In a very belated response to an earlier post by the erudite Vox Inferus, I want to posit a provocative contemplation of masculinity: the masculinity of Christ. Someone very close to me is studying what it means to be a man, as a follower of Christ and as an American in the early 21st century, and so I have begun to muse on what the person of Jesus---the "perfect man"---teaches us about gender roles. My provocative assertion is that, while Jesus showed us an example of perfect masculinity (strength, determination, self-control, spiritual and physical overcoming), he also shows us what in his day and ours would be considered...a feminine side. I think this is best exemplified in his nurturing and healing acts and character, his kindness, gentleness, and his submissiveness. I believe there is a reason God was incarnated as a male human being, that he is referred to as the "perfect man," the "second Adam," and the "bridegroom" of the Church. But because the mission of his life precluded a sexual family life, and indeed sexuality altogether, there is a certain...I won't say "ambiguity," but..."universality"...of his gender roles. I believe such universality would be central to his reaching the other roughly 50% of the human population---the fairer sex. If Christian men must hold up Christ as an example of masculinity, perhaps Christian women must also look to him for an expression of their ideal femininity. (I believe the Roman Catholic Church has found a way to circumvent this, with the development of an adoration of Christ's human mother Mary, the Queen of Heaven; she, however, has no claim to divinity, which presents a problem to most non-Catholics in this respect.)
One can argue historical revision on the part of Christ's early followers, in regards to the tacit nature of Jesus' sexuality and family life, but Christ has been consistently held up as "asexual" (for lack of a better term) by official interpretations of Christianity for two thousand years, and I personally hold rigidly with these pronouncements. But I find such extra-scriptural and extra-theological notions to be furthermore beyond the scope of this post, as I am really more concerned here with the thinking on Christ's gender roles expressed in Christian iconography (i.e., how we "imagine" Christ) through the ages. There are historical reasons for Jesus being perpetually imagined with long, flowing hair, but these artistic representations really have more to do with the customs contemporary to the artists themselves than they do with the historical reality of Jesus' physical appearance. (He probably had very curly hair worn at some medium length.) The popular image of a long-haired Christ, however, has not changed in our day, despite customs changing radically since the Middle Ages. He is also represented consistently as being very slender and waif-like, hung on the Cross, though he must have historically possessed a more muscular physique to have carried such a burden. The Catholic Church especially seems to hold with this iconography, as their crucifix uniformly exhibits an almost-feminine body attached to the Cross. Now, again, I am not making any references here to "sexual" identity, as most ancient and medieval depictions of the feminine would include curves---breasts and hips. I am only referring to the imagining of gender---dominance and submission...traits I believe Christ exemplified simultaneously and perfectly. And so, though our traditional notions of gender identity sharply divide along these lines, it seems to me that a genuine attempt to model one's masculinity on Christ must also include His traditionally-feminine submissiveness, and a reciprocal relationship for women imitating Christlike femininity. This post is not meant to offend, nor to merely provoke; it is only a response to the searches of others to find a Christian alternative to the metrosexualization of male identity in our contemporary society. While Jesus shows us perfect masculinity, he must also be an ideal exemplar to his female followers, and his male disciples should truthfully take this "feminine side" into account.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
a few initial thoughts/questions...from many:
1. 'the perfect man' and gender roles. it seems to me that there are two separate conversations here. meaning, a look at Christ-like masculinity doesn't necessarily involve the application of that revelation to societal gender roles....does it? if one accepts the idea of Christ's example of 'submission' as a part of 21st century masculinity...what does his actual example of interaction with the biblical woman tell us? there seems to be a contradiction there....maybe?
2. if men are to recognize/emulate the 'universal' sexuality of Christ(submission/overcoming) is the converse true? meaning, does this give agency to femininity for a biblical/relational authority? If men are to look to both sides...shouldn't women...maybe? and, if so, what would this authority look like?
3. didn't Christ take some sort of nazarene oath...keeping his hair long( hat tip to french...shmeemurs!)?
Jesus was Nazarene (from Nazareth), but I don't believe we have any direct citation of his taking the NAZARITE vows, though it is possible he may have been associated at one time or another with the Essenes and/or Nazarites (though the latter is an individual choice, not a group dynamic).
Your second point is the best of the three you make. If, as I had alluded to a reciprocality for female Christians, "the converse is true," what would that mean in terms of ministerial authority? I hadn't thought of that question when I was posting (as, indeed, I was merely musing on the several definitions of Christian manhood out there today), but it is in there, just as you point out. This is a controversial subject in Christianity, but one, I think, worth examining without prejudice.
Though you may seem to find it implicit in my post, there is in fact no reference to relations between the sexes. This would be an important point in that conversation, to examine how Christ---as a man---interacted with women, while at the same time factoring in the cultural framework he was working in. It is, however, an entirely separate conversation, though one worth having and perhaps one that could illuminate or enrich the first dialogue. My references to dominance and submission are related in no way to "intersexual" relations, rather they are the bases of actions in universal settings. I never suggested gender-role reversal, only that men who seek to emulate Christ must account for Christlike submissiveness in their hunting, pickup-truck driving, and other forms of aggressive "masculine" behavior (this is not embittered or mocking; it is a response to a very real Christian program others in or near my life are exploring). Either that, or we must determine that because of His dominance/submissiveness and "asexuality," Jesus has actually nothing to give us in terms of gender roles.
two more thoughts/questions:
1. wouldn't any conversation regarding general ideas of masculinity/femininity and gender roles necessarily begin with an inter-relational paradigm. meaning, an essential step in defining masculinity is to define the other(femininity) in relation to...said definition.
2. if this is a response to a 'metrosexual' response...isn't that imposing cultural structures to an idea...that of a 'universal' masculinity...that, by the nature of the subject, is transcendent of such things?
3. i'm not asking questions to be pedantic...just trying to form ideas. this isn't a subject that i've historically put much thought into.
At first read it does sound pedantic, but I also realize that's not your intention. First, masculinity and femininity do seem to have relational definitions. However, in regards to Christ's "masculinity," if we believe the orthodox interpretation of his life, then He had no sexual relationships, and attempts to explore His masculinity will likewise lack a sexual/relational component. One could attempt to see whether He interacted with women in a way strikingly different than He did with men, but again, it lacks any traditional "relational" aspect. It may be that one would have to conclude that there is no literal example of masculinity one can get from Jesus' life. Second, it is only the question of what is "Christian masculinity" that was raised in response to the issue of metrosexuality, or more properly, others' attempts to find an alternative. So, no "cultural structures" are included in the answer. My reference to a "universal" gender could, I suppose, refer to a quality that transcends time and place (culture falling into such a broad category). However, I used it only to avoid having to use the adjective "ambiguous," in my search for a term to describe gender-neutrality.
herodotus, unfortunately you are failing to raise the most interesting questions; i.e., What is the meaning of Christ's incarnation as a man?---Why is God referred to as "Father," and why did Christ come in male human form? What are the implications of his "sexlessness"/"asexuality" in our attempts to discover a definition of "Christian masculinity? Despite your disclaimer, writing the above questions is making your comments actually seem more pedantic to me. Because of the limited nature of blogs, and the dialogue they facilitate, such questions are a monumental waste of time and space, better suited for a verbal debate, or setting up the framework for a question posited in its final form. Suggestion: attempt to answer the question in the limitations given---you can still cite the limitations or ambiguities---but attempt an answer. My own disclaimer: this response probably comes off as chiding, but I actually have gotten worked up after writing the questions I find to be far more incisive and applicable to the spirit of the original post. I don't mean to bruise any egos (or expose my own); my apology.
testudineous the testy-
1. no apologies necessary. my disclaimer is there for a reason. the questions you say i, or others, should raise...are questions that i will/would raise once i've processed what the questions raised actually are. meaning...if i read your questions...but they raise my own questions...i must resolve my questions...to get to a place to approach your ideas. simply..because you've gone from A to D...doesn't necessarily mean that others don't need to go from A to B...to eventually get to D...or E.
As indicated before, i've not given much thought to this...what is an important idea...and will have to form/mold my basic ideas in the process. this said, i'm beginning to get a foundation of thought, as it were, and will return with more 'appropriate' rejoinders/responses.
Post a Comment