Tue 24 Apr 2007
Building the Y: Pillars to Manhood
Posted by tom cottar under theology
“It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the privilege, or the burden, which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware of how inadequate most of us are, on our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us.”
–CS Lewis, God in the Dock
From a biological standpoint, the Y chromosome is what makes us men. In fact, there are some Russian scientists that believe the Y will inevitably all together–perhaps in 10 million years or so. But what about societally? What about spiritually? As I posted yesterday, I'll begin today by stirring the pot.
What follows is the continuation of my own journey to understanding Biblical manhood (Read Part One and Part Two here). It's not complete, but it is where I am at this point. PostModerns and post-postmoderns fancy the idea of 'deconstructing' things–breaking things down into their 'essences' or 'cores'. In fact, as the renowned PM philosopher Jacques Derrida once said, "It is only through the process of deconstruction, by breaking things down to their cores, that we will ever break through onto something else."
Um,…ok…?
If you ever figure out what the fat that means, you let me know. Because I sure don't. What I do know, however, is that I've yet to be convinced that Scripture ever really 'deconstructs' anything. At all. In fact, what it does is quite the opposite. Instead of deconstructing, it layers. It doesn't reduce much of anything, but systematically adds to the picture. (e.g. concepts of 'the kingdom of God' and 'the gospel' immediately spring to mind). So, in following with the pattern of Scripture, that's what I'll do here. Layer. Build on. We'll do addition instead of subtraction.
So, what does Scripture say about manhood? About the roles of men? Here's the first of a 5 or 6 part layering of what I am understanding about a Biblical manhood.
Pillar #1:
KING.
The first fingerprint I can find in Scripture is that of King. And although it's clearly central to the theme of the Scriptures (God is King of Kings), it's first appearance is in Genesis 1 where Adam, the prototype man, is instructed to 'have dominion' or 'rule'. Of course the theme runs completely through the OT in into the NT where Jesus enters the scene and is destined to rule 'with all power and authority'. It wouldn't surprise me if men in Scripture had bumper stickers on their camels, donkeys, and chariots that simply read, 'The buck stops here' (or the ephaph or denarius?!?). It was not a power issue, but an issue of responsibility. Obviously, there are lots of slope-headed brutes out there that see this as a divine right to rule with an iron hand and become the ultimate Boss of their little brick castle. (If that's you…you're pretty stupid…just keep with me through the rest of these and you'll see why…)
But his Kingship and Kingdom are not a reign of terror or some kind of barbarian rule. The heart of the king is a provisionary heart. The king looks ahead, watches over, and provides order, mercy, and justice. He is authority. He is leader. He is ‘the energy of just and creative ordering.” The king in man is in authority, yet ‘under orders’ to a higher authority. Just check out Ephesians 5:25-29 below:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church…"
Abusive? Hardly. Barbaric? Nope. Chauvinistic? Not in the least. Unless you consider the act of 'providing' abusive. Or you consider abuse to be 'provision'. Either one is way off. But as King (ruler) you give all your energy to providing the best for your wife and family. The best of your efforts at work and the best of your time at home. They don't get the 'leftovers', but the first fruits.
Tomorrow, Pillar #2…
2 Responses to “ Building the Y: Pillars to Manhood ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
The problem with your thesis is that, in Genesis 1 it is not Adam, but man - male and female - that is instructed to rule. Every translation will include the fact that God created man in his image and likeness, male and female he created them. The ‘adam’ formed from the ‘adama’ is split into the ‘ish’ and ‘isha’.
So if you wish to say that the proper purpose of the Eikon is to rule the earth under the authority of the ruler of heaven and earth, and part of the redeeming work of God is to return us to that proper role, I’m right there with you. And I do believe that Genesis 1 is where we must begin for an understanding of much of anything, including the gospel.
But if you want to turn what we were created to be, male and female created to be, into a specifically male thing, then I think your reading of the text reflects more what you believe it should say than anything it actually says.
Not that I would ever dream of applying a deconstructive perspective through the lens of a hermeneutic of suspicion …
As far as the second quote go, I certainly agree that we should love our wives as Christ loved the church. And since ancient cultures are something of a hobby of mine, I’m also aware how remarkable it is that Paul instructed husbands to sacrificially love their wives.
However, I will further point out that Jesus himself commanded us all to love each other as he has loved us, clarifying (I think) the intent of his modification of the Shema with the command to love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore I tend to read Paul as telling the guys that yes, it really does apply to your wives as well.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Hmmm. On deconstruction, I suppose I will comment. The fact that people kept telling me I seemed ‘postmodern’ pushed me to get a feel for some of the terms of that branch of philosophy. And this is a good one. It seems to be commonly used now simply in a nihilistic sense roughly synonymous with ‘unbuild’ or even ‘destroy’. John Caputo is fighting that trend and doing some fine work connecting philosophy and theology - specifically Christian theology. (I need to read more of his work.)
Deconstruction, rather, is a way of having that which is the object reveal its own necessary omissions. And that’s a difficult concept to wrap your head around. As I’ve read about it, I’ve discovered that I seem to do something similar naturally and intuitively. I believe that’s part of the reason I incline toward apophatic theology, which seems inherently deconstructive rather than the more positivist systematic approach.
Apophatic theology recognizes that all that we can say about God or all that can be said in human terms is inadequate to capture the enormity of God. And so it looks at that which we can say God is not or the places where we must say two apparently contradictory things about God and thus seeks to understand God better.