I read your article, Behold The Man, which was partially written in response to Doug Wilson’s blog post on the role of women in marriage and family life. Since both you and your wife Rachel have engaged this issue, I wanted to dialogue with your post and give you some of my own thoughts, both where I agree and points of divergence of thought as well.
I write this in the spirit of dialogue with someone who is on the same team. We are both baptized Christians who believe in the orthodox tenets (Nicene Creed) of the Christian faith. Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again. Jesus is Lord and we are working for His will to be “done on earth as it is in heaven”.
Towards the beginning of your post you mention, “My father’s voice ever in my head warning against the horrors of cross threading” as you were working on the dishwasher. It seems apparent you were raised in a culture of masculinity where you were taught among many other things to be thrifty by trying to repair versus taking the easy route of throwing away and buying new. I’m the same way (probably to a fault) and have had my own appliance battles (most recently with a dryer). You also noted that you learned about manhood as a boy while growing up in Black Hawk county,
When I was a kid growing up in Black Hawk County in the 80’s and 90’s. Men just were. They didn’t think about what it meant to be a man. They certainly didn’t need a panel discussion on Youtube to tell them.
Evan Welcher – Behold The Man
You go on to talk about the influence of a father on their child:
Old Dad as I am, I’ve been thinking, pondering, ruminating, as men do, on the truth that whatever my daughter Hildegaard ends up thinking a man is will be most influenced by the man typing this article up with his short cropped hands.
Evan Welcher – Behold The Man
I agree, a father will strongly influence a daughter’s view of what masculinity is and what kind of man she will be attracted to. Using a personal anecdote from my own marriage, my Latina wife was strongly influenced by her father. When my own masculine expressions intersect with her father’s (the positive masculine expressions), she will experience strong attraction towards me, yet for the areas where they don’t, it’s an occasion for growth on my part.
In addition to a child’s family, their local community (church, friends, social groups, etc.) strongly influences their view of masculinity. A short-hand way of referring to this is the concept of “culture”. Evan, your own cultural influences were that you grew up in a rural county (Black Hawk) in the Midwest that was almost 90% white. All of those factors (growing up in the 80/90’s, in a Midwest white rural area) strongly affected the type of man you became and the type of masculinity that you express.
“Men just were. They didn’t think about what it meant to be a man.”
Evan Welcher – Behold The Man
While in your experience, “Men just were. They didn’t think about what it meant to be a man”, masculinity for the males in Black Hawk county did not develop in a vacuum. To the degree that your various cultural intersections reflected God’s created order of what it meant to be a man, you “just were” a masculine man “without thinking about what it meant to be a man”. The blessing of any culture, (whether it be, asian, black, hispanic or white) that reflects God’s created order is that you often just live out God’s created order without having to think about it. You benefit from the cultural tide, and you can kind of just float down the river. This begs the question though of what culture are you in because a white male growing up in Black Hawk County is going to have a different experience of masculinity than a Cuban male in Dade County, Florida. What if a culture’s expression of masculinity isn’t healthy? What if a culture’s expression of being a man was disordered? What if that culture’s masculinity manifested itself either in timid weakness or abusive overpowering? In that kind of culture, people would do well to reflect on what it means to be a man (and even perhaps go on YouTube to dialogue further).
As Christians we believe in the sin nature (darkening of the mind/intellect and weakening the will). That means “out of the box” we are inclined to disordering our masculinity (among many other things) until we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit and we surrender ourselves to Christ’s Lordship. That means unless we are living in a distinctly Christian culture, you can bet your bottom dollar that the majority culture’s view of masculinity is going to be disordered to a degree. We must pursue sanctification: aligning our mind and actions according to the purposes for why God created us as either male or female. Sanctification doesn’t “just happen” to us. We are called to renew our minds. This includes bringing our mind in conformity with the purposes for why God created us and what our function is. We must be knowledgeable of what reflects God’s intent, design, purpose and function in any given situation and love others according to that end. So yes that means we need to think about what it means to be a man or a woman.
The human vocation (creation mandate) is to bring God’s wisdom and flourishing to the world. The way God wants this world to flourish is by human beings taking responsibility by taking action to properly steward and develop themselves and others to pursue the fulfillment of their nature (as male or female, as husband or wife, as father or mother) that the whole world may flourish. We are called as Christians to proactively work to restore all life to its fullness and transform the fallen creation by working to bring it into conformity with His will and purpose within the normative order of creation. We have to be intentional to renew our minds according to what is true and real. That renewing comes from not only reflecting on Scripture but also on the created order and on science because after all God is the author and creator of all that exists.
So as Christians, it is necessary that we use our reason to discover what constitutes the good human life and put that structure into our understanding, our desires and then into our actions. God designed our human natures as males and females for a specific kind of fulfillment. Sin twists and perverts that fulfillment. As believers, we are called to untwist and rightly order our masculinity and our femininity. As Dr. John Cuddeback said, “Goodness is succeeding in being what you are according to your nature.”
All this talk of men’s hair length and women making sandwiches and men not being interested in babies. It sure doesn’t sound like the pillar of truth I’ve dedicated my life to.
Evan Welcher – Behold The Man
This appears to be a strawman. Making a caricature of a position (eg. Canon Press, et. al) by exaggerating, oversimplifying and removing all nuance and then tearing it down. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 was the first man to start the discussion (on a large scale) in the New Testament church regarding male and female hair length “(if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him” and “if a woman has long hair, it is her glory”). Exactly what this passage means is still debated with believers taking a diversity of positions on this topic. That being said, what is so troubling with people who are wrestling with and trying to find the meaning behind the written Word of God? If you disagree with them, then do so charitably and gently and write out an exegetical defense of your position but there is no need to insinuate condescension for someone that is wrestling with the words of the Apostle Paul that even Peter said “there are some things in them that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
“I think God in His good wisdom knows men and women need one another, and it’s a need that goes deeper than roles, or biology, or mere form and function.” I think God in His good wisdom knows men and women need one another, and it’s a need that goes deeper than roles.
Evan Welcher – Behold The Man
When you say “it’s a need that goes deeper than roles”, I think the “need” is actually built upon the foundation of heterosexual roles . The word “role” has within its meaning, “the function that is assumed or a part played”. For heterosexuals, we are attracted to the opposite sex precisely because they have things that our sex does not have. Gender roles are deeper than the practical functions we do in keeping a household running each week. They also include the functioning of our emotional relationship as well. The deep soul communing that can exist between husband and wife exists because one is male and the other is female. This presupposes there are real, universal masculine and feminine characteristics that imbibe males and females. Otherwise, heterosexual males could have their desires fulfilled by other males and vice versa.
We desire, want, and are attracted to the opposite sex because they have something that only they can fulfill. Each sex plays “a role” in every aspect of a heterosexual relationship and plays a function of either male or female and to deny that is to deny the fundamental basis for why heterosexual relationships exist in the first place. Does that mean that every last part of a male or female is thoroughly masculine or feminine? Not at all but just like a male must learn how to dance and lead properly so to a woman must learn her part of the dance. It’s a lifelong process. We are continuing to learn how to be more masculine (if we are male) or feminine (if we are female).
There are certain things that a woman exemplifies (that a man can also do but not nearly as well) that he finds attractive because she exemplifies it in a way that blows the doors off of what any male can do. A woman can nurture an infant in a way that a male cannot and that exemplification of nurturing in a female is attractive to a male. This is not a stretch to say this, after all, women have functioning mammary glands and healthy men do not. Females are uniquely designed to carry and nurture children. The functions of nurturing, which they exemplify, extends well beyond just nursing. It’s built into the very structure of their brain and their emotional makeup. Likewise, men are built to protect women and have musculature and a skeleton structure that is better equipped to do this than women. Masculine men are the ones who get out of bed when things go bump in the night.
But a man cannot reduce a woman to dishwashing, or sandwich making, or hair.
Evan Welcher – Behold The Man
No one on the Canon Press side that I’m aware of (when properly read in its full context) is reducing women or men to the tasks they do. Doug Wilson even stated, “The problem arises when we use them in a reductionistic way. The problem comes when you use someone while forgetting who and what they are.”
A man doesn’t need a woman for sandwiches, dishwashing, or baby holding.
Evan Welcher – Behold The Man
Does a married man need a woman (the wife) to carry a baby in utero to term? Does a man need a woman (the mother) to produce colostrum and breast milk for a baby to thrive and flourish? Does a man need a woman (the mother) to spend more than 50% of the “baby holding” time for that child to come out emotionally and physically healthy? Absolutely he does if he wants that baby to flourish and have the baby’s needs met that only a mother can meet. The whole reason we partner with someone of the opposite sex is because of the expectation that they are going to fulfill at least some gender role(s), otherwise the foundation of being heterosexual has vanished and we can no longer claim to be a heterosexual. There is going to be disagreement about gender roles but we cannot deny they exist if we want to be a self-identifying heterosexual.
Now does this mean that a man never carries the baby, that he never gives mom a break and bottle feed the baby? Does this mean he never helps pitch in and do the dishes or cook meals? No. At some point each day, I help my wife by doing the dishes. Lord willing, in a few months I’ll also be helping her by giving her a break by bottle feeding our baby (currently in utero) and rocking it to sleep. My helping my wife does not take away from her being in charge of and responsible for the nurturing of our household. Conversely, the man is to exemplify and be responsible for being the provider and protector. Does that mean that the wife cannot also do a side-hustle to help contribute financially to the household or that she cannot learn how to defend herself? Not at all. The larger point is that the husband and the wife have their respective domains based on their design. Women can do some things better than men precisely because of how they were designed and men can do certain things better than women because of their unique design. Obviously there are going to be multiple household responsibilities that reside in a “gray area” where either the wife or the husband can attend to them. Smart couples work efficiently by employing a division of labor so as to free up time for the two of them to enjoy each other’s company.
This brings us to the point of sandwiches. Both you and your wife took umbrage with Doug Wilson’s remark on women and sandwiches. I have a few thoughts for your consideration. I know you appreciate literature and a diversity of literary genres. Part of being able to properly interpret any given work of literature or any written work is to know the literary genre that it was written in, as well as being aware of the various literary and rhetorical devices that were used.
Doug Wilson uses a lot of rhetorical and literary devices in his writing. One such literary device, the synecdoche, was used by Doug Wilson when he made a reference to women making sandwiches. In summary, a synecdoche, is a word or phrase with a literal meaning that refers to a part of something that is used figuratively to represent the entirety of that thing.
Doug Wilson was using “sandwich making” as a synchoche for sex roles but his comments can’t be taken in a literal wooden fashion when he clearly didn’t mean it that way. See here: “Godly women are designed to make the sandwiches. This is not an absolute law, like the one about making babies, and there are times when a man fends for himself and makes quite a decent sandwich.” Doug Wilson, et. al. have no compunction about men at times cook for their families. Francis Foucachon, a longtime elder at Christ Church is a classically trained French chef from Lyon, France. I can confidently say that he can cook better than any person, male or female reading this article. You can find his excellent book on food and cooking here: He frequently cooked for his family when his children were all still living at home. Francis Foucachon is a very masculine man and his wife was an excellent homemaker for their household. They both were excellent examples of masculinity and femininity in a marriage. No one would be so foolish to say that either one was failing in their role because Francis Foucachon did some of the cooking.
Speaking of synecdoche, the Apostle Paul used the same rhetorical device in his first letter to Timothy when he said that “women will be saved by childbearing.” Both Denny Burk and Tom Schreiner (SBTS theology professors) agree and elucidated this in starker terms than even Doug Wilson. See Dr. Tom Schreiner below:
Women must adhere to their divinely ordained role (“she will be saved through the bearing of children,” 1 Tim 2:15) to be saved. This is an example of synecdoche, in that bearing children is representative of how women fulfill the role intended for them by God. To avoid misunderstanding, Paul remarks that women must persevere in faith and love and other godly virtues to be saved. Salvation is not merited by having children, nor is Paul suggesting that all women must have children (cf. 1 Corinthians 7)! What Paul is saying is that women’s bearing of children and living in their ordained role is one example of living out the godly life that is necessary to obtain eschatological salvation.
Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology, page 227
Why does Paul say a woman will be saved through childbirth? Probably because the bearing of children marks off the role of women in distinction from the role of men. When we consider what men and women can do in this world, the one thing men can never do is bear children. This task is specifically and exclusively consigned to women. Paul thus employs the part for the whole here. A woman will be saved by living out her Christian life as a woman, fulfilling her specific and God-ordained calling.
Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology, page 286
Denny Burk makes the same case as Dr. Schreiner:
So, in both 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 2, Paul declares that wives have a God-ordained role to play in caring for children and the home. This is not claiming that a woman must have children in order to be saved. It is not even teaching that a woman must be married to be saved. But for those women who are married, God assigns a special responsibility to care for the home.
A wife’s fulfillment of this role will be one of the evidences of perseverance in the faith. Salvation is future in this verse: “She will be saved.” Thus it is not entry into salvation that is in view but the future consummation of salvation. Women who embrace their God-ordained role while continuing in the Christian virtues of “faith and love and holiness, with self-control” will find themselves saved on the last day.
Denny Burk – https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-it-mean-that-women-will-be-saved-through-childbearing-1-timothy-2/
As believers, who have had our hearts regenerated and received the Gospel, we manifest our new nature and our new allegiance to Jesus through our actions. Scripture makes it clear that living out our masculinity and our femininity is an essential part of what it means to live out His Kingdom here on earth.
Someday that wife of yours is going to die, and you’ll wish she had spent more time in your arms than in your kitchen.
Evan Welcher – Behold The Man
Quality time and the flourishing of the marriage is what we are all shooting for. This really is the whole point that Doug Wilson, et. al. is making but I want to respectfully submit that it appears you are missing the forest for the trees on this point. If a man and woman function the way they were designed, they will live in greater harmony and have a greater quantity and quality of time with each other. Quality time with one’s family is an important reason why many women choose to forego working a full-time job outside the home. Many women have decided to spend the 50 hours a week of time and energy that could otherwise be going to a career (co-workers and customers) and to spend it on their own children and husband. My own mom, who has two college degrees, chose to stay at home with my sister and me. She gave us a gift unparalleled and incomparable to anything else she could have given us: her time. My mother had the energy to make our home a delightful and enjoyable place precisely because she chose to not work in an outside career. My parents are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary this year. They both benefited from my mom choosing to stay at home because my mom had more time to spend with my dad and work on the marriage.
Am I calling women who work outside the home sinners? No. Are there many, many women who by necessity have to work and by doing so they are helping their family flourish more by ensuring basic needs are taken care of? Absolutely. Is that what we want to settle for though? Definitely not. If a woman chooses to work a full-time career along with rearing children, she will have little time and energy left for her husband in comparison to a woman who does not have to work. Time and energy are limited resources and for everything we say “YES” to we are saying “NO” to something else. So let what we say “YES” and “NO” to be for the flourishing of our marriages and our families.
Soli Deo Gloria
markchanson 