8.2 Performing the ‘Ideal’ Responsible Godly Manhood among the
8.2.1 Godly Manhood Portrayed in Headship and Provider Roles
Faith discourses on responsible manhood apply the concept of headship to emphasis the masculine roles of the male as provider, leader, protector and decision maker. In one way or the other, men’s understanding of these four roles portrayed a strong influence on their self-understating thereby informing perceptions, representations and constructions of responsible godly manhood for the MMC. This is illustrated in the diagram below:
Figure 3
The centrality of headship in performing male roles of
Leading, providing, protecting and decision making among the Mighty Men (Kennedy Owino 2014)
To a large extent, Buchan’s godly manhood is patterned around the theology of headship.98 Masculinity is a structure of practices that provide processes for constructing identity (see Whitehead and Barrett 2001:18), therefore men’s masculinity has to be performed through the role of headship envisioned in the male as a leader, provider, protector and decision maker within the household and in the public sphere. Therefore, the idea of recreating Christian masculinity by calling men to return to responsible godly manhood seeks to establish the headship position of authority that the male as husband and father have in the home. Central in aiding the Might Men’s masculine identity, Buchan uses the bible as a major resource which informs ideal manhood for his MMC.
The bible is understood as a “blueprint for any successful family” (Buchan 2004:170), Buchan applies a Charismatic literalist approach of 1 Corinthians 11:3 and points out that
“the man is the head of the home” (Buchan 2012:187). Buchan further observes:
98 The concept of male headship within Protestant Christianity is based on biblical texts such as 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9; “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God….For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (see Revised Standard version of the Bible (second edition 1971). Ephesians 4:22-23; “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands” (see Revised Standard Version of the Bible (second edition 1971). 1 Timothy 2:11-14; “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (see Revised Standard Version of the Bible (second edition 1971).
Male as Male as Protector Decision Maker
Male as Male Leader Provider
Headship archetype in
godly manhood
God raised each man up and gave him the genes to be the head of his house, not over his house, but of his house...Men were created by God to watch over their wives and children. They were given the broad shoulders to carry the load and lead. A woman has a very special role at the heart of the home. Behind every great man is a woman...The devil is hell-bent on breaking down man’s masculinity. He wants men to be unsure of who they are and what they’re supposed to do (2012:180, 187).
Buchan’s statement demonstrates an essentialist understanding of gender roles for men and women, a position which most Charismatic, Evangelical Christians ascribe to. Notice his use of “A woman has a very special role at the heart of the home. Behind every great man is a woman.” Further, the understanding is that headship is genetically given by God. It is clear that the concept of male headship establishes masculine status of divine authority where men are mandated by God to “watch over” their wives and children;
given broad shoulders to carry the load (in other words, be providers) and to lead.
However, this sense of who a man ought to be seems not to exist anymore and the
‘divine mandate’ according to Buchan, must be reinstated to ensure that men are sure of whom they are. This confirms Whitehead and Barrett’s (2001) argument that masculinity is something that one ‘does’ rather than something that one ‘has.’
Buchan’s theology of headship is therefore supported by a literal reading of the Bible which is envisioned to promote, reaffirm and defend gender traditionalism. Most of the participants interviewed also subscribed to notions of gender traditionalism where headship was a central marker of becoming a responsible and a mighty man. For most, the recurring notion was that godly manhood must take responsibility where male headship, provider role and leadership in decisions making were associated with ‘ideal’
Christian masculinity. Mighty Man #13 stated:
Extract 4:
When men neglect their responsibility, I don’t think they are mighty and I don’t think they are men enough. Even at home, if they don’t take initiative and responsibility as the head of the home, they are not mighty. You can have various instances where it is the other way round; decisions are not made, or the whole running of the home and the atmosphere in the home is not, (and I do not want to use the word control), but is not managed by the man. God gave man that authority in every sphere. I would not like the roles reversed even in the home situation. I wouldn’t like a situation that the wife is dominating than the man. I don’t think that women should be at the top. I don’t have this idea of a woman dominated world. I for one it will never work because it is not in line with biblical principles (Mighty Man #13, interview 24 July 2011).
The observation made by Mighty Man #13 that God gave man the authority in every sphere stating: “in line with biblical principles,” is used here to reinstate headship. It is clear from this respondent’s statement that the atmosphere at home must be ‘masculine’ on the basis that the male is dominating because men were given ‘divine authority.’ In a similar manner, Mighty Man #7 argued that they were not mighty enough, yet a man is meant to be the hunter, a strong figure in the community, stating: “Women have become heads of families, and we are losing the might in us. So we are not taking our place or position in that perspective” (Mighty Man #7, interview by Kennedy, 21 February 2011, in Pietermaritzburg). In such a case, manhood is perceived not only as a status to be earned but also an identity to be demonstrated.
In most cases, male headship was linked to male control and domination over women, prevalent in cultural and Christian perceptions in marriage contexts. Van Klinken (2013:44) further argues that the view that headship of men is deemed as God-ordained consigns all authority, power and control to men, “a major symbol empowering men and disempowering women.” Also, it suffices that the concept of male headship functions to justify domestic violence against women (van Klinken 2013) and as Hinga (2008:92) argues, “The insistence that obedience and wholehearted submission towards the man is an unmistakable mark of godliness, leads many faithful women to endure violent and dangerous relationships for fear of disobeying a direct command of God.”
Closely linked to faith discourses on male headship are discourses on men as responsible providers. Men were challenged to do something if they are not able to provide, protect, and make decisions as household leaders (heads). Failure in these areas was interpreted as signs of weakness and “irresponsible manhood” and in these cases such men felt they were not ‘Mighty Men.’ My findings illustrate masculinities which characterised godly manhood with ambivalent patterns of frustration where the male role as bread winner was a matter of life and death. Consider Mighty Man #7and Mighty Men #27:
Extract 5:
Kennedy, God made men to be answers, providers. When you are a man and you cannot provide, you are frustrated. It is frustrating. It confuses you. You can hang yourself. There is nothing that kills a man like not providing. In anyway, may be, in terms of emotional support, financial support, protection. It messes a man up. It does something to a man which few people can understand (Mighty Man #7, interview 21 February 2011).
Extract 6:
Where I find it difficult being a man is when I am not able to provide. You know, you just know that. I couldn’t. Am gonna sleep hungry because I cannot just do anything and you just feel helplessness in such situations and you really don’t feel like a man.
Ah, Kennedy, you know, you cannot be a man when you cannot command respect and not for you, but for other people. You just feel “well, am a kid.” It belittles you because you see situations where if you were a man, you could just sort out things (Mighty Man #27, interview 9 June 2012).
We are not only confronted with vulnerability masculinities among the Mighty Men on the one hand, but also, being a man is associated with ‘commanding respect’ from other people, especially in social, cultural, and economic contexts on the other hand. It is believed that a man must stay masculine. The male provider role conveys notions of masculine status, achievement and authority.
The role of the Mighty Men as breadwinners therefore stood as a symbol of ideal godly manhood which called men to take back headship and leadership. For example, citing Ephesians 4:22-23, Buchan builds a theology of submission for women stating:
The Bible says, “Husbands love your wives,” and “wives submit to your husbands.” Some women are the major bread winners in the home because of circumstances beyond their control, and they have a real problem submitting to their husbands. But unless wives obey the biblical principle, their marriage will soon be in trouble because they are going against the word of God…. In the same manner, it is very hard for a husband to love his wife when she insists on wearing the trousers and refusing to submit. Jesus said husbands are to love their wives. It is very hard for a woman to submit to a man who is not pulling his weight—one who is not a provider, a protector of his family and who is not heading up his house—especially if he is not the spiritual head of his family (2004:169-170).
Although it was not Jesus who said that husbands should love their wives (see also Nadar 2009), the analogy “It is very hard for a woman to submit to a man who is not pulling his weight” highlights gender tension between the provider role and the submission role within this Evangelical context. Buchan’s argument supposes that every woman who is significantly contributing economically to the family ‘disobeys’ the biblical principle and
“are going against the word of God.” Notice the masculine language associated with wives to be subject and not to “insist on wearing trousers and refusing to submit”
(Buchan 2004:169-170). The analogy of wearing trousers (gender performance) used in this context means a situation where women are seen as domineering over the male by
taking over the family economy as breadwinners, a role that is perceived as ‘masculine.’
Because the provider role is understood as per formative, women are considered as
‘stepping out of their prescribed religious and cultural gender roles’ which degrades a man’s sense of masculinity, especially in most Charismatic, Evangelical spheres.
A question which arises is: what happens when a woman is the only partner to have a job? In South Africa for example, with high rates of unemployment, women (and especially black women) stand higher chances to access paid employment in the labour market. Compared to majority of South African men, women will eventually become economically empowered.99 This introduces a sense of economic freedom (independence) as women acquire education and rise to the top of the job market. Such shifts bring about changes in traditional gender roles thereby break traditional ideologies of males as primary providers. Socio-economic empowerment among women therefore causes them to step out of their ‘prescribed’ cultural and religious gender prescriptions which then challenges and threatens male supremacy and domination syndromes. Should the role of providing therefore remain the responsibility only for men in order that males may feel secure in their sense of masculinity? Piper (1991) in this case contends that the reversal of the basic roles will be contrary to the original intention of God, and contrary to the way God made male and female with ordained roles. Piper states:
Evidently God had in mind from the beginning that the man would take special responsibility for sustaining the family through bread-winning labour, while the wife would take special responsibility for sustaining the family through childbearing and nurturing labour (1991:42-43)
Piper (1991) contends that the reversal of the basic roles will be contrary to the original intention of God, and contrary to the way God made male and female with ordained roles. Buchan (2012:213) argues that the dignity and honour of the man is undermined especially because a man is not able to clothe and feed his wife and children. To ensure
99 According to Morrell et al (2012), the new South Africa constitution, recognized as one of the most liberal in the world, was adopted in 1996 and enshrined the principle of equality for all people in the country thereby foregrounding women’s rights. With the quest of equality for all people, the South African government introduced affirmative action and employment equity act as specific policies/concepts adopted within the South African employment equity act, section 2(b) legislated in 1988. Based on Legislation in Section 15, of the Employment Equity Act, Jacobus Wessels (2005:125-126) maintains that affirmative action legally aims at the enhancement of the ‘designated groups’ although the designated groups are defined as blacks, women and disabled as historically disadvantaged persons. This was introduced by the South African government as a measure to effectively address and overcome the legacy of inequality, injustices, discrimination and underrepresentation in the work force of designated employers as created by the colonial and apartheid eras (see also Tladi 2001).
that the male has control over the family economy, Buchan (2012) discloses that they started restoring manly dignity among Mighty Men (as bread winners) for the reason that
“women will be the feminine part of the home, as they are meant to be, and life will be much more pleasant” (2012:214). It can be argued that this is just a means for men to begin asserting their corrosive power seeking to push women back to ‘their roles’
through religious means. Sadly, men in such insecure positions are often inclined towards violence and abuse, especially when the wife does not ‘submit.’ The problem is not that women are not submitting, but a sense of lost, incapable, and insecure masculine identities. Hence, the ability to provide becomes a significant symbol of headship which informs notions of responsible masculinities in the process of men seeking to attain and retain status of a godly man.
Buchan’s literal reading of the bible establishes a sexist interpretation of work as instituted by God and assumes women should not get involved with productive roles (paid work) but should only be concerned with reproductive roles (care of children, cooking, and other domestic chores).100 Such an understanding not only contradicts a theology of work but also influences a patriarchal attitude towards women’s involvement in productive roles/work. Marie (2012) from her recent research with Christian women in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, shows how Christian teachings should challenge perceptions of gender roles in relation to theologies of work. She argues by and large that women should view work positively causing them to profess within the public domain that work is a blessing from God (Marie 2012:160). Buchan’s literal application of the Bible in seeking to negotiate perceptions of masculinities within tensions of gender roles and productive work of bread-winning is therefore challenged.