Bodies, Bondservants, and the Bible: Thinking Christian About Manhood

Males and females really do experience the world differently — but the difference is a function of embodied embedding (biology, social position, cultural expectation) rather than a gendered essence. Christian manhood is therefore not a fixed ideology to be adopted but a set of particular pressures and opportunities a male disciple must navigate under the authority of Christ.

Key Takeaways

“Embodied embedding” (John Vervaeke) replaces essentialist masculinity. Biological fitness is a relation between a creature and its environment, not a property of the creature alone. A 6-foot, 220-pound body is an advantage in some environments and a disadvantage in others (e.g., a narrow slot canyon) — embodiment cuts across simple male/female binaries.

Research on average differences should not become normative ideology. A 2023 study on sex differences in brain activity and cognitive styles shows real average differences, but the researchers acknowledge the difficulty of separating nature from nurture. Moving from descriptive tendencies to normative “masculinity” is where the error happens.

Hogg and Terry’s concept of “prototypes” explains why masculinity ideology distorts. Masculine and feminine prototypes are “fuzzy sets” anchored in exemplary members or idealized abstractions — not checklists. When the church imports these prototypes, the filters tend to reflect our priorities rather than God’s (cf. 1 Sam 16:6–7, where God rejects Samuel’s filter in anointing David).

Bondservants refute Driscoll’s “dominion” script. Driscoll’s reading of Gen 1:26 as a male mandate for dominion ignores the collective ’ādām and the plural pronoun in “let them have dominion.” Paul’s instructions to bondservants (1 Cor 7:17–21; Eph 6:5–8; Tit 2:9–10) show that Christian dominion for many males in history has looked nothing like “chase dreams, start businesses, create culture.” Dominion is exercised as disciples who glorify God within their social position.

Gen 1:26–28; 2:15–17

Rom 6:15–23; 12:2

1 Cor 7:17–21; 9:22

1 Sam 9:2; 16:1–13

D. C. Schindler, Freedom from Reality

John Vervaeke on embodied embedding

Victor Hamilton (Genesis commentary)

Gerhard von Rad, Genesis

G. K. Beale on Edenic sanctuary symbolism

Mark Driscoll, Act Like a Man

How Does “Embodied Embedding” Change the Conversation About Christian Manhood?

We have seen that cultural constructions of masculinity are inadequate frameworks for Christian discipleship, and that the biblical text is more interested in faithfulness than in gender conformity. But this raises a practical question: if masculinity ideologies don’t tell us how males should navigate the world, what does? The answer isn’t that sex is irrelevant. Rather, it’s that sex operates differently than gender ideologies suggest. Males and females genuinely experience the world differently, shaped by the real intersection of biology, social position, and cultural expectation. Understanding that intersection requires a framework more precise than masculinity and femininity can provide. Gender stereotypes, as D. C. Schindler helps us see, are options rather than transcendent givens, noting:

Using Schindler’s terms, discipleship is training toward goodness (and truth and beauty) because discipleship calls us to set aside our own desires and preferences and to adopt the mind of Christ. Cultural constructions like gender are largely options. The problem is not that such constructions cannot recognize certain aspects of the good, true, and beautiful but that they are unwilling to be governed by the authority of Christ. Discipleship, then, points us beyond ourselves to the Triune God and the order he has established, whereas training in masculine and feminine stereotypes trap us within the matrix of cultural preferences that refuse to point beyond themselves.

What Is the Actual Biological Difference Between Male and Female?

Embodiment—also referred to as embodied cognition—refers to the ways in which our being-in-the-world makes it possible for us to “know” the world in the various senses in which we can know it (see “Discernment and Discipleship: Four Ways of Knowing”). Because we all embody the world in different ways in different contexts, we will be faced with different challenges and experience reality differently than others. Cognitive psychologist and philosopher John Vervaeke describes this phenomenon in terms of embodied embedding such that “the biological fittedness of a creature is not a property of the creature per se. It is a real relation between the creature and its environment.”

Embodying a particular physical environment—like water—isn’t something to which our bodies readily adapt. We can use technology to overcome our bodies limitations, but the presence of technology is a constant reminder that our bodies aren’t fit for the environment. The socio-cultural aspects of our environment are somewhat different. We can often adapt to conform more closely to the various norms of our socio-cultural environment. At times, such adaptation is necessary and appropriate. Paul, after all, becomes “all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:22). At other times, however, adapting to socio-cultural norms becomes problematic (Rom 12:2; cf. 1 Pet 1:14). In either case, the way we adapt will likely differ depending on a variety of factors—sex being one.

Consider another example. On a trip to Utah, my family and I went on a canyoneering tour that involved some bouldering, hiking, and repelling. At one point, we had to go through a relatively narrow crevice. My wife and kids had plenty of room to make it through. I ended up having to take off my backpack and helmet to make it to the other side and I still came out with scratches on my chest and upper back where I had to squeeze through the narrow sections of rock. My 6ft, 220-pound frame was a disadvantage in the crevice. From the perspective of biological fittedness, I was at a disadvantage in that situation; however, that doesn’t mean that my size is a disadvantage in every situation.

Environments aren’t only physical but socio-cultural. For instance, while serving as an academic dean at a Bible college, I was asked to serve as a teacher on a donor trip to Israel. At the time, I had about three quarters of my right arm covered by a tattoo. I was asked to keep the tattoo covered during the trip to avoid any unnecessary tensions with those who might not be tattoo friendly. A (voluntary) physical characteristic (i.e., a tattooed arm) was unfit for the socio-cultural setting (i.e., teaching on a donor tour in Israel). The symbolic world I was being asked to embody required a body without tattoos—or at least a body whose tattoos could be hidden.

How does all of this contribute to the question of how men may live under Christ’s authority? While all humans share certain potentials and liabilities, males and females are not the same (e.g., they have different reproductive capacities). Commenting on essentialism—the affirmation “that men and women are fundamentally, or essentially, different”—Abigale Favale notes, “a woman is the kind of human being whose body is organized around the potential to gestate new life.” By definition, a man is not this sort of human being. The potential for a man to “gestate new life” is, as far as I am aware, non-existent. Men, on the other hand, are those whose “reproductive system makes, stores and moves sperm.” Scientific manipulations and atypical genitalia notwithstanding, this understanding of maleness points to an essential difference between men and women.

Are there others? Potentially. In a 2023 study of sex differences the researchers conclude that there are certain sex differences in “brain activity, sex-specific cognitive and behavioral styles as well as susceptibility to illness and disorders.” However, they also recognize distinguishing the extent to which sex differences are due to “nature” versus “nurture” is quite difficult. Unlike the design of male and female reproductive systems, other differences tend to be less universal or definitive in nature. In other words, males tend to exhibit a specific set of characteristics, but those characteristics are not exclusive to or universally found within all males. For instance, males are “on average” taller than females, but that doesn’t mean every male is taller than every female.

Why is this important? First, there is really no need to overcomplicate the distinction between male and female. Favale’s definition of a woman via the organization of the body and its potential to gestate new life creates a clear line distinguishing male and female. Adding in characteristics that are predominant but not universal is, in my estimation, unnecessary to maintaining the male/female distinction. Second, as we begin to speak about characteristics “normally” associated with males, we will have a tendency to begin ranking males (sex) as more or less masculine (a gendered distinction). In other words, a descriptive statement can quickly become a normative in ways that can be used to diminish certain males while elevating others—they begin to form our understanding of masculinity and femininity in ways that are not connected to scripture.

We catch a glimpse of this problem when Samuel travels to the house of Jesse to anoint a new king over Israel (1 Sam 16:1-13). Saul, the current king who God had recently rejected, is described as being “more handsome” and “taller” than all the other men of Israel (9:2). As Samuel interacts with Jesse and his sons, he sees Eliab, David’s older brother, and thinks, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him” (16:6). Eliab—like Saul—looked the part, yet God tells Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (16:7).

1 Samuel 16 isn’t about gender. That’s not the point. The point is that when we begin to create our own filters and categories to evaluate one another and weight those categories more heavily than the attributes God values, we are far more likely to make wrong judgements about one another than right ones. Masculinity, to the extent that it reflects culturally determined gender roles, has the potential to obstruct our vision so that what God values becomes less important than what we value.

What Do Paul’s Instructions to Bondservants Teach Christian Men About “Dominion”?

First, after citing Genesis 1:26, Driscoll notes, “If you’re a man, you need to know you were made for dominion. That’s why you were made.” Driscoll makes a point of saying that “men are made for dominion, rule, and authority,” however, he ignores the contours of Genesis 1:26-27. When God says, “let us make man in our image” in Genesis 1:26, most commentators recognize the reference to man not as “male” but as “humankind.” For instance, commenting on Genesis 1:26, Victor Hamilton states, “the verse affirms that God created in his image a male *’ād**ām* (human) and a female *’ād**ām* (human).” The shift from the singular “man” in the first half of the verse to the plural pronoun in the second half (“And let them have dominion…”) suggests that “man” should be viewed as a collective noun and that dominion is given to all of humankind—both men and women (cf. also the usage of ’ādām in Genesis 5:2, 6:1, 5-7; 9:5-6). Given this understanding, it seems better to say that males were made for co-dominion.

Second, when we think of the dominion humans are to exercise, it seems best to understand it in terms of the image of God and the creation account’s sanctuary symbolism. Regarding the image of God, Old Testament theologian Gerhard von Rad suggests, “through the image of God in man Creation, in addition to coming from God, receives a particular ordering towards God.” Humankind, in one sense, preserves an order that it oriented to pointing to and glorifying the Triune God.

Regarding sanctuary symbolism, humanities dominion involves the extension of God’s presence throughout creation by extending the precincts of the garden introduced in Genesis 2. As G. K. Beale notes, “In light of Genesis 1:26-28, this meant the presence of God, which was initially to be limited to the garden temple of Eden, was to be extended throughout the whole earth by his image bearers, as they themselves represented and reflected his glorious presence and attributes.” Dominion, then, cannot be disconnected from the representation of God—it is the result of being made in his image. As such, learning to and teaching others to live under Christ’s authority is the non-negotiable way we exercise dominion today. The Great Commission is the continuation of the basic human mission described in Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:15-17. I say non-negotiable because construing dominion apart from living under Christ’s authority represents our slavery to sin and flesh (cf. Rom 6:15-23).

Consider, for instance, Paul’s instruction to bondservants. While bondservants were not exclusively male, there would have been males included in the category. As such, these instructions would inform one way of being a Christian—whether male or female—in the world. In 1 Corinthians 7:17-21, Paul encourages bondservants to remain in their calling rather than assuming they must change their situation to serve the Lord. In Ephesians, the bondservants aim is to serve as one who recognizes God’s authority, rendering service as to Christ rather than to men (6:5-8). Titus 2:9-10 encourage bondservants to behave so that they “may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.”

From these passages, it isn’t clear that bondservants—for our purposes male bondservants particularly—could “chase dreams” or “go adventures.” It isn’t even clear that they could “start businesses.” They wouldn’t have been able to “create culture” by influencing society. Male bondservants, based on 1 Corinthians 7, would have been encouraged to serve where they were rather than aspiring to overturn the existing social structures. Their calling was to live under Christ’s authority and to glorify God in their current social position. Nothing needed to change for them to serve the Lord.

Christian men will end up occupying different positions within society. Some may be “masters,” others “bondservants.” In either case, they are to live under the Lord’s authority. Driscoll’s “either-or” framing of male dominion (i.e., “either God’s sons exercise dominion or Satan’s sons exercise dominion”) isn’t reflective of biblical teaching because God’s people aren’t necessarily called to take over and reform the world’s structures but to live faithfully within them. God’s people, including Christian men, exercise dominion in a particular way—by being and making disciples for Jesus Christ. Does that mean we can’t pursue positions of influence and leadership? Not at all. It does, however, mean that whatever we do emerges from discipleship—from learning to live under Christ’s authority. Christian men

Males and females are not embedded in the world identically. Biology, social position, and cultural expectation all shape the way men experience their environment. These also influence the specific challenges discipleship must address. Such discipleship does not concede to cultural notions of masculinity, but it is attentive to the particular pressures and temptations men face. The social and cultural expectations placed on men are not trivial, nor are they normative. Christian men will occupy many different positions. Some will be “masters” and others “bondservants.” In every case, the calling is the same: to live under Christ’s authority and to glorify God regardless of one’s social position. Dominion isn’t something men seize. It is something disciples exercise as they learn to deny the world and follow Christ. Augustine observed, many men seek to be loved and feared for their own sake rather than God’s. A Christian man occupying any role faces that temptation. The measure of his faithfulness is not the position he occupies but whether he glorifies God within it.

About the Author

James Spencer, PhD, is a theologian, author, and host of the Thinking Christian podcast, where he writes and speaks on Christian formation, political theology, and technology. He holds a PhD in Theological Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and completed the Institute for Educational Management at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He serves as President of the D.L. Moody Center in Northfield, Massachusetts, as adjunct faculty in Wheaton College's MA in Leadership program, and as an Associate Research Fellow at the Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Christianity.com, and Sojourners; he has been quoted in The Telegraph; and he is a regular guest on Stand in the Gap Today with the American Pastors Network. His forthcoming book is Digital Discernment (InterVarsity Press, Fall 2026). Learn more at jamesgspencer.com.