum. It’s a big ego-driven cop out. Jesus calls all of his people to be conformed to himself. Let’s teach and encourage all of our fellow image bearers of Christ to exhibit the fruit of his spirit in all aspects of life, instead of pinpointing which fruits we think our gender lets us off the hook for.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
C’mon guys, P&PT and all! Put the best construction!
I don’t actually think Rick is saying that the virtues (etymology: manliness!) that he thinks men need more of are really exclusively for men.
He’d surely agree in a flash that both virtuous men an women posesses industry. As a complementarian, I’m sure he’d say that the male industry and womany industry possess some irreducible and ineffable gendered quality to them, even though both possess similar characteristics.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
sorry, that wasn’t clear:
I’m sure he’d say that “manly industry” and “womanly industry” possess some irreducible and ineffable gendered quality to them, even though both consist in largely identical characteristics.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
that guy looks like he suffers from muscle dysmorphia. we learned about it in class today. most interesting.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
My matching pen and pencil each have some irreducible and ineffable caligraphic qualities to them, but they both write.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Of course there are exclusive properties to being a man. I read all about it in Wild At Heart.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:33 pm
By properties, I mean “characteristics.” By Wild At Heart, I mean “the biblical touchstone of gender studies.”
February 1st, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Sam:
I have some “exclusive properties” for you down in Florida. Call for details!
February 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Skimming Phillips’ first post, I just have to ask: who was Israel’s first king? Hint: it’s not Saul (this would be a great pby exam question).
February 1st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Justin-
Abimelech was Israel’s first king, killed by a woman.
Am I ordained?
February 1st, 2007 at 8:46 pm
It’s odd, though- the Phillip’s first article calls Saul Israel’s first “kind,” not “king.” I’m sure that significant somehow, I just don’t know how.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
And Phillips created men and women after their kind [or "king" - the manuscripts are unclear], after their own kind created he them. Men that chew the cud after their kind he created them and women who cook their cud created he them.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Good show, Sam. And yes: In the name of yours truly, I hereby ordain you to…do whatever the heck you want, and I claim no responsibility.
Mark: huh. So that explains why my wife always asks me why I eat my cud cold. I had no idea. Thank you for the insight.
BTW, why is it that most supposedly “biblical manly” characteristic (other than, say, reproductive activities) can be found for women? I used to know folks who argued that it’s the man’s job to keep the books at home or work for a living. Sounds like something out of the 1920’s more than Prov 31 or Ruth.
I can’t risk sharing an anecdote. In the weeks before chief justice Roberts was confirmed, I listened to a C-Span interview with Robert Bork, the originalist judge who was not confirmed for the supreme court under Reagan. They took a caller with a notably deep southern accent who asked in a humble tone, “Judge Bork, do you think it the congress would be willing to go back and revoke women’s right to vote? People really wouldn’t mind, would they?” as if expecting the conservative Bork to agree. I thought to myself, “Boy, I’m scared that I think I know where that question was coming from, and I hope I’m wrong.”
February 1st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Another thought: The questions about men’s/women’s roles and characteristics usually seems to bypass good hermeneutical questions. For example, they often use narratives when there’s no reason to think the characters in those narratives were intended to be used as examples of positive moral/ethical conduct. In fact, there are plenty of places where one could (and I’d say should) argue that we’re not supposed to emulate them–Adam, Abraham, Moses.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Taking just one angle on this, what are we to do with a culture in which 51% of adult women are single? BMW has nothing helpful to say to these women, some of whom are in our churches, and the rest of whom represent our mission field. BMW (or perhaps better, Ozzie and Harriet theology) is impotent when it comes to meeting their pastoral needs. Are they welcome behind closed doors for private conversations with their ordained shepherds?
One of the many problems with this stuff is that it is crippling the mission of the church to the hurting and the lost. There must be a couple of put-away verses to support that, but I’m drawing a blank at the moment.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I’m increasingly suspicious, Suz, that “Ozzie and Harriet” theology is exactly what it is: a nostalgia for the ideal white, middle class family of the 1950s where Dad went off to The Office while Mom stayed home and baked cookies (A good wife, who can find? Her cookies are known across the neighborhood). With that ideal in mind, “family values” Bible teacher then read that lifestyle into any obscure Bible reference they can cook up. Hence, since Rev. Phillips has decided that “industriousness” is a distinctly masculine trait, he automatically reads “male role” into any passage encouraging industriousness.
Your latter point is the more important one, however. In the name of trying to preserve our safe and comfortable middle class suburban post-war culture, we lose any chance of ministering to the way that a majority of people, and women in particular, actually have to live these days.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 am
Agreed, and thanks.
My last sentence is a bit confusing on the reread. What I meant to indicate is that as quick as BMW is to cite prescriptive verses to support constraining roles for women, where are the verses to support the hindering of the spread of the gospel? Because, surely, that is the result.
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“Suz, that “Ozzie and Harriet†theology is exactly what it is: a nostalgia for the ideal white, middle class family of the 1950s where Dad went off to The Office while Mom stayed home and baked cookies (A good wife, who can find? Her cookies are known across the neighborhood).”
Meh. That’s a bit of a strawman caricature.
Its caricaturing
0) That the ideology is simple emotional nostalgia
1) what the nostaligia was for
2) what were the sources of the nostalgia
3) what the lost good things about the 50s were
4) how uncritical the ones who espouse anything like that are.
P&PT!
(tangentially related: here’s an inflammatorily interesting article)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/01/do0101.xml
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I just wanted to take a moment and thank the majority of the men who read and have the courage to speak out on these issues. God Bless You and for those of you who are married,you are blessed and your wives are blessed! Somehow the extreme views on complimentarianism don’t seem to me in keeping with the spirit of Christ and the New Testament teachings. I get angry when I think of how many of us as women might be or have already been lead in the wrong direction because of this and who is going to come to our rescue? If the majority of the world already tends to view the role of women in a type of subordinate position and ability how come churches with these views aren’t springing up all over? They should be .. right? Good grief I left mostly arminian churches because of authoritarinism and church abuse and now I am confronted with this stuff. Sometimes I want to bail altogether.
May 6th, 2007 at 7:42 am
[...] might hope that one of Dr. Trueman’s Ref21 colleagues will read his post and ponder his own contributions to that [...]