I have always been somewhat surprised / perplexed by a number of women who convert to Islam and submit to their male counterpart in such a visible way. Growing up in that culture and living within it I understand, and perhaps if they are able to look at the West with the sexual exploitation of women the conclusion might be a way that it can be justified… but educated (and liberated) Western women converting? That I have not understood.
And beyond the above scenario the rise of a new ‘men need to be men’ emphasis (patriarchy and misogyny IMHO) and a number of women (not so many women as men) who advocate that the woman’s place is in the home is equally surprising. There is a movement to which is attached the adjective ‘Christian’ that is rooted in God is all powerful and the more powerful (bullying) a man can be the more that man is in the image of the all powerful god (cannot capitalise ‘god’ at this point as that definition of power does not relate to the God of Scripture)… take for example the critique in the book Jesus and John Wayne (author: Kristin Kobes du Mez). Jesus the tough man who crushes all opponents, so let us vote for those in positions of power who will be like that Jesus / John Wayne.
And into that setting come certain women who advocate men at the top as the divine order!
All forms of abusive power (Imperial spirit / Babylon) offer benefits to those who comply, and there will be certain benefits – safety, and in the words of Revelation ‘allowed to buy and to sell’. But the majority of (in this situation) women will not benefit at all – and just look at the statistics of women in the work place.
To the Bible for a mo…
The household codes that we find in Paul (wives submit to; children submit; slaves behave in this way… etc) are present for apologetic purposes. They follow the pattern that is recorded in the literature of the day, but Paul transforms the content. He moves them away from ‘you at the top (male husband, slave-owner, father) are the boss so keep everyone else in order’ and the most famous passage in Ephesians does not begin with ‘wives submit to your husbands’ but the verb is present in the preceding verse with ‘submit yourselves to one another in the fear / reverence of Christ’ (Ephes. 5:21 this is where the verb appears not in verse 22). That transforms everything, and all relationships. I don’t think it goes the whole way, no more than the NT comments on slavery go the whole way in the NT… but the gospel goes the whole way. There is in Christ, ‘no male and female’ (Gal. 3) – the change of language from neither… nor to ‘and not male and female’ indicates Paul is quoting Genesis 2. Make of what you want of the creation narratives but once we touch Jesus ALL hierarchy disappears, for all former categories are no longer relevant (Paul’s comments on ‘a new creation’ in 2 Cor. 5).
The challenge of Jesus is there to hit at all exploitation. Read the Proverbs and the male is warned over the seductive woman. Read Jesus and he hits the issue hard… ‘If a man looks at a women to lust after her’. Dress appropriately – for sure; seductiveness is an issue… but the blame game and therefore the need to control through legislation – no not the gospel.
Marriages need to work out how they partner together. Probably no one size fits all, but hierarchy, patriarchy, bullying – no, no, no.
Men need to be men. But the image is not John Wayne, but Jesus. Children, women, the marginalised – he came to lift them up… and far from being incarnated as male to show a superiority he is male as that is where the root of the issue lies. Scripture is consistent – it does not address the marginalised to rebel but the ones who abuse position to repent. And that is also why he comes as a Jew. No more at the top and let’s keep it that way, but emptying out power. ‘Being in the image of God he emptied himself’.
How far can we go along the trajectory of the gospel? One day the perfect will come – until then we are provoked to go further than yesterday… with no desire to restore a former era.
Back in the summer there was the infamous cage fight on the White House lawn and the interview that followed denigrating Michelle Obama. A female White House spokesperson said the fight stood for American values, the never stop fighting spirit etc. I don’t get it either Martin. What I do notice is that the trad-wife narrative that has been growing is headed up by very priviliged women who have a career out of not having a career. What has it got to say to those women who not only do not have that privilige (the majority), but are in fact the backbone of their families and communities, often on their own and without a partner, male/strong/helpful!!! or otherwise.
The newish. movement for men to be men is highly problematic,close to dangerous.Not so long back men were being encouraged to allow themselves to become more open about their needs and that it was not a sign of weakness.Now women are the enemy and round we go again to the destructive sexual exploitation,emotional abuse and violence.This feeds straight into this thinking and the powers behind it.What happens to the men who want be softer,more emotionally present or somewhere in the LBTG of living? Mental health issues will increase and confusion.The breakdown of relationships,fear and this in turn will affect women andgirls as to how they respond.Men and women are equal ( but some are more equal than others) my pharaphase from Animal Farm.The reality for them could be that they are no longer heard,believed or respected,the voice they had rightly fought for,silenced.In situations such as reporting domestic violence,racism,sexual exploitation.I feel for the young people who are growing up with such conflicting stories.There has been a book written Hidden in plain sight, it sounds terrifying.Political parties already have influenced the man in the street to be a man. My God,not being blasphemous, there are so many situations where we can cry your kingdom come. This not Ukraine or any other war torn country,but I bet those teenagers are still asking not just what will become of my country,but who am I ,what will I become.Can we explore this
Thanks Elly. I have always liked Animal Farm and that phrase you quote from there remains so poignant, ‘…. some more than others’. OOOOOFFFF. The Gospel is bad news, methinks.
No longer ‘Jew, rich and male’????
Embrace that, lose the ‘above the other’ mentality and then comes good news even for those who have been privileged. A new humanity and thus a new creation.
On a roll today Martin so yes, two comments in one morning!
Prophetic Naturism (n.)
A deliberately provocative term for the suspicion that the body may already be telling the truth before either market or religion has finished dressing it.
Not an instruction to remove one’s clothes.
That would be impractical, climatically ambitious, and likely to ensure nobody hears the rest of the sentence.
Prophetic naturism names a refusal to participate unquestioningly in an economy that depends upon the body never quite being enough.
Bodies, like tomatoes, can be made scarce.
Not scarce in existence.
Scarce in acceptability.
There are apparently only limited supplies of the correct body:
young enough,
thin enough,
fertile enough,
modest enough,
desirable enough,
disciplined enough,
covered enough,
uncovered enough,
Strong enough,
and sufficiently worried about all of the above to remain economically useful.
This is excellent for business.
Once the ordinary body has been declared inadequate, an almost infinite number of products, disciplines, rules, industries, ministries and anxieties become necessary.
The market says:
improve it.
Purity says:
contain it.
Objectification says:
display it.
Shame says:
hide it.
Prophetic naturism asks why everybody is so interested in managing the body in the first place.
This is where it begins to trespass into theology.
Christianity has sometimes behaved as though incarnation were an unfortunate administrative detail.
The Word became flesh…and we have spent a surprising amount of time trying to get everyone back out of it.
Jesus appears less troubled.🤔
He sits.
He eats.
He touches.
He is touched.
He gets tired.
He sweats.
He weeps.
He takes hands.
He washes feet.
He lets a woman touch him in public.
He puts mud on eyes.
He breaks bread.
He breathes on frightened people.
He carries wounds into resurrection.
He cooks breakfast.
This is a remarkably physical way to conduct salvation.
In my wider writing, the body therefore does not merely illustrate the story.
The body is in the story.
Sometimes the body is the place where the story has been stored longest.
Which makes the persistent Christian suspicion of flesh slightly awkward.
Jesus does not seem particularly interested in rescuing people from bodies.
He keeps restoring bodies to relationship.
A hand is taken.
A face is seen.
A body is fed.
A frightened nervous system is met by Presence.
A wound is not erased before belonging is restored.
A person who has learned to scan the room for danger is not lectured into safety.
Presence comes close enough to be felt.
This is where Prophetic Naturism meets the Tomato Economy.
The Tomato Economy notices that scarcity loses some of its power when enough begins to move.
Prophetic Naturism wonders whether the same is true of embodiment.
What happens when the body stops being hoarded as status,
traded as desirability,
regulated as danger,
or corrected into acceptability?
What happens when the body is allowed to become creature again?
Not commodity.
Not evidence.
Not temptation.
Not project.
Creature.
To exist.
Theologically this creates a problem.
Because a creature that is already enough is considerably harder to sell things to.
It is also harder to shame.
And harder to govern through fear.
Jesus’ instruction, “do not worry about what you will wear,” therefore begins to sound slightly more subversive than advice for anxious people choosing an outfit.
He points at lilies.
The lilies have no branding strategy.
They have not agreed a modesty policy.
They are not engaged in body positivity.
They are simply alive.
Solomon, despite an impressive wardrobe and considerably greater access to capital, apparently loses.
The prophetic act, then, is not nakedness.
Nakedness can be commodified perfectly well.
The prophetic act is the refusal of scarcity’s claim over embodiment.
The refusal to believe that the body needs to earn the right to occupy space.
The refusal to make shame a spiritual discipline.
The refusal to confuse concealment with holiness.
The refusal to confuse exposure with freedom.
The refusal to let someone else’s gaze become the final authority on what a body means.
Sometimes prophetic imagination looks like overturning tables.
Sometimes it looks like bringing another chair.
Sometimes it looks like breakfast beside a charcoal fire with people whose bodies have survived the night.
And occasionally it asks a deeply inconvenient question:
What if incarnation means God was never as embarrassed by bodies as we were?
Tagline: A refusal to let scarcity turn embodiment into a market.