‘Til By Turning

Repentance isn’t normally viewed as a happy word.

It has associations of grief and tears, overtones of sorrow and abasement and owning up to your own crap. “I was wrong” is one of the hardest things in the world to say.

We don’t like it. I don’t like it. My ongoing life’s quest has been to be right; admitting that I wasn’t strikes directly at the core of that. And that’s what repentance is about.

The New Testament uses the Greek word metanoia, deriving from the roots nous, meaning mind or thoughts, and meta, meaning to change or to go beyond.

The Old Testament frequently couches calls to repent in the language of navigation: turn from your wicked ways and turn back to the Lord.

“Changing your thoughts” sounds better, but the essence is the same. You have to change your mind about what you did, stop justifying it to yourself, admit that you were in the wrong.

More, though: the examples of repentance we’re shown in the pages of Scripture are distinctly uncomfortable. Sackcloth and ashes feature prominently; the idea being to demonstrate the depth of your sorrow over what you had done by putting aside creature comforts and embracing discomfort and misery.

The purpose of the sackcloth and ashes was twofold. Firstly, it was a demonstration of seriousness. In a time in which the lives of common people were, to coin a phrase, “nasty, brutish and short”, sackcloth was itchy, uncomfortable, scratchy and common, and ashes were a regularly-encountered form of dirt. Taking off your smooth, comfortable clothes and putting away the cleanliness that only the rich could afford was a way of underlining the seriousness of what you were doing. Repentance isn’t something you can just mouth comfortable words over and then move along; if you’re going to take it seriously, you have to take it seriously. It’s not really something you can do at the same time that you’re stuffing your face with chocolate or watching your favourite film.

Secondly, the sackcloth and ashes provided a break from the normal routine that encouraged and abetted the sin you’re in the dock for. You had a continual reminder in the itchy clothes and feeling of being filthy that you weren’t going to live that way any more; that things were going to be different. It ought to be a positive thing, even in its discomfort.

The trouble is that in our humanness we too easily connect the symbols of internal spiritual realities with the realities themselves. Instead of being a symbolic act and aide-memoire, the act becomes a mortification of the flesh, a false, pagan idea that you can somehow appease the wrath of the God by inflicting upon yourself an amount of suffering equal to the offence.

Instead of being a process through which we change our minds to agree with God’s view of our behaviour and attitudes, in which new agreement we appeal to His mercy and receive His forgiveness as a free gift and an act of pure grace, repentance becomes a sort of sacrifice or payment by which we try to purchase God’s forgiveness.

We can get an idea that “that wasn’t real repentance; I didn’t feel sorry enough”. “I should have really felt how awful what I did was”. “If I suffer some, then God will have to forgive me”.

This isn’t repentance. At best it’s a mistaken idea that we really need to do something so we can get forgiven. Like Naaman, we get offended by the prophet’s simple remedy for our spiritual uncleanness. We think we should have to do some huge important task by which we can look big and important, a committer of big and important sins. Or not even that; part of us won’t believe it’s real if it wasn’t difficult. The simple truth of grace is offensive to us.

Metanoia communicates “changing of mind”. These days we use “I’ve changed my mind” very lightly and almost cavalierly, but the Greek word nous denotes the totality of your thoughts. You aren’t just changing your mind like you do when you decide to have chicken rather than beef for supper; you’re changing your basic, fundamental mental attitudes and decisions. The language of turning in the Old Testament communicates turning your back on something and walking away. You’re not going to continue in that old life any more.

The idea is that it’s a permanent change. A frog can’t unmetamorphose back into a tadpole; it’s unnatural. In the same way, it’s unnatural for someone who has genuinely come to repentance to revert. They have changed their minds, and the Lord has changed their heart. How can they go back again?

It happens, though, or appears to. I’m not in the place of God to know whether anyone’s repentance is or was genuine, but the implication is that if it’s real it will stick. People do fall away, people do genuinely come to repentance over a particular sin and then do it again from habit. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re in danger of hellfire just because they relapsed back into an old habit, nor that they’re necessarily guaranteed entry to the Kingdom because they used to sort-of believe, once.

But the point is that repentance is a change. It’s no good mouthing the words of the Sinner’s Prayer if our life doesn’t change as a result. All that does is add a few meaningless words into your life, and what use is that?

The title of this post is taken from the song When True Simplicity Is Gained, a song made famous as the melody around which Aaron Copeland’s Appalachian Spring is built. Specifically the second stanza:

When true simplicity is gained,

To bow and to bend we will not be ashamed

And to turn, turn will be our delight

‘Til by turning, turning we come round right.

I talked about this song in one of my earliest posts, and it’s appropriate again now, but for a different reason.

Then, I was talking about complexity and the need to return to the simple focus of serving the Lord.

Now, I’m remembering that one of the meanings of “simplicity” is “singleness of focus”.

To bow and to bend is inextricably part of repentance – we have to acknowledge God’s right to say what’s right; we have to bend to His judgment of how things really are. And with the language of turning, we really do seem to be in repentance territory.

But “to turn, turn will be our delight“? What could possibly make repentance delightful?

Well, even the invitation to repent is supposed to be Good News. God isn’t writing you off. You are valuable enough to Him to be given another chance.

But it’s “when true simplicity is gained” that turning becomes a delight. When we have such singleness of focus on the Lord that we align our thinking to His because it’s so much better than ours. When all of the things that get in the way – our pride, our attraction to foolish things, our love of sinning – wither in the laserlike intensity of devotion to Him.

It’s a process. We’re probably not going to get all the way there in one jump. If God does a major work and leaps you over years of painful struggle, don’t dismiss it, but many of us do struggle for years. But in the end, “by turning, turning” we will come round right. He’s staked His word on it. He’s going to transform us into His image with ever-increasing glory, beginning in this world and continuing to the next.

Husbandry

Though I say so myself, I have a pretty good marriage relationship.

We’ve never had what we consider a fight. Plenty of disagreements, but no fights (fights get personal. We don’t do that). We love one another. We genuinely value each other in our different talents and giftedness and personalities. Evidently we’re doing something right.

Not that you’d guess it if you listened to some Christian teachers talking about submission and then did a comparison, because our relationship doesn’t look a lot like the hierarchical arrangement which is so often touted as the Christian ideal.

Nearly every time it comes up, you hear someone saying that “trying to have 50/50 control leads inevitably to fighting”, and that only with a proper marital hierarchy can there be harmony. Along with “your kids will become homosexuals if you don’t dominate your wife”, this seems to be the main threat used to try to force a hierarchical pattern onto Christian marriages: “exercise husbandly authority or your wife will fight you constantly”.

Speaking from experience, I assure you that this is not the case. When people ask me “but who’s ultimately in charge?” I have to sort of look at them blankly. “When there’s a disagreement, who makes the final decision?” they insist, and I reply “we both do”. We discuss it until we can agree. Or at least find a compromise we can both live with. God is in charge; we both serve Him.

Needless to say, I baffle a lot of these people. They seem to think that the way we do it shouldn’t work. But it does.

For me, one of the major secrets of our success is that we both fully realise that we are on the same side.

A lot of the marital-hierarchy folks seem to be assuming a level of competition and struggle between husband and wife that I think is deeply unhelpful. A healthy marriage is not a competition; it’s a relationship of mutual support and encouragement in which you prefer one another and build one another up. Get that part right and you’re making a nonsense of the whole hierarchy thing even if you believe you have one. If you constantly fight over control, you probably both need to stop assuming that marriage is a game with one winner and one loser. It isn’t. Either you both win, or you both lose.

I’m going to deliberately invert the threat-type statement I referred to earlier, just to make a point. From what I’ve seen, trying to have a positional hierarchy in your marriage relationship leads inevitably to resentment and fighting, or one person’s desires and needs being sidelined by the dominant partner. The only times it works is when the people involved do not live as if they have a hierarchy even when they say that they do.

I said last time, talking about submission, that the proper context of Ephesians 5:22 is Ephesians 5:21, and that the two form a single sentence in Greek. But what I want to focus on this time is the role and responsibility of a husband.

The Scriptural command to husbands is “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her to make her holy…”

This takes the whole question of who is in control or who has the authority and consigns it to the junkpile. Nowhere are husbands told to make sure that their wives submit to them with proper respect (though that seems to be the essence of some people’s mentality about the question). God did not make us men to be His enforcers or judges in our families. We are told simply to love our wives and give ourselves up for them.

Even people that believe in a Divinely-ordained positional hierarchy in marriage recognise this; it’s the one thing that can make a stated marital hierarchy work.

The question of who’s in charge and who has the authority is quite simply the wrong lens through which to view the matter. Particularly if you are a husband. You do not get to concern yourself with whether your wife is “submitting” properly; your responsibility is to love her as Christ loved the church.

What does this mean in practice?

Well, what did Christ’s love and giving Himself up for us look like? What did it achieve? What resulted from it?

Jesus died to save us. He gave up His life for our freedom from sin; God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God. More, He intercedes for us before the Throne, by His Spirit He refines us so that we become like Him, doing the will of God fully in our lives.

Now obviously a husband doesn’t lay down his life to save his wife from sin in the same way, but there are lessons here. It is the role of a husband to give up himself in order to bring his wife to the place she is meant to be in the Lord. It is his job to serve her just as Christ washed the disciples’ feet, to encourage and support her in her God-given ministry and to do all in his power to see to it that she is able to fulfill the call of God on her life.

Even our English word “husband” carries this sort of meaning. Though it is almost exclusively used nowadays as a noun meaning a male spouse, in the Middle Ages the word meant a farmer. Someone engaged in the work of cultivation. (The English town of “Husbands Bosworth” preserves a last remnant of this meaning; it refers to “Town on Bosworth field where the husbandmen, ie farmers, live”, as opposed to the nearby “Market Bosworth” which is “Town on Bosworth field where the farmers come to market”. Anyway, moving on…)

Husbandry, then, in the modern sense of the word husband, is the art of cultivating your wife. Raising her up, doing what you can to ensure that she is fruitful in her ministry and life, cherishing and preferring her in the Lord. Being her advocate when needed, taking care of her, developing her.

No farmer expects his farm to support him without his doing any work; on the contrary, farming is hard work. Marriage is also, in one sense. It’s hard to give yourself up. But in another sense, it really isn’t hard at all. How hard can it be to give yourself up for the one person in the universe after God that you value above all others? How hard is it to prefer the one you prefer? How hard is it to love the one you love?

Someone will look at all this and see a lot of work for little gain. While that’s about my perspective on farming – a life I have very little interest in actually living – it really isn’t like that. As I said before, a healthy marriage is not a competition, and me making sure that my wife wins does not mean that I lose; it means that we win. We’re in this together, husband and wife. We’re on the same team, not racing against each other.

A wife who knows that she is cherished, loved, valued, respected, listened-to, a true partner not a subordinate – who wouldn’t want a wife like that? I have a suspicion that this is how Proverbs 31 Women are made.

I have no need to overrule and exercise the sort of positional authority I mistrust and fear in my marriage relationship. I trust my wife’s judgment; I know that she’s on my side and that even when she might not make quite the same decision that I would have, that she’s taking my preferences and desires into account just as I do hers when we have to make decisions by ourselves. We’ll usually try to talk it over and come to a mutually-agreed-on decision, but when it comes to it, we trust each other to make a decision that’s good for both of us as far as that lies in our power.

You may disagree, but this doesn’t feel like any kind of authority-based relationship. She’s not my subordinate and I’m not hers. We’re in this together. We try to have a system of 100/0/0 control, in which God is in charge and we both follow together.

Some people would probably say I wear my headship too lightly. I disagree with this assessment, but you have to understand that I consider headship to be a position of service, just as any other position of Christian leadership. As it is written: So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves(Lk 22:25-26).

Proper Christian leadership is the opposite of hierarchical dominance. Why should husbandly headship be any different?

So I don’t buy the argument that trying to have a relationship of mutuality is setting yourself up for failure as a Christian spouse. In my experience it is not so; let’s leave the dominance games to the buffalo and the veiled threats to the pagans, shall we?

Submit

Submission.

The word often carries echoes of totalitarian dictatorship, of subjection, of the repeated claim of the Nazi rank-and-file that they were “just following orders”. Like “obedience”, it’s not something we crave, unless we are the ones being obeyed, we are the ones being submitted to.

And not even then, if you’re a decent sort of person.

It seems like it’s only Muslims and Christians who even use the word any more, at least trying to convey anything positive. For most of us, nothing that you have to be told to “submit” to can possibly be any good. You “submit” to a humiliating nude body scan and/or pat-down search at an airport. You “submit” to a background check in which third-parties poke around in your record for evidence of trouble. You “submit” an application for a loan or for government assistance, not only suffering the embarrassment of needing it, but inviting an impersonal agency who don’t necessarily care to sit in judgment over you. A “submissive” is the term we give to a participant in a sexual relationship who gets a disturbed thrill from acting as a slave.

In general life, the connotations really aren’t good.

As Christians, we’re somewhat justifiably put off by Muslims’ focus on submission. “Islam” itself means “submission”, submission to the will of God, whether that be good, bad or indifferent to your personal life. It smacks of fatalism – you can’t fight God’s Will. If He’s determined to crush you, all you can do is shrug and accept it. This doesn’t sound so much like the God we serve.

And then we as Christians use the word “submission” in our descriptions of the Christian marriage relationship, to describe the proper attiitude of a wife to her husband.

I… have a problem with that.

Yeah, I know the word is used in the Bible. Several times, by both Paul and Peter. Peter says “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands, so that if any do not believe they may be won over…”

Paul says “Wives, submit to husbands as to the Lord…”

Apparently I have some explaining to do. If this is what the Bible says, and I believe that if I’m going to call myself Christ’s follower I have to take even the parts of the Bible that I don’t like seriously, how can I have a problem with Christians using the word “submission” about our marital relationships?

Well, first of all I have to remind all of us that our English Bible is a translation of the original. We try our best to make it as accurate as possible, but as anyone who knows more than one language will tell you, sometimes words just don’t translate well. A word that in one language is a harmless, neutral term may become a deadly insult when translated literally into another language. Compare US and British uses of the word “fag”. Or even when it means the same thing, the nuances can be wildly different. A “cafeteria” is an eating-place in both British and American versions of English, but means something subtly different: the British version is a small eating establishment where you could get a light snack or sandwich or the equivalent – a café, in fact – while the US version is what we call a “canteen”: a large institutional dining area, for example in a school.

And this is just between two different versions of the same language! The problem is multiplied when you take in a more distant (in both time and dissimilarity) language like Koine Greek.

The Koine word which we translate as “submission” is ὑποτάσσω, which does indeed mean “submission”. However, as I have said, the difficulty is not with the literal meaning but with the connotations in our cultural milieu versus those of the New Testament Greek/Aramaic period.

Which brings us to our second issue. Words change over time. Within my lifetime, “PC” has gone from having one meaning to having three, and its original meaning is now probably the least-used. “Friend” has become a verb as well as a noun, while “Like” has gone the other way, becoming a thing as well as an action. Such-and-such a post has so many likes. And don’t get me started on those hideous monster words beloved of American news media, “burglarize” (the word is “burgle”; a “burglar” is “one who burgles”) and “normalcy” (because it seems like Americans can’t cope with the stress-pattern shift of the word “normality”).

English has never inflicted itself with the bureaux (which is fast degenerating into “bureaus”) of language preservation found in French and Spanish. The Academie Française is particularly known for its resistance to importing words unless they are Latin-derived, but even with their efforts, French still has “le weekend”. Languages change. If they don’t, it’s because no-one speaks them any more, like Latin or Sanskrit or Old Church Slavonic.

Along with adding new words for new things, sometimes old words add new meanings (as with “like” or “PC”) or lose old meanings (as with “intercourse”, which at one time regularly meant “conversation” and was used only secondarily to refer to the sexual act). Or meanings can change as the usage of the word alters. This is why we need new dictionaries every few year, and why the OED publishes lists of the year’s new words.

Has this happened with “submit”?

I submit that perhaps it has.

See, that’s formal usage now, which always lags behind regular conversational usage, and it’s a slightly different meaning of the word anyway. It still carries the idea of subjection, but it’s merely an “I put forth my idea and subject it to your judgment”.

Our primary cultural connotations of the word “submit” are, with the exception of Christian and Muslim usage, entirely negative. Nothing that you have to “submit” to is going to be pleasant; otherwise you wouldn’t be using that word. Submission does not really come into play if it is to something desirable or good. No-one “submits” to being bought ice-cream, or to their friend. That would be weird.

So why do we use “submission” as a description of proper Christian wifely behaviour?

Normally, the word describes a relationship of unequal partners, in which the greater partner’s desires and needs are paramount and override the desires and needs of the lesser partner. The greater partner is probably going to be hostile or unresponsive to commentary from below, and the lower partner cannot do anything to change it.

To me, none of that sounds like the sort of relationship I want anywhere near my marriage.

Marriage is a relationship of two equal partners under God. Even Paul’s statement in Ephesians is actually misquoted; verse 22 is the second half of a sentence beginning in verse 21, the whole of which reads “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives to husbands as to the Lord…”

That’s right; the word “submit” isn’t actually in the original in verse 22 at all. Worse, we insert the paragraph distinctions and subtitles that weren’t in the original (in order to help ourselves find things) and we artificially separate this one sentence into two paragraphs in different sections.

It’s not the first time that Bible translators (who tend to be older men) have become out-of-step with the regular culture. And this has theological implications for our teaching on the proper relationship of Christian spouses, and power implications for men who are husbands.

Personally, I don’t want a vertical, positionally-hierarchical relationship with my wife. If I can bring up personal ancient history, I resisted the idea of my wife promising to “obey” in our wedding vows. I’ve since been content to ignore it, but it’s one of the things we might have done differently if we had it over. Rather like my own insistence on being proclaimed “man and wife” rather than “husband and wife”, which I’ve since decided just plays into the lie that my manhood comes from my relationship to a woman and that to be a real man you have to know (in the KJV sense) a woman.

As far as I’m concerned, as a married couple the minute you believe that one of you can pull rank on the other, you have already lost. The relationship goes from being a horizontal one between equals to a vertical one of commander and subordinate, ruler and subject, master and mastered.

That may have been the expectation in First-Century Greco-Roman Jewish society, but we’re beyond that now. Thanks largely to the influence of Christian teaching on the equality of all persons before God, we no longer expect to have a marriage relationship of dominance and subjection.

After long struggle, at the beginning of the last century we finally let women have a vote in how our national affairs are governed. Britain had its first female Prime Minister in Margaret Thatcher; America might have its first female President before too long. Whether you like or loathe Hillary Clinton (and I’m not personally a fan), her gender isn’t an issue, except perhaps in the minds of the most reactionary misogynist neanderthals.

As men, we don’t expect to rule our wives as the little tin god of their world. Or if we do, we have serious problems whether we know it or not. Women don’t expect to be our subjects, and nor should they. There’s some give-and-take in any healthy marriage, and if it’s all one-sided, we don’t have anything like a healthy marriage.

So why do we, as Christians, insist on preserving language that frames the relationship as one of dominance?

Oh, we try to soft-pedal it in the way we interpret submission, but the word itself has become loaded with baggage it didn’t have half a generation ago.

I have no idea what word we might use instead, though. We can at least stop unnaturally splitting Ephesians 5:21 from 5:22 (if submission is expected to go both ways, we eliminate a lot of the problem), but perhaps here more free translations like the NIV have the advantage over more literalistic translations like the New American Standard. There may not be one word that fits the bill.

Then, too, we might possibly recognise that, like the teaching about slaves and masters, some of this New Testament teaching concerns a social context that no longer exists in the same way.

We like to apply the teaching on slaves and masters to the employer/employee relationship, but if we’re honest we have to face the fact that the relationship is not the same as that of a master and his slave. Last time I checked, my employer still couldn’t sell me to another company, or beat me or kill me on a whim.

The situation of husbands and wives is complicated by the fact that while slavery has been largely consigned to the dustbin of history (human trafficking exists, but nowhere in the world is it a legal and above-board part of society), we still have husbands and we still have wives. And yet, how different is the relationship!

In much of First-Century society, married women were akin to property. They were bought with bride-prices or sold with dowries. Their husbands were legally responsible for their actions, as they were for those of their slaves or their children, and a man beating his wife was considered a normal and good thing rather than a dreadful criminal act. The Greeks, in particular, found the more gender-enlightened and egalitarian attitudes of, for example, the Scythians, as a perverse indication of extreme barbarism on the part of the Scythians. (And Paul states that “[in Christ] there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and is in all”)

Nowadays, if we found a husband and wife who had a First-Century sort of relationship, we’d call the police. Or at the very least a social worker.

Society has progressed beyond those evil pagan expectations, largely building on the Christian understanding of the equality of all people before God. The point of the Scriptural teaching is not to mandate any particular kind of society as normative for Christians (else we would still keep slaves), but to teach believers how to live as believers within the sometimes fallen human structures of the day.

Marriage isn’t something that can be done away with like slavery. The beginning of Genesis ties marriage to the creation of human beings: “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”. Eve is Adam’s ezer kenegdo, or “suitable helper”; the word Ezer is also used of God as our Helper, so there’s no place for seeing this as any sort of subordinate position.

Interestingly, the subjection of womankind doesn’t take place until after the Fall: “I will greatly increase your pain in childbirth… Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you“.

To me, it seems a bit backward that we would hold the results of the Fall up as an example for how redeemed new creations in Christ should live, but there you go. I know many Christians do honestly believe in an inherent primacy of the man in a marriage relationship, but I’ve looked at the Scriptures and I don’t think that’s what they are saying.

If “submission” is for you a positive or neutral term without baggage, I’m pleased for you. But the fact that we keep having to explain why submission isn’t the problem non-Christians think it is suggests that Christianese may be out of sync with real life. If you honestly want a vertical relationship in your marriage, you have my pity, and my suspicion that your spouse might not be so blithely accepting of this. We teach, and rightly so, about marriage being a partnership. We do pre-marital counselling for young couples to try and help them become aware that they aren’t going to get their own way all the time. We encourage husbands to love their wives sacrificially, as Christ loves the Church. And then we use a loaded, almost universally negative term like “submit” for the wife’s side of the marriage responsibilities, a word which is intrinsically vertical in its orientation without any counterbalancing command to the husband to submit. Oh, he’s required to love as Christ loved the church, which implies service and sacrifice, but you can love a lesser. The way we’ve broken Ephesians 5:22 off from verse 21, men don’t get commanded to submit to their wives; it’s all one-way. And this is wrong, and it’s not what we mean.

Ideally, we men would all take the command to love our wives sacrificially as seriously as Jesus performing the most disgusting task of the lowest slave for his disciples. Jesus here isn’t explicitly or implicitly demanding his disciples’ submission to him; he’s submitting to them, seeing to their needs and desires first, serving them like a dog slave. There’s no place for positional authority here; the normal positions are shockingly inverted.

And this is what the Scripture says is our pattern. We don’t let the social customs around us set our agenda as Christians; we act with righteousness, according to a higher pattern of submission, not one way from women to men, but to one another, husbands as well as wives, masters as well as slaves. We make a nonsense of fallen cultural patterns by living in such a way within them that the expected fallen norms are done away with.

I think it’s time we did away with this one-way notion of submission as a solely wifely requirement. At best, it conveys to non-Christians a horrible picture of what Christian marriage is supposed to be like, and at worst it reinforces our own tendencies toward letting our marriages degenerate into entirely the wrong kinds of relationship.

As far as I’m concerned, as soon as the word “submit” comes into play, we’re dealing with a vertical relationship that ought to have no part of a healthy marriage.

Maybe we ought to say “put your husbands first” rather than “submit to them”. That’s more like what we actually mean, and far more communicative.

“Put one another first out of reverence for Christ. Wives, put your husbands first as you do the Lord…”

It isn’t perfect, but it seems more in tune with what we really mean than “submit”. Maybe. At any rate, it doesn’t have quite the same amount of baggage.

That Thou Art Mindful of Him

The one thing I insisted on in our wedding ceremony that I might do differently now was that I wanted to be pronounced “man and wife” rather than “husband and wife” like the pastor preferred to pronounce.

At the time, I was coming out of a long process of trying to understand my manhood and what it means to be a true man, and I thought it was a significant reflection of that struggle to be pronounced a man.

These days, I wonder if I wasn’t feeding one of the many cultural lies about what it means to be a man. The Man Gets The Girl is a subtle one, because there is something powerfully attractive in a man being a true man, but if that’s what you’re using to define your manhood and masculinity, I’d suggest you may be missing it.

The subject of what makes a man is one I’ve looked at before from time to time, but it’s an important one because our culture doesn’t have good answers. I sometimes wonder whether some of the rise of modern homosexuality may be a reaction to these bad answers about what manhood is all about, but there’s probably more to it than that, and I’m no expert on that subject. I’m relentlessly straight and I find the idea that (for whatever reason it is that people turn out as homosexuals) in a different universe I might not be… disquieting.

Anyway, in this post I want to start to unwrap what it might mean to be a true man in God’s sight. To try to begin to answer the question, using the old King James language, “What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?”

The American culture of my experience (Texas over the last 10 years or so) is far more gender-segregated than I consider normal. For the record, I’m a Brit, specifically an Englishman (they aren’t the same) but I’ve been out of the UK for at least that long, and a decade is long enough for memory to start playing tricks. In Texas, there are very definite “men’s areas” and “women’s areas” of activity and social interaction. Women cook, men grill. Men watch and play sports, women chat and interact over the preparation of meals. Weddings are almost entirely Woman’s Domain, with male input reduced to providing labour and the slightly odd custom of the “groom’s cake” – an excuse to have chocolate cake at a wedding that’s traditionally decorated to showcase the groom’s personality or interests. I found about weddings being designated female territory when I tried to relieve some of my wife’s pre-wedding stress by doing some of the phoning-around inquiries about the flowers. Florist after florist gave me short, abrupt treatment and I was left with the distinct flavour of “I don’t want to talk to you, you interloper!”

My wife calls the same florists – instant helpfulness and charm. Like it wasn’t even the same people.

Utter foolishness, particularly in sales representatives, but this is Texas.

My land of birth doesn’t have a lot of these unmarked zones of gender-based interdiction (not that I remember encountering, anyway) and I was caught totally unprepared.

To this day I consider these unmarked zones to be the adult equivalent of cooties. Hedged about with social opprobrium bordering on shame, they seem to define masculinity and femininity based on arbitrary cultural standards that have little to do with Biblical values.

I’ve learned (the hard way, sometimes) that if we build our lives and our identities on relative human standards and values, we are building on shifting sand. I’m far more interested in what God thinks a Real Man ought to look like than in what the cowboy-derived Texan culture has to say about it.

The “masculinity culture”, if I can use that term, around me places a high value on machismo, separated gender roles, strength and hard work. By “masculinity culture” I mean the cultural expectations that get used to define what being a Real Man is about.

Personally, I think machismo is juvenile, most if not all separated gender roles are arbitrary limits on the breadth of diversity God has created, and hard work is a particularly American cultural value. And strength need not be defined solely, or even mostly, in physical terms. If I hadn’t sorted out my sense of identity as a man before I got married, I’d be in a world of hurt over the issue right now, because there seems little for me in the general Texan expectations.

It’s not just in the secular world, either. In the church, too, we have our ideas about what proper manhood looks and acts like, and even some of those seem like they owe more to the surrounding culture than to the Lord. For example the idea that “women need love, men need respect”. This idea is fine up to a point; men and women do tend to perceive their relational needs differently and respond to different things. But beyond that point it can become a self-serving lie that encourages men to be out-of-touch with their own emotions and desires (men need respect, not love) and disrespectful of their wives (women need love, not respect). Unfortunately I’ve seen it happen.

I may touch on this some more in a follow-up post; for the rest of this one I’d like to return to the issue of machismo.

We all know what machismo looks like, whether it’s opening beer bottles with your teeth or biting into the ghost pepper or flexing in front of the mirror or the trophy buck heads on the wall. It’s swagger. Brag. A constant drive to prove that you’re worthy to be called a man.

And yes, I did use the word “juvenile” earlier.

You see, it looks to me very much as though machismo is based almost entirely on fear: fear of what other people think.

At best, constantly having to prove you’re a man looks insecure. At worst, I’ve lived according to fear of man, and it’s a pretty worthless way to live. It’ll suck dry everything of value and leave you an empty shell full of other people’s expectations. I don’t want any part of it.

To me, one of the signs that you’re a real man – an adult, not a boy in a grown-up’s body – is that you don’t have anything to prove.

Forget trying to prove you’re a man; just be one.

Of course, to do this we have to come to a place of security in our God-ordained identity, not just as a human being but as a man (or a woman, but I’m talking particularly to men here), and not just as a man but as me.

And therein lies the difficulty, which is why so many of us men get stuck in the endless insecure loop of having to prove ourselves over and over again.

The Real Man doesn’t need to swagger and brag. Does an iceberg keep leaping out of the water to show everyone how big it is? A true man goes through life without the swagger of insecure arrogance. Head up and shoulders back, as my wife puts it, not compromising or downgrading who they are either, but strong where it counts: in their character and inner sense of self.

For me, one of the big things has been getting my heart around the idea that God doesn’t think I’m junk. I’ve talked about this before, but being told (as we are so many well-meaning times) that “you may think you’re junk, but God loves you and paid a high price for you” did little to squash my inner conviction that I was junk. Junk that God happened to love and was willing to pay an outrageous price for, but junk nonetheless.

I needed something extra, and it came in the realisation of some of the implications of God’s omniscience. As I said before, the implication that God is all-seeing means that He sees everything as it really is, without camouflage or falsehood or mistake. So if He says I’m worth the price He paid, that is my true value. Jesus loves me, this I know. Do not be afraid.

How can I possibly need to prove anything?