Now I will stipulate at the outset that an awful lot of conservative Christians seem to me to be way too hung up on issues of sex and male superiority. Please don't misunderstand me as thinking there are no problems here...though as I shall argue in the future, the problem isn't so much with male power over woman, but rather the notion that "power over" itself is a corruption that doesn't belong with followers of Jesus, regardless of their gender. But having granted that there is a problem, the arguments that McElvaine lays out are spectacular in their overreach and just-plain idiocy.
We'll start with the "problem" of being "born again." I was going to try and summarize, but this just has to be quoted in full:
The question becomes more complicated and intriguing when we remember that those who say it is necessary to be born again also say that the unborn are without sin: One of the worst things about abortion, they say, is that it is the taking of innocent life. The unborn are innocent, without sin. Yet the born have to be reborn in order to overcome their sin and be "saved." Ostensibly this rebirth removes the stain of Original Sin. But let's think about this assertion. If the unborn are innocent, they must not have yet acquired Original Sin. Both the unborn and the reborn are "saved;" it is the once-born who are damned. Pre-born and reborn are good; it is the in-between state--born--that is evil. So just when is it that Original Sin is taken on? Given the foregoing beliefs, no other possibility seems to exist than that Original Sin is acquired at birth. It seems we all get Original Sin from the same source that is said to have led Adam into sin: a woman!
And that, at the most basic level, is what is wrong with our first birth--it is from a woman.McElvaine goes on to explain that being "born again" (that is born from Jesus, a man) sanctifies because it comes from a man instead of from a woman. He then goes on to speculate that this whole dysfunction comes from men envying the female power of creation--that is childbirth. (How any man who's ever witnessed pregnancy, or childbirth, or even the monthly misery that is menstruation, could possibly have "womb envy" is beyond me, but hey, maybe that's just because I'm so suppressed by the male-dominated culture!) He goes on an intriguing excursion into the ways men have constructed "no-woman zones" of work, duty, ritual, power, etc., all to make up for the inadequacy we men feel due to our inability to create. In fact, the whole notion that God is referred to as male in Genesis is, in McElvaine's analysis, a male-dominated insistence that creation isn't just a woman's thing!
And then it gets really weird...
To make a VERY long story short(er), in Paleolithic times where men were hunters and women were gatherers, both were valued in society. As the agricultural revolution led to people settling down in groups, women's roles in agriculture and reproduction maintained or even grew in value, while men's importance as providers of meat and defenders of the tribe declined precipitously. Men, not wanting to get stuck with the "girlie stuff" like agriculture, instead built elaborate mythologies and power structures to assert their superiority. "Because the switch to agriculture ultimately came to seem like such a bad deal for men, devaluing their traditional roles as hunters, leaving the with the 'woman's work' of farming, labor that was in fact much harder than hunting, they eventually blamed women for having lost what seemed in distant retrospect to have been a paradise in which people lived without work, picking abundant food from trees." Here he then draws the analogy to Adam & Eve in the garden, with Eve's temptation being an allegorical representation of the woman taking man's power from him and forcing him into agriculture!
Here it becomes obvious McElvain is pumping his other book "Eve's Seed," in which I surmise he develops his special brand of misandry even more fully. Here's his own footnote quoting that work (the entire section is from his footnoote; the quotes delineate that portion that he's quoting from his other book):
The Eve and Adam story wonderfully weaves together sex and agriculture. "Eve's sharing of the fruit with Adam has often been interpreted as symbolic of introducing him to sexual relations." In light of the Seed Metaphor, "a woman teaching a man how to have intercourse with her becomes a perfect symbol for women teaching men how to plant crops in the ground. Both are seductions by woman, the temptress."Of course, McElvaine's death-defying leap into the metanarrative of female subjugation overlooks a few obvious points about the actual Genesis myth, including
- The fact that Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply--presumably requiring sex--before the fall (Gen 1:28), and
- The fact that Adam was placed in the garden to till and care for it, also before the fall (Gen 2:15).
Where does all this lead? McElvaine is not completely wrong when he paints a picture of religion in general, and hijacked Christianity in particular, of having been unjustly and cruelly down on women. But his attempt to draw the theological lines goes stunningly wide of the mark, and can only be described as fantasy in itself. And his conclusion is, I believe, deeply and basically wrong: "ChristianityLite is Jesusless, but an even more fundamental problem shared by all monotheistic religions is that they are Goddessless. The basic problem for millenia has been not that people are godless (Ann Coulter's accusations notwithstanding), but that people conceive of God as a male, rather than as a Being either undivided by sex or combining both sexes--either asexual or bisexual, as a Creative and Omnipotent Force logically must be."
Well, no. A scriptural view of God is neither asexual nor bisexual, but better non-sexual. That God represented himself in a male gender (though clearly not in a sexual sense) throughout scripture (in particular Jesus' references to the Father) may not fully make sense to us, but it cannot be dismissed as simply out of style. To go there is to finally say that nothing in the scriptural text really matters at all if we decide we have found a paradigm that "speaks to us" in a more attractive way today. That's not the lordship of Jesus; it's merely hijacking Jesus for a different agenda. That the hijacker comes from the left instead of the right is not progress.
McElvaine claims that "on one point after another, what Jesus is urging on us are behaviors more commonly associated with women than with men: gentleness, compassion, and forgiveness." He presents this as evidence we need to acknowledge the feminine side of God. He doesn't seem to realize that when he makes a claim like this, he's actually reinforcing the same crap he combats: those traits are only "feminine" if we acknowledge that the ascription of power traits to the man, and caring traits to the woman, is in fact valid!
It's not "feminine" when I hug and kiss my boys. It's not "masculine" when my wife disciplines them. It's not "masculine" if a woman like Jael in the old testament or Margaret Thatcher in England leads a war. It's not "feminine" when a man gently tends to the bruises--physical or psychological--of a friend. I'll say it again: if one argues for a "feminine" side of God due to the compassionate and caring traits we see in scripture, then one is giving (undeserved) support to the whole notion of "masculine" and "feminine" traits that really HAS caused a great deal of heartache in our world.
The gender wars have left a lot of casualties. Soon, I'm going to take on this issue as it relates to the church. But if we're ever going to make headway in this, as in so many other issues, we've got to face the reality that the answers have been wrong, not least because the questions have themselves been wrong. In this, McElvaine has done the dialog no good.