Foster/Tennant continue on with gravitas and expand on the qualities and duties of masculinity in the next chapter. One of the most curious things about a book like this is how comments are made along the way that can’t be ignored that frame what’s being claimed by the authors. Claims along the way reveal assumptions about men, masculinity, women, and how they all relate together that are in fact troublesome here. For example, on the one hand gravitas is all a matter of God’s grace and yet for Foster/Tennant it’s also something that must be earned. The postmodern slip and slide goes back and forth between these two extremes throughout these chapters and likely signals a problem with how the authors view justification by faith as well as sanctification. We might remember that Tennant was excommunicated by his church for issues with justification so this is no small issue to note. Men, the authors say, “procure well-regulated morals” but do so via God’s “undeserved help”. Dominion isn’t earned, but “we do need to earn…the ability to use this gift well”.
A more disturbing example is the way the authors talk about women in reference to men. For Foster/Tennant women remain sex objects while men are seen by women as “success objects”. Sexual objectification is a huge topic that is normally the province of feminist and psychological theory though Foster/Tennant do not demonstrate any real knowledge of such in their book other than the popular usage of such terms. The reason noting this remains important is not just because of a deep-seated prejudice the authors demonstrate toward women. Using the term “sex object” in passing is problematic in any discussion since it has such a long history in gender and other studies. In other words, how the authors use words are not just a matter of what they mean but also what they signify to others. True to form, the authors aren’t entirely unaware that they’re dipping into popular discourse because of how they term women and men as sex or success objects.
The authors are merely content to assert that women are viewed as sex objects and move on to talk about how that makes women and sex “the baseline purpose of that sex, the foundational design, the way in which they fulfill their duties of dominion” in contrast to men who are built to work. The implication for Foster/Tennant is that women exist primarily to have sex with men and in doing so help men fulfill the dominion mandate. Saying so is entirely reductive on the part of who women were created to be in conjuction with men. Sex is certainly a central part of marriage but in and of itself is not its entirety nor even its main focus. Again, remember that for Foster/Tennant sex is the engine of dominion.
In saying so as they move on to other points, Foster/Tennant remain a feminist’s dream target in making it very clear that their view of women is misogynist, reductive, and the very thing feminists have worked to undo all these years. Foster/Tennant seem entirely unaware that treating someone as an object means according to Nussbaum that women are at the very least instruments for men, do not have any sort of bodily autonomy, lacking in agency, interchangeable with other objects, retain no boundaries, remain the property of men, and the feelings and experiences of women need not be taken into account in order for men to be gratified. Langton, for example, also considers the sexual objectification of women to reduce women to their bodies, their appearance, and a matter of silencing them. The source for much of society’s current thought about sexual objectification actually moves all the way back to Kant in lowering a person to be something other than human and stunting the full recognition that they too exist as someone rational and capable of making choices. In a way, Foster/Tennant’s view is reminiscent of the way Aristotle viewed slaves as instruments and extensions of their master’s hand ( Pol. 1.1254b, great discussion in the first chapter of Agamben, The Use of Bodies re: instrumentality). What the reader should remember, however, is that the Bible does not describe or reduce women in this way.
As if seeing women as sex objects wasn’t enough, Foster/Tennant spend no real time talking about pornography–the dirty underside of considering women in this way. The problem is only mentioned three times in the entire book, twice in the first chapter, and finally in reference to romance novels as “women’s porn”. In reality, their view of women as sex objects minimizes the significance of the problem of porn by reductively considering women and who they are in relation to men.
Of course, Foster/Tennant also claim that men are seen as “success objects” as well. All of this fits nicely into thinking about women and men with stereotypical roles that cave to the discourse of the prevailing culture, carry on a reductive consideration of both sexes, enforce a dialectic of opposition, and on the whole remain unhelpful and unbiblical. The treatment offered in passing by the authors is more a reflection of traditional societal perspectives framed by historical Enlightenment-bound philosophy and postmodern culture than they might care to admit or make known.
The outlook provided by Foster/Tennant frame the rest of the considerations in the chapter as the focus attempts to make certain values more masculine than the Bible makes plain by enforcing a stark set of supposed differences between men and women. Other problems ought to be noticed along the way also. Foster/Tennant are very quick to overextend analogies and so a husband as head of the wife in Ephesians 5:23 for them somehow means that “the man is, put crudely, the brains of the operation”. That’s not what Ephesians 5 teaches and the interpretive maximalism that entertains logical fallacies via false analogies continues to handicap their consideration of what it means to be a man. Somehow, Foster/Tennant have also forgotten about Abigail and Nabal (1 Samuel 25). Nabal is boorish and unwise, described by his own wife as a “worthless man” while Abigail goes against her husband’s wishes and provides King David with what he needs. Later, Abigail then marries King David when Nabal dies as a result of hearing what happened when God judges the matter in a rather final way. All of this is odd behavior if being the head means being the brains of the outfit of any particular couple. Rather, headship is about covenantal arrangements not cerebral function.
For Foster/Tennant since women are sex objects wisdom, workmanship, and strength are chiefly masculine traits. Sure, a woman can gain wisdom but only by asking her husband or pastors. Workmanship is only available to men even while women can demonstrate skill because only men, according to Foster/Tennant, are useful. Why? Men are success objects and being useful apparently has little to do with being a sex object! Then, strength for the authors is inherently masculine because “a woman who is strong like this is butch and unnatural”.
All this is patently absurd since wisdom, workmanship, and even strength are not masculine values in the Bible even in the main. Men and women due to their differences may express such things differently but they all remain the province of anyone made in God’s image and led by the Holy Spirit, including women. Wisdom is personified as a woman in the Scriptures even while she represents the logos of the preincarnate Christ (Proverbs 8:1, 22-31). Wisdom is something the Proverbs 31 wife has in verse 26 that shows no sign of being bestowed upon by her husband but rather an inherent part of who she is, how she is to be valued in a husband finding such a wife, and what she does in fearing and serving God. When we turn to the New Testament, Paul himself in the first chapter of Ephesians prays that the Father give all the saints (v. 1) “a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him…that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened”.
The section in Ephesians 5 on women and men in marriage is prefaced by telling the whole church to “look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise…addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs”. Colossians 4 instructs the church as a whole to “walk in wisdom toward outsiders”. 1 Corinthians 1 contrasts divine wisdom with human wisdom, indicating that wisdom among mankind is a matter of what both men and women have and display. There really is no instance where wisdom is seen as a masculine virtue in the main contra what women might gain “at home” as claimed by Foster/Tennant.
Workmanship is also something both men and women develop. As if Proverbs 31 wasn’t enough of a rebuke to the notion that masculinity is chiefly about developing useful skills, Foster/Tennant also ignore the duties and calling of women in their lives and vocations to focus on men as success objects. Women are not sex objects as Foster/Tennant maintain even if the broader culture of society might view it that way. Women are mothers and daughters, lovers, fighters, champions of the faith, mentioned as such in Hebrews 11, and honored in the Scriptures right beside men for their great and useful contributions to God’s calling in their lives. Women devoutly run businesses in the Bible and host apostolic missionaries (Acts 15:11-15). Other women are prophetesses and servants in the church, applying gifts of mercy and care to those in need (Acts 21:8-9; 1 Tim 3:11). Miriam composes and sings a song spontaneously in response to the song of Moses, leading other women in worship before the entire congregation (Exodus 15:20-21). Still others are evangelists and even correct men who are publicly in error (Acts 18:24-28). On rare occasions, women may even drive a tent peg into the head of their enemies or lead when men won’t (Judges 4). Nowhere in the Scriptures can a reader find workmanship or usefulness as a strictly masculine value.
Strength for Foster/Tennant is defined as “the fortitude through which you stand firm under pressure, through which you translate the virtue of wisdom into action”. But, how is this exclusively masculine? The answer of course is that strength isn’t exclusively masculine especially when defined this way. Deborah and Jael have already been mentioned above. The Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1 in opposing Pharaoh is another. Rahab the harlot hides the spies of Israel in Jericho, helps them escape, and finds a place in the messianic line of Christ himself as a result (Joshua 2; Matthew 1:5; Hebrews 11:31 James 2:25). Hebrews 11 goes on to talk of the faith of women who received back their dead by resurrection (v. 35; 2 Kings 4).
The rest of the chapter continues in attempting to flesh out additional values that just don’t pass muster in terms of being strictly masculine. Women also envision and plan, build and supply, and guard and fight. Enterprise, constancy, and readiness are not the sole province of men. Foster/Tennant simply fail to prove that masculinity is defined by these things and embrace a false piety as a result. All the commentary they provide is interesting but it offers nothing in the way of biblical support for their view. In fact, as pointed out above there is much in the way of biblical support to see the things Foster/Tennant point out as inherently a part of what it means to be made in the image of God for both men and women.
The next post will comment on video games as a special aside mentioned in this chapter but there is another video by Foster that deserves additional commentary. I’ll link to the video tomorrow and provide commentary. Then, on to chapter 11 on ‘bearing the weight’ of dominion.
Next Review:
The Anti-Technological Stance of It’s Good to Be a Man
No Fatherhood, No Manhood – Part 1
No Fatherhood, No Manhood – Part 2
No Gravitas, No Manhood – Part 1
No Gravitas, No Manhood – Part 2
Gravitas Through Duty
How Porn & Video Games Hijack Manhood
Two for One Day – How to Bear the Weight/Manhood Through Mission