Egalitarianism tends to obscure the deeper differences between
manhood and womanhood. This has not served us well in the last fifty
years. It has instead confused millions and muted a crucial summons for a
distinctly masculine care.
Unanswered Question
What average man or woman today could answer a little boy’s question:
Daddy, what does it mean to grow up and be a man and not a woman? Or a little girl’s question:
Mommy, what does it mean to grow up and be a woman and not a man?
Who could answer these questions without diminishing manhood and
womanhood into anatomical structures and biological functions? Who could
articulate the profound meanings of manhood and womanhood woven
differently into a common personhood created differently and equally in
the image of God?
How many articles have been written about the meaning of being a
“real woman” or “real man” that leave us saying, “But all of those
wonderful things apply just as well to the other sex — maturity, wisdom,
courage, sacrifice, humility, patience, kindness, strength,
self-control, purity, faith, hope, love, etc”? By all means, these mark
true womanhood.
And they mark true manhood. So, they do not answer the little boy’s question: What does it mean to grow up and be a man and
not a woman? Or the little girl’s question: What does it mean to grow up and be a woman and
not a man?
For decades, Christian and non-Christian egalitarians have argued,
assumed, and modeled that roles among men and women in the home, in the
church, and in the wider culture should emerge solely from competencies
rather than deeper realities rooted in how we differ as men and women.
This means that, from the side of egalitarianism, very little attention
has been given to the questions of our little girl and boy. Apart from
physiological and anatomical features, the questions seem to have no
answers. And today, even those features are pliable.
When Nature Won’t Yield
Way back in 1975, Paul Jewett, who taught me systematic theology at
Fuller Seminary, conceded as an egalitarian his uncertainty about “what
it means to be a man in distinction to a woman or a woman in distinction
to a man” (
Man as Male and Female,
178). He did not mean the anatomy was ambiguous. He meant that,
whatever deeper differences there are, he didn’t think we could know
them.
“The stubbornness of God-given nature creates the need for the egalitarian message to be even more forceful.”
Egalitarians seem not to have been alarmed by this confession of
ignorance. Instead, it seems they have been confirmed and emboldened by
it. It fits the half-century-old gender-leveling current of the culture.
But
current is too weak a word.
Torrent or
avalanche
would be more accurate. One need only sample the movies and TV shows of
recent years to see the increasing passion with which women are
portrayed as being just as physically strong, harsh, impudent, violent,
arrogant, vulgar, two-timing, and sexually aggressive as any macho male
hero.
One wonders if this passion for the portrayal of
Annie Get Your Gun
on steroids is perhaps owing to the rising sense that there is
something in nature that won’t adapt to our egalitarian portrayal. The
stubbornness of God-given nature, then, creates the need for the
egalitarian message to be more forceful, even preternatural (Wonder
Woman, Catwoman, Superwoman). Such are the trials of those who try to
recreate what God made otherwise.
Alarming Sexual Agnosticism
But it really is astonishing that Paul Jewett was unable to identify
the deeper meaning of manhood and womanhood. The reason it should
astonish us is that he confessed,
Sexuality permeates one’s individual being to its very depth; it
conditions every facet of one’s life as a person. As the self is always
aware of itself as an ‘I,’ so this ‘I’ is always aware of itself as himself or herself. Our self-knowledge is indissolubly bound up not simply with our human being but with our sexual
being. At the human level there is no ‘I and thou’ per se, but only the
‘I’ who is male or female confronting the ‘thou,’ the ‘other,’ who is
also male or female. (Man as Male and Female, 172)
He cites Swiss theologian, Emil Brunner (d. 1966), to the same effect,
Our sexuality penetrates to the deepest metaphysical ground of our
personality. As a result, the physical differences between the man and
the woman are a parable of psychical and spiritual differences of a more
ultimate nature. (Man as Male and Female, 173)
After reading these amazing statements concerning how essential
manhood and womanhood are to our personhood and how sexuality
“conditions every facet of one’s life,” it is all the more stunning to
read Jewett’s agnosticism about the meaning of manhood and womanhood,
Some, at least, among contemporary theologians are not so sure that
they know what it means to be a man in distinction to a woman or a woman
in distinction to a man. It is because the writer [Jewett himself]
shares this uncertainty that he has skirted the question of ontology
[what actually is] in this study. (Man as Male and Female, 178)
All human activity reflects a qualitative distinction which is sexual
in nature. But in my opinion, such an observation offers no clue to the
ultimate meaning of that distinction. It may be that we shall never
know what that distinction ultimately means. (Man as Male and Female, 187)
Surely this is a great sadness — and an important clue to how we got
where we are today. It is not a great leap from Jewett’s agnosticism
about what manhood and womanhood are to the belief that those
differences (unknowable as they seem to him) have no God-given,
normative status in the nature of things, but only a social status
chosen by individuals.
From Unanswerable to Unaskable
The decades-long disinclination to ask the question (using Brunner’s terms),
What are the “psychical and spiritual differences of a more ultimate nature” between manhood and womanhood? has morphed from Jewett’s agnosticism into today’s antagonism. The question is not only unanswerable; it is unaskable.
“Men, everywhere, all the time, bear a burden, under God, to care for the well-being of women.”
But not asking the question about the essence of male and female
personhood confuses everyone, especially our children. And this
confusion hurts people. It is not a small thing. Its effects are vast.
When manhood and womanhood, for example, are confused at home, the
consequences are deeper than may show up in a generation. There are
dynamics in the home that form the children’s concept of manhood and
womanhood, and shape significantly their sexual preferences. Especially
powerful in forming sexual identity is a father’s strong and loving
affirmation of a son’s masculinity and daughter’s femininity. But how
can this kind of strong, fatherly affirmation be cultivated in an
atmosphere where deeper differences between masculinity and femininity
are constantly denied or diminished for the sake of gender-leveling and
sex-blindness?
Suppressing a Needed Summons
Under pressure to shun the question about deeper and differing
inclinations that may define the God-given natures of manhood and
womanhood, mainstream Western culture has suppressed one of the
realities that God put in place for the flourishing of both sexes. While
affirming the importance of mutual love, respect, honor, and
encouragement between men and women, there is in our day a resistance
against the biblical summons for men to show a peculiar care for women
that’s different than they would for men — and a strong disincentive to
women to feel glad about this.
But in
Colossians 3:19,
the apostle Paul told husbands, “Love your wives, and do not be harsh
with them.” That is not the same as saying, “Neither of you should be
harsh.” We can tell from
Ephesians 5:22–33 and
1 Peter 3:7
that this admonition to men is owing to a peculiarly male temptation to
be rough — even cruel — and to a peculiarly female vulnerability to
that violence, on the one hand, and to a natural female gladness, on the
other hand, to be honored with caring protection and strong tenderness.
Complementarian Claim
This is where biblical complementarians step in to say that something beautiful and vital is lost, when the
only
summons to men, in relation to women, is the same as the summons given
to women, in relation to men. Calls like: be respectful, be kind, keep
the Golden Rule.
No, say complementarians. God requires more of men in
relation to women than he does women in relation to men. God requires
that men feel a peculiar responsibility for protecting and caring for
women. As a complementarian, I do not say that this calling is to the
exclusion of women protecting and caring for men in their own way. I am
saying that men bear a
peculiar burden of responsibility that is laid on them in a way that is not laid on women.
Irreversible, Peculiar Responsibility
It’s tragic when a whole culture refuses to tell men that their manhood includes a peculiar kind of care for women.
Modeling the peculiar summons to the man in marriage, Christ dies for
his bride to save her, beautify her, nourish her, and cherish her (
Ephesians 5:25–30).
In Paul’s way of thinking, this peculiar calling of manhood is no more
reversible with the calling of womanhood than the work of Christ is
reversible with the work of the church.
And since this calling is rooted, not in asexual competencies, but in
the nature of manhood itself, its implications for life are not limited
to marriage. To be sure, a husband bears unique responsibilities to his
wife. But this deeper meaning of manhood does not lose its significance
when he walks out of the door of his home. Men, as men, everywhere, all
the time, bear a burden, under God, to care for the well-being of
women, which is not identical to the care women owe men.
This message, at the heart of complementarianism, has been all but
muted in our culture. Many would rather sacrifice this peculiar biblical
mandate, given for the good of women, than betray any hint of
compromise with egalitarian assumptions. Thus, I am arguing, we have
forfeited both a great, God-ordained restraint upon male vice, and a
great, God-ordained incentive for male valor.
Human Does Not Replace Masculine
We have developed a theology and a cultural bias that continually
communicates to men: You bear no different responsibility for women than
they bear for you. Or to put it differently, we have created a
Bible-contradicting, nature-denying myth that men should feel no
different responsibility to protect women than women feel to protect
men. Many have put their hope in the myth that the summons to generic
human virtue, with no attention to the peculiar virtues required of
manhood and womanhood, would be sufficient to create a beautiful society
of mutual respect. It isn’t working.
Perhaps the disillusionment of these days will give us pause. Perhaps
we will consider that we have lost something very important. Perhaps
many will wake up to the possibility that it is not noble, but tragic,
when a whole culture refuses to tell men that their manhood includes a
peculiar kind of care for women.