TL: DR – Lack of church masculinity is a thing, but it is not because of an increased feminity rather it is lack of men failing to be men on a broad scale.
I recently was privileged to listen to a discussion on the podcast, The Faith Angle. The topic was concerning the lack of masculinity in the church caused by an increasing feminity in the church. The conversation took place between Jonathan Merritt and Kirsten Powers (the hosts and prominent journalists) and Dr. Owen Strachan. Merritt and Powers were dialoguing from the perspective that the church could not be inherently feminine when the vast majority of churches are lead by men at almost every level, except maybe children’s ministry. Their point was centered around women being image-bearers of God alongside men which affords both genders equal opportunity in the church. Strachan, the former president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, took the position that the church is indeed losing its masculinity and the church needs to regain some of its more manly traits. I cannot stress enough that this was a conversation or discussion, not an argument. While spirited, it was clear throughout that both sides spoke from places of respect for the opposition.
However, this was one of those odd conversations where I agreed with both sides of the conversation at certain points and then heavily disagreed with both sides at other points. I will first discuss Merritt and Powers’, position and then move onto Strachan’s while adding some of my own perspectives, as a stay-at-home (deadbeat?) dad, along the way.
Merritt in the conversation worked as devil’s advocate and mediator for both sides, but his personal views clearly lined up with his co-host Kirsten Powers. Because of this, I will refer to the position holder as Powers, but she was not alone in the conversation. Powers argued from a safe and not radical position that women are also image-bearers of God. Because women are image-bearers, God then must have feminine qualities. Meaning that any feminity in the church assists in the church better reflecting the God it worships. To back this up Powers adds that God and Jesus are spoken of in metaphorical terms frequently with feminine qualities such as a bosom or birthing a nation. Beyond that, I would like to add that several times God, metaphorically, aligns himself with women, such as the story of Deborah and Barak. Powers continues to press that an increased feminity in the church is actually in alignment with the character and attitude of Christ. Along with the point that a church cannot possibly be going gully feminine as the majority of voices in both doctrine and doxology are male. All of these are fair points, but they fail to recognize the actual topic of is the church losing masculinity or not? Powers seems far more concerned (rightly so) with ensuring that feminity is not crushed rather than understanding if Strachan may actually have grounds to stand on. After all, there is a reason why books like “Wild at Heart” are bestsellers.
We must not take the language that men use around the issue for granted. Most men, when asked about this issue, will communicate in terms of feelings instead of thoughts. The distinction of which cannot be understated. Many men, like me, have been taught to repress and suppress all emotion from existence, especially inside our own selves. We find it almost impossible to communicate our feelings, so when our language turns to emotions that should be a huge red flag. This red flag indicates two things: 1. the emotions are true and 2. we have no idea how to deal with them. What this represents is for women, who are just generally further along in emotional intelligence than almost all men, is chance for women to lead. We, men, need you to be our helpers. This is your chance to show us how awful we have been when we oppress your emotions. You can do this by repressing our emotions, or by responding how you would want us to respond to you when you bring up things. Women ought to be leading us in this area. Instead what can frequently happen is exactly what Powers does on this podcast. The emotions of the men are invalidated in nearly the same manner as men have invalidated women’s thoughts and feelings for millennia. The ball is in your court ladies. Just to be clear, we do not deserve your kindness should you choose to offer it.
It may sound up to this point like I am clearly in Dr. Strachan’s camp in this discussion. Several years ago (my late teens, early twenties) I would have been. However, like I said in the first paragraph, I have some strong issues with his arguments as well. Let’s get into them.
Dr. Strachan has a good foundation from which to launch this conversation. I have experienced an increasing feminity in the church. It justs feels like there are fewer and fewer men around doing manly things, whatever that means. It is part of the feminization of the United States culture which the church does not have as much control over as it used too. Where Dr. Strachan and I might differ is the cause. I believe that the increased feminization is mostly due to weak men rather than an increasing power of women. I think the power women have gained so far is a good thing. I think we men have a good way still to go (e.g. equal pay for equal work). I do agree with Strachan that it is God’s plan to have men leading the church and home, but that means something very specific. I once heard this type of leadership as headship. How that term plays out is that the men lead at church and at home. However, all good heads are attached to a neck. To quote My Big Fat Greek Wedding, “The neck can turn the head whichever way it wants.” Men might be on top but we are not excused from exercising care for the rest of the body which is the family. Dr. Strachan worked to defend this position by noting that Jesus is the head of the church and that has a cost, a death on a cross. Men are meant to pay that same cost for our brides and families. A helpful phrase to cast that thought in a simpler light, “the boy goes down and the girl goes free.” As a man, I believe it is my job to free women, especially my wife, at the expense of myself. That is what it means to be masculine, in my opinion. Dr. Strachan never gets there though. I think perhaps he strayed from his talking points and began to bring up things like that the American culture is a society of death based on abortion stats (which is true – about 1 million a year). However, I believe that statistic has more to do with the oppressive “masculinity” in our society. To me, that statistic demonstrates how men have convinced women to give up something uniquely female because women have learned that men cannot or will not step up to care for the mother. Men will not care for the mother, or she would have hope for her child.
For the most part I can and do agree with Dr. Strachan, however, I do think he had two things that really eroded his argument though they were not discussed in detail during the podcast. First, the text Dr. Strachan used to support Jesus’s and therefore God’s primary masculinity has a major flaw in that argument. Second is my current life experience.
First, the text he quoted to demonstrate God’s primary masculinity was Colossians 1:15. The text states, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” To interpret that text only by the literal level leaves much to be desired. The word image here in greek is eikon which is feminine. How that alone should not be enough to overturn that Jesus was literally a man. He is frequently characterized both metaphorically and literally as male, and that fact deserves repeating. Jesus was/is a man. However, in verse 19 of the same passage, it says, “for in him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” This “fullness of God” matched with the word dwelling draws the Jewish reader to a certain period of the Jewish relationship with God, namely the time of the tabernacle. Guess what gender is used of God when He tabernacles? Female. Also, the writing of this passage which draws us into the feminity of God leads to the idea of Shekinah, the Hebrew word for God’s glory – also feminine. The English might use “fullness of God,” but the idea Paul is referencing is the “Glory of God” (Shekinah) as revealed by the prophets like Ezekiel, Daniel, and Moses. This “Glory of God” is distinctly feminine by both ancient Hebrew writers and subsequent rabbinical theology. It is also an idea upheld by Paul when he calls the church the glory of Jesus as the wife is the glory of her husband (1 Cor 11:7). Thus what Paul could be said to be communicating in Colossians is that the essence of God that filled Jesus was distinctly feminine. This is incredibly important and profound because we are all created by Christ, just like everything else (Col 1:16). So, Christ must be both masculine and feminine. He appeared to us as a man and was filled with the glory of God which is feminine. This allows Christ to relate to all humanity and likewise all humanity to relate to Christ, male and female. Dr. Strachan said that Jesus is the ultimate human and he is correct for the paradox of the two becoming one flesh resides within Jesus. Christ is both masculine in flesh and feminine in spirit, just as he is both fully man and fully God.
Secondly, where Dr. Strachan lost me was his desire to force women into the home and men out of the home as a biblical standard. I am a stay-at-home dad. It is not by choice, but by (I can only conclude) God’s will. I have 4 degrees in 3 fields and have applied to hundreds of positions and had dozens of interviews over the last several years. I have not been hired since 2013. My wife, fortunately, has an excellent steady job. Her job does not stop me from applying for jobs but it has given me a chance to write a book which will hopefully be released later this year. In the meantime, though I have the privilege of being a stay-at-home dad as my full-time job. To me, it is clear that God wants me here, perhaps to write responses such as this. So, to say that God always wants men out and women at home as defined by his own biblical words really violates what God has done in my life. My God is not a god of contradictions. God is constant and consistent. Of course, my wife and I feel it would be ideal for me to be the one working and my wife at home because that is the tradition we were raised in. But that ideal is defined by tradition, not the Bible or God.
We hurt the gospel when we allow tradition to overcome the uniquely relational God. Dr. Strachan, I implore you to look at how teaching a tradition where the man must be out working and the woman at home has hurt people and driven them from God instead into the bosom of God. It certainly hurt me as someone who works hard to live closely as possible to the Bible. We all need to realize that God is bigger than our traditions, me included.
This is how my wife and I live out headship in our lives today which may change as our understanding of the infinite God grows and our lives change. I am the COO (chief operating officer) of our family. The decisions about where and how and what the family is doing run through me. It is my job to ensure our family is prospering. As COO, I must continually check in on the family and adjust our course for the needs displayed. That means I wake up in the middle of the night for kids. That means when my wife is exhausted from long hours at work. I take the kids for a weekend morning out so she can rest. It means when I need rest I have to ask for it from my wife, and sometimes I am just out of luck. As COO, I lay down my life for my family in the same vein as Christ. That means me not taking jobs that aren’t in line with the goals established for our family. My wife is CFO. All my decisions on operation need to be run by her to make sure we have the available resources to complete the project. In this way, she makes sure that we are successful as a family. It also forces me to check in with my wife before I do something I will regret.
You might be wondering who is CEO of our family. That is God. My wife and I operate on the same business level in our family. I might outrank her when we go head to head, but God always has the final say. He is the support we need to accomplish the goals and tasks set before us. She can always ask God for more resources. I can always ask him his thoughts on how to operate in a certain area. We have our roles, but neither of us is alone on top. We work together as partners underneath the real leader of our family, God. As we break our own traditions, this mindset has saved us time and time again from problems that could be potentially marriage and family destroying. This is how God modeled the church. Jesus is the head of our church, and men and women are just the officers accomplishing His vision.