Patriarchy and Manhood
Let’s talk about patriarchy and manhood. In a previous post of mine, Take and Read, I presented a list of books. These books presented arguments that typically arise when we chose to challenge perceived norms of current Evangelical thinking with progressive Christian views on patriarchy, racism, gender, violence, and hell. For this post I went to thoughts on patriarchy and manhood presented in Carolyn Custis James’ book, “malestrom” as my main reference (yes, the title is all lower case). There are two other good books that address the same subject, Beth Allison Barr’s “The Making of Biblical Womanhood” (a church historical perspective) and Kristin Du Mez’s “Jesus and John Wayne” (a political historical perspective).
James’ book, however, is grounded thoroughly in scripture and its cultural accommodation. She has her credentials; an adjunct professor at Missio Seminary in Philadelphia and serves on the advisory boards of Logia at University of St. Andrews, Scotland and the Institute for Bible Reading and a consulting editor for Zondervan’s Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament. She blogs at www.carolyncustisjames.com.
First, a definition necessary to carry on this conversation:
Patriarchy:
A social system (defined broadly) in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination. Historically, the principle of patriarchy has been central to the social, legal, political, and economic organization of Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Indian, and Chinese cultures, and has a deep influence on modern civilization.
In addition, I may add, that it also results in all hierarchies which are at the root of most of mankind’s woes like racial and economic inequality as well as the resulting conflicts and wars.
James creates a wordplay on the term maelstrom - “Those powerful swirling whirlpools in the open seas – have been known to pull hapless fishing boats, crew, and cargo down into a deadly vortex to the ocean’s dark depths.” She renames it the “malestrom”.
The tragic events in the world typically have one thing in common: male violence. Lest we underestimate this, she notes the comments of anthropologist David Gillmore who explicitly linked “masculine pride” to violent conflicts in the world. He asserts that such violence is “as much a product of a manhood image as … political and economic demands”. She uses a lengthy and condemning accusation of the history of the culture of patriarchy (the malestrom) and its supposed support from scripture. She makes a case that the Bible actually supports equality and constantly battles hierarchy.
James’ bases her position of equality based on the authority of scripture, and does not diminish or ignore certain passages that would appear contrary to her position. I appreciate an approach that holds a high view of scripture.
She begins with the beginning, Genesis chapters 1 through 3. She borrows a coined phrase “threshold knowledge,” which refers to core concepts that once understood, transform perception of a given subject. The inaugural words “In the beginning God …” establish the uncontested referent for all reality especially what it means to be male and female. The creation narrative is where we understand the intentionality of the world before the fall and the brokenness of the relationship between the sexes and hierarchies of power.
As an aside I want to address the issue of whether the Genesis creation stories are literal or mythical. The question is raised, “Is this how creation happened?”. I submit that this is the wrong question. The better question is “Is the story true?” Regardless if biblical stories are divine myths or literal narratives, they contain God’s truth and James’ interpretations remain valid.
Genesis 1 and 2 declare that Adam was created to reflect the image of God, the imago Dei. Enter the Ezer Kenegdo. Gen 2:18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper (Ezer - to surround, i.e. protect or aid) suitable (Kenegdo - a front, i.e. part opposite; specifically, a counterpart, or mate; usually over against or before) for him (Strongs dictionary). Eden was not a safe place, there were dangerous trees and a threat of death for disobedience. Hidden in the shadows is the reptilian adversary. God employs military language when he instructs Adam to take care of (keep or guard) it. The same language is used to later describe the sword-wielding cherubim God stationed to guard the garden after the fall. Ezer is used 21 times in the in the Old Testament and every time it is in a military context, 16 times it is used for God, 3 times for nations helping Israel. The remaining 2 times it is used in Genesis, it is used for the woman. It explicitly presents God’s daughters to image God. Kenegdo is created to be man’s full partner. The man needs her to accomplish the purpose for which he is created. The reader should note that the editorial comment (Genesis 2:24) “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife” already goes against the patriarchal grain.
There is another reason why man needed the woman, why his aloneness troubled God. Adam is God’s image bearer but he is one but God is plural, three in one. Both the masculine and feminine parts of Adam are necessary to do God’s work. The male/female alliance is declared by God as very good. One searches Genesis 1 and 2 in vain for patriarchy, hierarchy or male authority. Only cultural eisegesis will lead to such conclusions.
The birth of the malestrom – the fall, the birth of patriarchy.
We know the story of chapter 3; the tree of knowledge was off limits but the woman ate from the tree and gave it to the man (who was present) and he also ate. Thus began the fall and the world’s first “not my fault” set of responses. Adam then named his wife Eve, the mother of all living. Lilian Barger, a mother herself, points out that the problem isn’t Eve’s calling as a mother, but rather in “having her identity reduced to it, leaving a legacy by which helping and nurturing work came to be seen as the only ‘natural’ place of women”. The malestrom’s currents work to confine women to their ability to produce sons.
Patriarchy creates power pyramids where somebody is at the top and a lot of people are on the bottom. In addition, limiting the imago Dei to the expectations of patriarchal masculinity – man as impregnator/protector/provider – put every man on shaky ground. These callings have a short shelf life. They exclude young boys and old men and men deprived by tragedy or biology of children or a wife. According to patriarchy’s definition, neither Jesus or Paul ever achieved “true” manhood because they never married or produced offspring (typically male offspring).
God presents an alternative culture
God works within the culture that exists. As I raised in my second post, “Lincoln gave me permission”, we need to understand the original intent of a document verses the following contractional verbiage that works as wisdom guiding to the reader through the complex world of reality of ‘what is’, not ‘what should be’.
I commented at length on the early portion of her book because it is the foundation for her following thoughts on how God used stories that subvert the current ancient near east culture (ANEC) thinking of the biblical world. Now I am going to skim quickly over the rest of her book because, as I may have mentioned before, I am not a good book reviewer and certainly don’t intend to rewrite her book.
First, the evolution of the first patriarch, Abraham, who from the beginning, doesn’t exactly conform to the cultural image of a proper “son” by leaving the home of his father. There follows great insights on the changes that Abraham and other Biblical men such as Jacob and his son Judah experienced. We find, Tamar, whose courage impacted the change in Judah. From the book of Judges we have Deborah and Jael, women that learn to live in contrast with the expected norms of the patriarch. Old Testament women who, again, better represent the Ezer Kenegdo than the culture would ordinally not permit.
So how is a ‘man’ supposed to be represented? She presents a thorough study of Boaz in the book of Ruth who counters the culture and uses his power in a positive way to help the marginalized.
Her thoughts of “the marginalized” continue into the New Testament particularly focusing on Matthew who would have been considered by the established Israeli men as reprehensible. She notes how his writing reflects his view from the ‘bottom”.
Joseph, husband of Mary, violated so many morns of the patriarchal culture it makes our heads spin.
Finally, of course, we have Jesus, the exact image of his Father as He redefines manhood. His words and life are presented in a clear and unarguable picture of what (or who) a man’s behavior is supposed to represent.
I need to stop, not because I want to but because its time to suggest that the reader pick up her book:
Malestrom: How Jesus Dismantles Patriarchy and Redefines Manhood https://a.co/d/f4UK9Eq
Of course, for the audiophile, you can listen to her on the following podcast interview (enjoy):
Episode 32: Carolyn Custis James - Moving Beyond Patriarchy - The Bible For Normal People