The next chapter on sex by Foster and Tennant in It’s Good to Be a Man is entitled “Toxic Sexuality”, a term they employ but never really define. Sexuality normally refers to things like how a person feels about sex, their sexual identity, or sexual practices. Instead of offering a definition and detailing what toxic sexuality is the chapter takes a brief look at what they call “evil patriarchy” in the early Genesis narrative starting with Cain’s genealogy and then the reader gets to go on a roller coaster ride of a rather misogynistic look at certain women in the rest of the chapter. The authors do say “as sin grows, society under an evil patriarchy rapidly deteriorates into what we can rightly call “toxic sexuality” but in saying so the actual definition isn’t offered. All the reader really gets is a brief comment on polygamy in the genealogy of Cain and is then introduced to toxic sexuality as a result. Since Genesis 4-6 doesn’t really focus on sexuality in the first place, the consideration of Foster/Tennant here remains suspect. More normal looks at what the Bible might consider toxic sexuality are things like pornography, fornication, adultery, homosexual behavior, and the like. But, none of these words are mentioned more than 3-4 times each in the entire book and none of them even make it in this chapter on toxic sexuality in the first place.
Foster/Tennant offer a reductive dialectic of good versus evil patriarchy in the early narrative of Genesis that isn’t exactly telling the whole story. One might consider that the passages aren’t really about patriarchy in the first place, but rather focused in the main on the redemptive arc of salvation that winds its way through mankind’s early existence prior to the flood. There is such a thing as an antithesis that is working between good and evil but more subtle and necessary considerations are entirely lost on Foster/Tennant and their miss here forces them to say things like cities are built in the main as monuments to evil men practically without qualification. They even claim that Cain himself built a city to make a name for himself but they miss the fact that the city itself was not in fact named after Cain but rather his son Enoch. Doing so isn’t providing a name for Cain but rather a heritage for his children. Regardless, Foster/Tennant seem unaware that there is something more in mind here with cities than the immediate narrative lets on in their mention. The culmination of salvation history is found in the heavenly city of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:10-27). The Bible begins with a garden and ends with a city, but for Foster/Tennant the reader is supposed to think about patriarchy and its apparent enemy toxic sexuality.
Foster/Tennant also claim that “genealogies exist in Scripture to show how God is moving forward His [redemptive] purpose in a specific family line”. Of course, saying so makes sense to men who believe sex is the engine of dominion. The problem is that the authors then have to explain why the first genealogy in Genesis is about Cain’s line instead of the righteous son of Adam. For Foster/Tennant, Cain’s genealogy exists to show how far man strayed early on by building cities, exercising tyranny, and corrupting marriage and sex. But, is that really what these genealogies are about in sum? What the authors neglect to mention is that there are other genealogies and lists in the Scriptures that are detailed that are not in fact directly about the coming of the Messiah. The fact is that genealogies in Scripture do more than show how God is moving through a physical family tree to accomplish his purposes. What Foster/Tennant present is reductive because genealogies in Scripture also imply a what and why as much as they describe how. Genealogies demonstrate the faithfulness, love, and grace of God through specific peoples as it pertains to the establishment of his providential design.
So, the picture is much bigger than merely demonstrating that God used a particular family to bring salvation to the world or win some Wrestlemania patriarchal contest of the ages. This is why we see the original genealogy of Cain in Genesis 4 addressing technological innovation and the creation of the arts (Gen. 4:19-22). These skills and inventions are an important part of the dominion mandate when we have later commentary in the law mentioning things like copper mining for use in the land he promises to Israel (Deut. 8:9) to say nothing of the fact that the Lord is our Shepherd (Psalm 23). Further, technological innovation and things like music are gifts the Holy Spirit provides to men who are made in the image of God and reflect it through their creativity even while sin remains in play (Exo. 31:1-11). Interestingly enough, Foster/Tennant also skip over the fact that technological innovation, music, and animal husbandry are all the product of the wives of Lamech through the sons they had. We can certainly speculate as to why this is but what we can’t do is simply gloss over these details in order to enforce a focus that simply isn’t in the text, that somehow toxic sexuality is one of the main focal points here as Foster/Tennant claim.
The authors state that Genesis 6 is shown to be toxic sexuality in the main and the reason for the eventual destruction of mankind via the Flood. The problem is that the text just doesn’t display this emphasis and instead says something far more problematic. If anything, the first part of Genesis 6 is about the daughters of men marrying the sons of God. The passage itself and the mention of the Nephilim (Gen. 6:1-4) is quite controversial and few claim to know exactly what is being said. Yet again, however, the reader is presented with a matter-of-fact rendition and the real problem here for Foster/Tennant is deviant sex given their claim that sex is the engine of dominion. But, this is a forced read.
The passage in verse five tells us the actual problem, “the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”. The problem wasn’t toxic sexuality per se but rather that their corruption was total and complete. In fact, when something specific is said about the wickedness of mankind in verse eleven we see violence, not sexuality, emphasized. Nothing is said about cities, about tyranny, or anything directly about sexuality. No doubt total corruption meant sexual corruption as much as anything else but the text of Genesis 6 simply isn’t focusing on it the way Foster/Tennant would like. Curiously enough, however, the narrative of Genesis goes on to speak of the patriarchs in very frank terms regarding their infidelities, but somehow that’s just not relevant for a chapter on toxic sexuality. Instead, Foster and Tennant move to discuss what they call toxic femininity. Now, let’s remember the book purports to be on what it means to be a man. The authors mention toxic masculinity as a speed bump just before but the next section drives on and on about problematic women in a way that can only be described as misogynistic. “Yoga pants, short skirts, Daisy Dukes, low-cut tops, caked-on makeup, and the like” are all invoked to tell us how immoral women are “in the Church today”. I don’t know about your church, but I don’t see that kind of dress in mine!
Curiously, for Foster/Tennant the charge against avoiding harlots in Proverbs and elsewhere becomes a charge against immoral women as women to avoid. The postmodern sleight of hand and redefinition should be apparent to the careful reader when harlotry is replaced with the adjective immoral and then talk proceeds to the problems of how some women might dress themselves. The discussion then moves to the lack of modesty as yet another problem among these women even while Foster/Tennant spend no time telling us what modesty actually means or why the Bible might find it important. Further, they also fail to note that one can be too modest in appearance and cultures like the Hasidic Jews, the Amish, and certain Muslim communities all have issues with infidelity and abuse as a result of their overly modest culture. These details and considerations are once again left out of the discussion so that the chapter can move on to the real problem: loud women. Of course, Foster/Tennant immediately explain that they’re not talking about women who engage “with too much volume” but in saying so it’s like a left-handed compliment, “that is only the most crude kind of loudness”. No, for Foster/Tennant they mean women with a loud heart. I have a sneaking suspicion they’d also not tolerate the voice of women they can hear either though given the way they disparage that “crude kind of loudness”.
The Scriptures do speak of certain women that are restless and whose heart results in contempt for a husband in committing adultery and being disagreeable. The context of Proverbs 7 is about adulterous married women and not women who don’t dress the way some think they should or are just too loud for certain men. A massive equivocation is eventually revealed here because Foster/Tennant directly contrast the harlotry of Proverbs 7 with the quiet submission of women in churches in terms of how they read 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
The authors go so far to say:
“…women in the Church are not to draw attention to themselves in any way. They are not to seek to stand over others, whether through their clothing or their speech or their will. Rather, they are to remain meek and modest, quiet and self-restrained, “entirely submissive.”
We find out all along that in fact Foster/Tennant are not in fact just talking about a loud heart. They expect complete silence on the part of women in the church. That’s simply misogynistic and unbiblical.
When we look at the Scriptures we find Miriam “the prophetess” publicly leading the women in spontaneous song after Israel passes through the Red Sea (Exo. 15:20-21). We still sing her celebratory words today. Elizabeth “filled with the Holy Spirit” cries out a blessing “with a loud voice” on hearing the news of the Messiah to come (Luke 1:41-42). Mary herself exclaims the Magnificat in reply (Luke 1:46-55). Priscilla and Aquila together corrected Apollos in regards to the errors he had made in his own public ministry (Acts 18:18-28). Other women in the New Testament church were called prophetesses and one was likely called an apostle (Luke 2:36-38; Acts 21:8-19; Romans 16:7). Lydia ran her own business, was likely the first convert in Europe, and “prevailed upon” Paul to stay at her home (Acts 16:15). Further, older women have a direct teaching role in guiding younger women in the church (Titus 2:3-5). The broader admonitions in the New Testament to speak in an edifying way are just as applicable to women as they are to men (Eph. 4:29-32). The only real limitation we see with women in the New Testament church is that the office of elder is reserved for married men of good character and reputation (1 Tim. 3:1). So, the notion that women must be ‘entirely submissive’ and quiet without regard to their calling and vocation in their own lives and in the church is just manifestly false.
In essence, Foster/Tennant go too far in attempting to tell men to stay away from women that aren’t serving God. 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is really just saying that women should receive proper instruction as the truth of the matter and remain modest in how they comport themselves. Quiet doesn’t mean absolutely silent in this passage but instead means to take God’s proclaimed word for the truth that it is. Incidentally, men are required to receive the proclamation of God’s word in the same way. In any case, what Foster/Tennant provide goes far beyond what the Scriptures actually say and ignore a lot more of what they say in the process.
Next Review:
The Anti-Technological Stance of It’s Good to Be a Man
Toxic Sexuality
No Fatherhood, No Manhood – Part 1
No Fatherhood, No Manhood – Part 2
No Gravitas, No Manhood – Part 1
No Gravitas, No Manhood – Part 2
How Porn & Video Games Hijack Manhood
Two for One Day – How to Bear the Weight/Manhood Through Mission