A compelling treatment of a hot-button topic with an excellent amalgamation of passages that remind us of maturity being the point and goal. A good reminder too that the 3P's have a feminine manifestation as well.
Some musings...
- Use of Titus 3:9 to assert the Comp-Egal debate/discussion on roles playing an overemphasized role in understanding masculinity seems a little blunted given that text is on the heels of the Titus 2 delineation of unique modes of being and "adorned doctrine" for men and women of different ages (maturity levels-seasons of life).
- Comp is also a threadbare way to frame the discussion since it collapses sex differences into mere roles, ignoring ontological and symbolic sex differences.
- The distinction of "life in the church" is important to maintain biblical church polity. But life outside the church is tricky in our technology driven world as you point out. It can, and typically does, lead to wholesale assumptions of functional Egal in daily life. Titus 2 depicts sex distinctions that are grounded in the created order.
- Overall, gendered piety (personal, church, civic) is real. It is seen in how men and women pray with different emphasis, show courage or envision the fruit of the spirit.
BTW, I corrected this sentence: "Men, don’t be effeminate. That is, don’t live a life characterized by self-indulgence, self-centeredness, self-preservation."
This is a good example of "proof-texting" the Bible in order to prove that one should not "prooftext" gender roles, but it does not demonstrate that the Scriptures do not teach, by GNC, what it is to be a man.
I have not read Jeffery Hemmer's book Man Up but I disagree with his interpretation of malakoi, especially in the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. You quote him as saying:
"a man does not practice malakia, which “is the moral softness of self-indulgence, self-centeredness, self-preservation” (10). In other words, a man is not effeminate. “Malakia is a selfish abdication of a higher calling to serve others”
This seems to be a definition of Malakoi taken from affirming theology, as the word, especially in the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is referring to passive homosexual partners and is rendered as such for example in the NET translation.
As M.D. Perkins writes in his book Dangerous Affirmation: "The other word to understand is malakoi ('effeminate'). Malakoi literally means 'soft,' although it can be understood as 'luxurious,' 'effeminate,' or the passive partner in male homosexual intercourse, depending on the context. Affirming theologians frequently cast doubt on our ability to understand the word with any degree of clarity. However, Robert Gagnon gives a thorough treatment of the context and use of the word both in scripture and in other ancient greek sources...He see's the placement of malakoi within the list in 1 Corinthians as significant in charging the meaning with sexual undertones - fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, homosexuals/ man-bedders...Gagnon also believes there is a more general sense of 'playing the woman' likely alluded to by the word. This comes from Philo, a first-century Jewish author, who used malakoi to describe men 'who cultivate feminine features...men who braid their hair and who use makeup and excessive perfume in an effort to please their male lovers'." (Perkins 73)
This analysis is also shared by S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams in their great book "Unchanging Witness".
All that to say while I have no problem with the overall point of your article that biblical manhood involves maturity, I think utilizing that Hemmer quote and his interpretation of Malakoi didn't really help your case.
Thanks for the comments but unfortunately, you and all of your source are wrong. Here's what Strong's Concordance says about the meaning of the Greek word and it's use in the New Testament.
"Usage: The term "malakos" is used in the New Testament to describe something that is soft or luxurious. In a moral context, it refers to effeminacy or moral softness, often implying a lack of self-discipline or moral fortitude. It is used to describe individuals who are morally weak or indulgent."
I'm sorry that you've been given wrong information about the Greek Text.
Finally, Hemmer is actually correct and I'm glad I used him.
there are problems with Strong's concordance, primarily that it is out of date. He goes on to give several up to date resources and among them is "The Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and early Christian literature" by Walter Bauers. This is the text cited by the NET version in support of it's translation of Malakoi as passive homosexual partner. It's also translated as such by the "Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains" by Johannes Louw. All that to say the more up to date and precise lexical scholarship actually renders it as passive homosexual partner. I haven't been given wrong information. Sorry...
Dr. Bradley, I appreciate this. I agree that the Bible is quite… slippery when it comes to defining specific gendered roles outside of marriage and the church. It seems to me that being male and female is very important so that we do not collapse them, but also that a lot of the “masculinity” talk, especially in conservative circles, draws on characteristics and categories that are culturally bound and not Scripturally imperative.
In the penultimate paragraph of "Rebukes for Lack of Maturity:" you said the following: "The Bible’s emphasis on maturity, rather than rigidly defined gender roles,". I think this is higly problematic. If we're christians and we are trying to avoid the horrible transgender ideology, then I truly believe that one great step is to stop borrowing their language. Humans have sex, texts and books have genders. So what the bible speaks about male and female it speaks about the nature. Things that I believe are set on nature, and the bible sets some, maybe not every single one of them, but some roles, that are different for men and women, they're not less, nor higher, this I fully agree, but they're different.
I would offer a small pushback on the idea that this debate over gendered roles in the church (and in life) is nothing more than a foolish controversy, unprofitable and useless. That is, to be fully blunt, very easy for a man to say. These debates do not affect his standing as a person, fully and equally made in the image of God, the way they do for a woman.
The same arguments were undoubtedly made over abolitionism: don't divide the body over such disagreements! But when one's theology others or subjugates another person, it's no longer a foolish controversy, it's a piece of harmful theology that needs to be dealt with.
The people who would say that I, as a woman, cannot lead in a church (or secular) setting, that my place is only in the home, that I should submit to men strictly due to my gender, that I cannot serve the Lord's table, or read Scripture in front of the congregation... All of these things make me LESS than a man, in my very person and being.
So to a woman, this isn't just a debate about abstract concepts and verses -- it's debate over exactly how human we get to be in the eyes of our brothers in Christ.
Thanks Rose but I think you missed read that section. I said, "To be honest, I think the entire fundamentalist debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism about gender roles outside the life of the church may be a prime example of what Paul warned against." Using the Bible to argue what kinds of jobs women can have in the marketplace, outside the life of the church, is waste of the time in the church. The Bible just doesn't care about what jobs women can or cannot have in society.
Ah -- to clarify, you're saying that this is a pointless debate when applied to things outside the church? But that, by implication, it IS a valid discussion to have WITHIN the church.
I still think I disagree, as there is no such thing as a solid line that separates the secular from the sacred, and if I believe that someone is being mistreated outside of my church walls I shouldn't say, "Well, it's not that big a deal since we treat them fine INSIDE the church." That mindset would not be conductive to any pursuit of justice.
I do see that I slightly misread your words where it specified "outside the life of the church," and thank you for that note. But as humans who have to exist inside and outside sacred spaces, that division is not realistic.
...additionally, this whole discussion is FAR more one within church spaces than it is outside. The secular world got the memo on female equality a lot sooner than the church. Not that it's perfect, obviously, but I don't have to argue for my personhood in the secular marketplace the way I do within the family that is supposed to care for me best.
Thanks! But you're still incorrect on my overall point, I think. The church should not be debating whether women should be pilots or not. Or lawyers. On some issues in society, there are issues that are none of the church's business, like telling women what kind of careers they can or cannot not have in secular society. It's not places are "secular" but some parts of the society is not the business of the calling of the church to govern, rule, or interfere. Churches should be devating whether or not women and be referees in the NFL. Churches have no business telling non-churches institutions that women can't do certain jobs because they are women. Lots of women fought very hard to end that sort of encroachment of spheres and they were right to do so. The division is realistic and actual. No business needs to consult with the church to see if a woman serve a company as CEO because she is woman. That's not the church's commission in the Scriptures.
Thank you so much for your treatment of this topic. In my life time, I have noticed, especially among teenagers, that gender "identities"--what constitutes masculinity and femininity--has become ever more narrowly defined. The result is that teens push each other into gender identities that don't match their biology. When I was growing up, there was a broader spectrum of what it meant to be male and female. Maturity is indeed, God's goal for us.
I also appreciate your treatment of complementary and egalitarian roles, and the observation that the Bible speaks to gender roles in marriage and the church. Toxic work environments can happen when those norms are applied to society/the work place.
I agree with much of what you're saying. I take issue with the notion that the Bible doesn't tell us what we need to know in order to discern gender roles outside of the church. The Bible was given so that God's people can know everything we need to know to obey and glorify God in ALL of life, including the workplace, the state, the home, etc.
Which verses in the Bible tell women what they can and can’t do in society at-large? I may have missed them. What verses in the Bible make those social distinctions as commands and prescriptions?
A compelling treatment of a hot-button topic with an excellent amalgamation of passages that remind us of maturity being the point and goal. A good reminder too that the 3P's have a feminine manifestation as well.
Some musings...
- Use of Titus 3:9 to assert the Comp-Egal debate/discussion on roles playing an overemphasized role in understanding masculinity seems a little blunted given that text is on the heels of the Titus 2 delineation of unique modes of being and "adorned doctrine" for men and women of different ages (maturity levels-seasons of life).
- Comp is also a threadbare way to frame the discussion since it collapses sex differences into mere roles, ignoring ontological and symbolic sex differences.
- The distinction of "life in the church" is important to maintain biblical church polity. But life outside the church is tricky in our technology driven world as you point out. It can, and typically does, lead to wholesale assumptions of functional Egal in daily life. Titus 2 depicts sex distinctions that are grounded in the created order.
- Overall, gendered piety (personal, church, civic) is real. It is seen in how men and women pray with different emphasis, show courage or envision the fruit of the spirit.
Thanks for the kudos!
BTW, I corrected this sentence: "Men, don’t be effeminate. That is, don’t live a life characterized by self-indulgence, self-centeredness, self-preservation."
This is a good example of "proof-texting" the Bible in order to prove that one should not "prooftext" gender roles, but it does not demonstrate that the Scriptures do not teach, by GNC, what it is to be a man.
I have not read Jeffery Hemmer's book Man Up but I disagree with his interpretation of malakoi, especially in the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. You quote him as saying:
"a man does not practice malakia, which “is the moral softness of self-indulgence, self-centeredness, self-preservation” (10). In other words, a man is not effeminate. “Malakia is a selfish abdication of a higher calling to serve others”
This seems to be a definition of Malakoi taken from affirming theology, as the word, especially in the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is referring to passive homosexual partners and is rendered as such for example in the NET translation.
As M.D. Perkins writes in his book Dangerous Affirmation: "The other word to understand is malakoi ('effeminate'). Malakoi literally means 'soft,' although it can be understood as 'luxurious,' 'effeminate,' or the passive partner in male homosexual intercourse, depending on the context. Affirming theologians frequently cast doubt on our ability to understand the word with any degree of clarity. However, Robert Gagnon gives a thorough treatment of the context and use of the word both in scripture and in other ancient greek sources...He see's the placement of malakoi within the list in 1 Corinthians as significant in charging the meaning with sexual undertones - fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, homosexuals/ man-bedders...Gagnon also believes there is a more general sense of 'playing the woman' likely alluded to by the word. This comes from Philo, a first-century Jewish author, who used malakoi to describe men 'who cultivate feminine features...men who braid their hair and who use makeup and excessive perfume in an effort to please their male lovers'." (Perkins 73)
This analysis is also shared by S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams in their great book "Unchanging Witness".
All that to say while I have no problem with the overall point of your article that biblical manhood involves maturity, I think utilizing that Hemmer quote and his interpretation of Malakoi didn't really help your case.
Thanks for the comments but unfortunately, you and all of your source are wrong. Here's what Strong's Concordance says about the meaning of the Greek word and it's use in the New Testament.
"Usage: The term "malakos" is used in the New Testament to describe something that is soft or luxurious. In a moral context, it refers to effeminacy or moral softness, often implying a lack of self-discipline or moral fortitude. It is used to describe individuals who are morally weak or indulgent."
I'm sorry that you've been given wrong information about the Greek Text.
Finally, Hemmer is actually correct and I'm glad I used him.
Thanks for the reply but unfortunately you actually are incorrect here. As biblical scholar Dan McClellan points out in this helpful video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bszlZndmEiQ
there are problems with Strong's concordance, primarily that it is out of date. He goes on to give several up to date resources and among them is "The Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and early Christian literature" by Walter Bauers. This is the text cited by the NET version in support of it's translation of Malakoi as passive homosexual partner. It's also translated as such by the "Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains" by Johannes Louw. All that to say the more up to date and precise lexical scholarship actually renders it as passive homosexual partner. I haven't been given wrong information. Sorry...
Dr. Bradley, I appreciate this. I agree that the Bible is quite… slippery when it comes to defining specific gendered roles outside of marriage and the church. It seems to me that being male and female is very important so that we do not collapse them, but also that a lot of the “masculinity” talk, especially in conservative circles, draws on characteristics and categories that are culturally bound and not Scripturally imperative.
In the penultimate paragraph of "Rebukes for Lack of Maturity:" you said the following: "The Bible’s emphasis on maturity, rather than rigidly defined gender roles,". I think this is higly problematic. If we're christians and we are trying to avoid the horrible transgender ideology, then I truly believe that one great step is to stop borrowing their language. Humans have sex, texts and books have genders. So what the bible speaks about male and female it speaks about the nature. Things that I believe are set on nature, and the bible sets some, maybe not every single one of them, but some roles, that are different for men and women, they're not less, nor higher, this I fully agree, but they're different.
I would offer a small pushback on the idea that this debate over gendered roles in the church (and in life) is nothing more than a foolish controversy, unprofitable and useless. That is, to be fully blunt, very easy for a man to say. These debates do not affect his standing as a person, fully and equally made in the image of God, the way they do for a woman.
The same arguments were undoubtedly made over abolitionism: don't divide the body over such disagreements! But when one's theology others or subjugates another person, it's no longer a foolish controversy, it's a piece of harmful theology that needs to be dealt with.
The people who would say that I, as a woman, cannot lead in a church (or secular) setting, that my place is only in the home, that I should submit to men strictly due to my gender, that I cannot serve the Lord's table, or read Scripture in front of the congregation... All of these things make me LESS than a man, in my very person and being.
So to a woman, this isn't just a debate about abstract concepts and verses -- it's debate over exactly how human we get to be in the eyes of our brothers in Christ.
Thanks Rose but I think you missed read that section. I said, "To be honest, I think the entire fundamentalist debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism about gender roles outside the life of the church may be a prime example of what Paul warned against." Using the Bible to argue what kinds of jobs women can have in the marketplace, outside the life of the church, is waste of the time in the church. The Bible just doesn't care about what jobs women can or cannot have in society.
Ah -- to clarify, you're saying that this is a pointless debate when applied to things outside the church? But that, by implication, it IS a valid discussion to have WITHIN the church.
I still think I disagree, as there is no such thing as a solid line that separates the secular from the sacred, and if I believe that someone is being mistreated outside of my church walls I shouldn't say, "Well, it's not that big a deal since we treat them fine INSIDE the church." That mindset would not be conductive to any pursuit of justice.
I do see that I slightly misread your words where it specified "outside the life of the church," and thank you for that note. But as humans who have to exist inside and outside sacred spaces, that division is not realistic.
...additionally, this whole discussion is FAR more one within church spaces than it is outside. The secular world got the memo on female equality a lot sooner than the church. Not that it's perfect, obviously, but I don't have to argue for my personhood in the secular marketplace the way I do within the family that is supposed to care for me best.
Thanks! But you're still incorrect on my overall point, I think. The church should not be debating whether women should be pilots or not. Or lawyers. On some issues in society, there are issues that are none of the church's business, like telling women what kind of careers they can or cannot not have in secular society. It's not places are "secular" but some parts of the society is not the business of the calling of the church to govern, rule, or interfere. Churches should be devating whether or not women and be referees in the NFL. Churches have no business telling non-churches institutions that women can't do certain jobs because they are women. Lots of women fought very hard to end that sort of encroachment of spheres and they were right to do so. The division is realistic and actual. No business needs to consult with the church to see if a woman serve a company as CEO because she is woman. That's not the church's commission in the Scriptures.
Thank you so much for your treatment of this topic. In my life time, I have noticed, especially among teenagers, that gender "identities"--what constitutes masculinity and femininity--has become ever more narrowly defined. The result is that teens push each other into gender identities that don't match their biology. When I was growing up, there was a broader spectrum of what it meant to be male and female. Maturity is indeed, God's goal for us.
I also appreciate your treatment of complementary and egalitarian roles, and the observation that the Bible speaks to gender roles in marriage and the church. Toxic work environments can happen when those norms are applied to society/the work place.
So then Biblical womanhood would also be characterized/defined as maturity, right?
Which is to say... Biblical adulthood = maturity. Or am I missing anything?
Incredibly encouraging exhortation, Dr. B. Always calling us (me) to a higher standard, as does our Creator.
With love and gratitude,
T
I agree with much of what you're saying. I take issue with the notion that the Bible doesn't tell us what we need to know in order to discern gender roles outside of the church. The Bible was given so that God's people can know everything we need to know to obey and glorify God in ALL of life, including the workplace, the state, the home, etc.
Which verses in the Bible tell women what they can and can’t do in society at-large? I may have missed them. What verses in the Bible make those social distinctions as commands and prescriptions?