Discussion of “Malestrom” by Carolyn Custis James (Part Two)

Last updated on: August 18, 2015 at 7:42 am by Roger E. Olson

Discussion of “Malestrom” by Carolyn Custis James (Part Two) 2015-08-18T07:42:49-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Discussion of Malestrom by Carolyn Custis James (Part Two)

In Chapter 1, “The Genesis of the Malestrom,” Carolyn Custis James explains what I have long believed—that men and women share the image of God equally and that patriarchy is a result of the fall, not part of the intended pattern of creation. Also, contrary to belief that “this is a man’s world” (intended prescriptively, not only descriptively), Christians ought to recognize and live out the truth that this is God’s world. It does not belong to either gender more than the other and belongs to neither alongside God. But, God has delegated the task of taking care of creation equally to men and women.

James then undertakes to explain what it means, biblically, to “be a man.” Biblically, it means to bear God’s image and likeness. Part of that, she rightly explains, is to live in community, fellowship, with God and each other. According to James, “manning up,” living out the image of God, means, for men, bearing God’s image in terms of character. But, of course, she believes this is also true for women.

According to James, and I agree, the whole idea of God creating humans, both male and female, in his own image and likeness overturns patriarchy. Patriarchy distorts humanity.

In general, I agree with James’s main points in this chapter. Trouble for me begins when she talks about “masculinity.” I wonder what she thinks true, undistorted, non-patriarchal masculinity looks like other than just being human in the image of God. Wait. I anticipate—many will ask “Well, how should it look any different than that?” My point is not that it should look different than that; my point is to wonder whether there is anything distinctively valuable and good about masculinity that is different from femininity. Or are they the same when at their best? Or is true masculinity a man becoming more feminine?

This is the so-far lingering question—not only hovering over this book (which may yet answer it satisfactorily) but also over the whole non-patriarchal, non-complementarian discussion of gender. Are liberated women ever comfortable affirming something distinctive about maleness that we might call “masculinity?” Or is masculinity always patriarchal and distorted unless it is conformed to femininity? Can there be genuine equality of privilege and power between males and females without sameness?

This is a complicated question and I become very impatient with people who won’t at least attempt to understand it and who react negatively just to it being asked.

Let me explain some background to the question. Almost everyone I know agrees that women tend to be more nurturing, compassionate, relational, collaborative than men—while acknowledging that men can have these characteristics also. Everyone I know also agrees that these are good and positive traits. The question I am asking of James and other egalitarians like her is whether there are any positive tendencies in terms of traits that especially characterize men—even if women can have them, too. This is what I am not hearing or reading from the egalitarian crowd. In reaction against patriarchal complementarianism they shy away from affirming maleness or masculinity as positive and good in any distinctive ways. They tend to describe “Christlikeness” in ways that they (and here by “they” I don’t mean only women) also describe women. So the result is that to be “Christlike” is to be non-masculine and woman-like.

What if true masculinity, non-patriarchal, non-distorted masculinity, is distinct from femininity but also Christlike? What if males tend to have gifts and callings from God that are inherent to their maleness and different from the gifts and callings God gives to women—even though both men and women can and often do have both?

I know that the moment I even ask that question many egalitarians almost break out in hives because they are conditioned by fear of patriarchy to assume that difference means inequality. What if it doesn’t?

I think, based on conversations about this subject here and elsewhere, that it takes a lot of concentration even to understand the question I’m asking. I’m not asking if distorted, patriarchal masculinity is good and valuable. I’m asking if there’s anything distinctively good and valuable about maleness that we might call “masculinity” on the same level as all the good and valuable things about femaleness we might call “femininity” that virtually everyone acknowledges and applauds.

So far, in Chapter One of Malestrom I’m not getting any hint about an answer to this. Toward the end of the chapter James decries the tendency of cultures and religions to “enforce inferior definitions of masculinity on men and boys.” (57) I agree that this is bad. But if there are “inferior definitions of masculinity,” as there surely are, what are some true definitions of masculinity that affirm males as males with distinctively valuable and good characteristics like those we all rightly acknowledge as especially belonging to women?

There, I’ve asked my question several times. I know from hard experience many will misunderstand it and suspect that somehow, as a man, I am engaging in some kind of anti-female backlash against the rise of women (or something). That is absolutely not true, but all I can do is ask you to trust me about this. I am confident if you asked my female family members and colleagues and friends they would tell you I am no patriarchalist. I have fought for women’s full liberation from patriarchy in the circles where I have any influence. I have made a point of attending churches pastored by women. I have made a point of arguing for hiring women to positions traditionally held by men. I have fought for my daughters whenever they were held back from their goals because they were female rather than male. I raised them to believe they should break through any such barriers to achieve the full fulfillment of their humanity. My marriage has always been one where all decisions that affect both of us are made mutually.

Some years ago, though, I was invited to give a plenary address at an annual meeting of the organization Christians for Biblical Equality. I spoke on the topic “Beyond Equality to Interdependence.” I felt my talk was not very well received and that because the women oppressed by conservative evangelical patriarchy were not ready to listen to anything “beyond equality.” They had an agenda—to fight conservative evangelical patriarchy and complementarianism and that prevented some of them, anyway, from being able to hear that men and women both have good qualities and characteristics that do, indeed, complement each other and that God’s program calls for interdependence between us—not in place of equality but beyond mere power equilibrium.

What I am trying to do here is offer a (not “the”) male perspective on the issues James raises. It’s a perspective that believes males do have something distinctive and positive to offer the world and the church beyond mere reproduction that is not tied into patriarchy or oppressive to women and that is not merely cultural—just like women have something distinctive and positive to offer the world and the church beyond reproduction and traditional roles. What exactly that “something” is in the case of men is almost never discussed and, when it is, especially egalitarians tend to turn away in fear. I’m asking that we not do that but give careful consideration to the subject—within an overall egalitarian frame of belief and conviction.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 17, 2015

Over Reactions and the Search for Balance

Next Post

August 20, 2015 Please Remove National Flags from Your Christian Worship Spaces: A Plea on Behalf of the Flag

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I wanted a vineyard so badly that my wife arranged the owner's death through false witnesses. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Ahab Jezebel Naboth