3. Putting
gender in its place
Gender on the agenda?
But the
first task for the Church is perhaps to realise there is an issue at all. When,
for example, was the last time you heard a sermon on the gift of gendered
identity? Despite the evidence of the imbalance of men and women in church
attendance statistics, and anecdotal examples a-plenty, many in the churches
seem to be unsure as to whether the issue of gender bears any relevance to
Christian faith at all. I have heard Galatians
3.28 ('there is no longer male and female in Christ Jesus') being interpreted
as ushering in a new era in which the importance of gender differences between
men and women is now eradicated.
This is
perhaps due to a vagueness about what the words sex and gender signify, and the
difference between them. It is worth
clarifying the terms here:
This is why
the notion of what gender roles are is constantly changing within society. Perhaps it is this confusing changing
pattern of ideas, seemingly driven by social trends rather than, for example,
biblical principles, which has encouraged complacency within churches. However,
in becoming indifferent to the importance of gender for men, it could be argued
that we in the church have simply swallowed the current Western gender myth
reflected in our wider society. That myth is that ideal person is in fact androgynous,
capable of being both 'masculine' and 'feminine'.
Androgynous
Christianity
Gender
theory has offered various interpretations this century, but the concept of
androgyny came to the fore in the 1970s. Androgyny celebrates the idea that the
sexes are in principle identical in all characteristics and capabilities.
Fashionable and seen as politically correct, in its fullest form it concludes
that one person alone can achieve 'human potential', and has led to the idea of
“genderless models of marriage and parenting”.[2]
Men and women can manage without each other.
I believe
that there is, too, a form of Christian androgyny which is rooted in many of
our churches, and which militates against the importance of gender
exploration. Many Christians would want
to affirm that masculinity and femininity somehow reflect the
multidimensionality of God, and have something to do with the fact that he(!)
is a God ‘in relationship’. God’s interrelatedness is revealed in the way that
human beings have been made to relate to each other as different kind of
beings. Simultaneously however, the common misconception of there being neither
'male nor female' in Christ Jesus[3],
leads to a perception that the ultimate aim for Christians, realized after
death, is to become Christlike by being disembodied selves, without
any gender distinction. Embodied gender is seen as a stepping stone to be
discarded on the way to a greater transcendent end. The ‘ideal’ Christian is therefore androgynous. I began to wonder whether this was the
impression I was giving to a large group of mainly ‘unchurched’ men at a
funeral recently, as I stood at the front in a cassock and surplice. The effect of clerical robes seems aimed at
disguising both masculinity and femininity.
It is true
that there is a sense in which men and women can embrace the creative potential
of the other’s gender identity, to be 'masculine in a womanly way, and feminine
in a manly way.'[4]
However, the lessons we can draw from androgyny are neither that men and women
must lose distinctiveness in seeking to become genderless, nor that our
ideas about gender roles must be cast in stone, cages in which we are
imprisoned. Rather, there is a middle
course to be found where gender roles can be malleable symbols through which we
can enrich each other’s masculinity or femininity.[5]
If
men are to be able to seek a distinctive spiritual identity at all, as a starting
point the Christian community must firmly believe that the image of God can
come to its fruition only in a community where we are united yet different,
male or female. We need to understand as a church that gender
differentiation is created, not accidental.
The
key biblical foundation for this can be found in Genesis 1:27. Proponents of androgyny have argued that in
Genesis when God created man, 'Male and female he created him.' Separate identity is interpreted as
unnecessary. But it is important to go
on and to note that the plural is also used to distinguish
between male and female in this verse: 'male and female he created them'.
This deliberate balance clearly reveals God’s intention for humanity to be
united, but it also emphasizes the blessing of man and woman as beings distinct
from each other. Both male and female are equal bearers of the divine image.
If there is
therefore a temptation to embrace so-called 'androgynous self-sufficiency', it
must be resisted by Christians. Instead, it is time to affirm that to be
masculine or feminine is to be fully human, that our gender is one of two
ways in which God enables us to embrace life in all its abundance. And yet,
paradoxically, because we always experience our gender in relationship, gender
is a gift which reminds men and women that we remain incomplete without each
other.
But as
Christians, we are charged with the building of a kingdom, and some may see
gender issues as being secondary to this greater role. Yet this is a false
separation. In the life of the kingdom, the complementarity of our roles
remains an important factor. Indeed, the redemption of this relationship is
part of God’s plan of salvation, not superfluous to it. Thus to say that the
development of the gender wholeness of man and woman should be set aside in
pursuit of the greater role of kingdom builder is flawed. It 'forgets that
God’s kingdom includes the restoration of creational shalom between men
and women, as well as the proclamation of God’s salvation in Christ.'[6]
So using the
primacy of the kingdom as an excuse for maintaining the status quo,
particularly in terms of justice in the relationship between the sexes, is
self-contradictory. Nevertheless, in describing the place of gender within the
Christian life, Mary van Leeuwen presents a helpful analogy of discipleship
'…as a series of “offices” or vocations that nest inside each other like the
progressively smaller boxes of a child’s stacking toy.' The largest box, which
overrides the others, is that of the redeemed sinner, committed to building
God’s kingdom of justice and peace as a member of Christ’s body. In the same
way that marriage, singleness, and parenthood can all be seen to be vocations
within God’s created order, but, compared to the goals of the kingdom, are not
of 'supreme importance', so too gender roles have an authentic place as part
of the framework of existence.[7]
The task is
to see the importance of giving men the rationale and, if you like, even the permission
to explore gender identity. In their search for liberation and conversion to a
fuller humanity, men must feel free to find the language to describe their own
experience. They must believe that it is a valid exercise.
Where do we begin to talk about 'masculinity'?
The tasks of
building bridges between men and God, and of addressing the more general issues
of identity crisis among men are intimately connected. If we are to make
headway, one of the fundamental needs is for a theology that will be the
foundation on which Christians can start to redeem broken masculinity. But
before we can begin addressing the question of how to go about this, we need to
decide exactly what it is that is in need of redemption. What are we aiming for? What, in fact, are the marks of
masculinity? The problem we face is
that gender identity, as we have noted, is difficult to pin down. For example, there may be more difference
between two given men, than between one particular man and one woman. Speaking about men’s approach to conversion,
one vicar notes in two individuals completely different approaches to finding
faith:
'In two men I've known there is a spectrum. In
one there is a man who has said, "I have found my emotional needs being
met, and therefore that draws me in to the family, the belonging I didn't
have", but another has said, "I like what I see, but can I really
trust it?" And that was the
crucial thing.'[8]
If it is
hard to generalize about two men in the same cultural context, then the
issue of what masculinity might signify across cultures makes the
possibility of progress even more of a challenge. Where then do we start?
Two avenues
of exploration
The debate
about how human identity is formed has often been characterized by the contrast
between nature and nurture. Is our identity as human beings imprinted upon us
through our genes, or is it formed by the circumstances in which we grow up? In
the thinking around what gender identity means the terms of reference are very
similar. There are currently two strands of thought in men’s studies which
offer a way forward: constructionism, in which gender identity is seen
as something which is in a permanent process of being built, and essentialism,
in which blueprints of identity which are rooted somewhere deep within men are
there to be discovered. I believe a Christian approach should be able to draw
from the wisdom of both.
a) Building
masculinity
Many would
see society today as being ‘reflexive’ – whatever norms we might have in terms
of behaviour, identity etc. are continually being cross-questioned, as we
re-examine our past, respond to the present, and predict what we need to be in
the future. There is little sense that
anything can be fixed or tied down. In
this context, many see the idea of the 'self' as a continuously evolving
interplay between different social and cultural forces. It cannot be pinned down, it is 'a project
carried on amidst a profusion of reflexive resources: therapy and self-help
manuals of all kinds, television programmes and magazine articles.'[9]
In this context, the constructionist, or building approach to
gender sees masculinity as having no 'single and consistent set of attributes
and essence.' It may be rooted to some degree in our physical characteristics,
but it is much more a product of changing relationships between men and women,
history and culture. Constructionists speak of identity as a series of
developing gender projects.
For Christians,
this resonates with the concept of being 'new creations', in that it offers
hope for a reconstructed sense of self, not only in relation to human
structures, but fundamentally in relation to God. Through this process of
reconstruction, personal and social are inextricably entwined, and any change
is not aiming to be merely therapeutic, but will result in improved external
relationships.
b)
Discovering masculinity:
While essentialists
may look for reconstructed social relationships as evidence of developing
masculinity, in this school of thought change occurs when men become reunited
with an essential masculinity that is within all men, a subconscious blueprint.[10]
Writers such as Robert Bly and Richard Rohr appeal to 'archetypes of being'
rooted in men. Solutions can be found in the work of the mythopoeic writings of
Jungian analysts, which appeal to the rediscovery of the 'deep masculine',
through story and myth. Nevertheless, even for those trying to discover the
'essence of masculinity', the patterns of manhood suggested remain
'intrinsically plural…mixed, complex, ambiguous.'[11]
c) The
Christian Gender Project
The need is
for men to find new purposes, new vision, and new identity. Both
constructionists and essentialists are trying to do this. They are seeking an
expression that will give a voice to men, and break ‘the silence of an
undeveloped or lost language’. But the task of trying to understand what it is
to be a man by taking account both of the social and cultural influences which
form us and by affirming that our masculinity is also somehow grounded
in our bodies and minds is difficult and elusive. Christians need a both/and
approach, which affirms that there are essentialist truths about identity, but
also that our identities are multidimensional.
We shouldn’t be afraid of seeking to construct an identity for men which
meets them where they are now - socially and culturally - and provides a way
forward for an encounter with God and growth in their understanding of
themselves as males made in God’s image. Any groping towards this will involve
a sense of provisionality, but also an affirmation that this journey has
markers and archetypes which point to a reality able to embrace unity and
diversity in our existence as gendered beings. As Christians, we can embrace
the insights of essentialism, and the power of images, as providing inspiration
along the way, rather than as being the final destination in our search.
Back to main index
Chapter four
[1] Fr R Rohr, A Man's Approach to God, Lee Abbey tapes 1,2,3,4
[2] Melanie Phillips in 'The Observer', 2nd November, 1997. She attributes much of the current 'crisis in masculinity' to this notion.
[3] As Colin Brown points out, the distinction in this passage is not one of function, but of status before God. C Brown (ed) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1986) p570.
[4] R Rohr and J Martos, The Wild Man's Journey (Cincinnati: St Anthony Messenger Press, 1992) p16.
[5] See M S van Leeuwen, Gender and Grace (Leicester: IVP, 1990) p70.
[6] ibid, p72.
[7] ibid.
[8] Interview with Rev Will Donaldson, Easton Christian Family Centre, 25th March, 1998
[9] Anthony Giddens, quoted in M Pryce, Finding a Voice (London: SCM,1996) p44.
[10] ”It is our experience that deep within every man there are blueprints, what we can also call “hard wiring” for the calm and positive mature masculine…instinctual patterns and energy configurations probably inherited genetically throughout the generations of our species.” Moore and Gillette in S Weber, Tender Warrior - God's Design for Men (Amersham: Scripture Press 1995) p40.
[11] M Pryce, Finding a Voice (London: SCM,1996) p63.