I really wasn't sold by the argument that Colleen Conway sets forth in this book: evidently, Jesus is the manliest man ever, and this is defined by him acting virtuous and good. Not standard "masculine" traits (although not necessarily feminine), but Conway more or less refuses to acknowledge any possible femininity of Jesus.

Maybe I just enjoy feminist Christianity too much - she calls it naive - but I understand Jesus as being not terribly interested in affirming his masculinity because he wasn't that kind of guy. Rome was strong and masculine and currently taking over the world; Jesus was passively resisting the domination system and refusing to play their game. This illustrates a sort of confidence and strength of its own, but I felt like Conway could have better acknowledged that Jesus' campaign of submission and anti-politics may be construed as un-masculine. This book had an interesting premise, but I feel like maybe trying to associate Jesus too closely with the social values of Rome (except in contrast to them) is beginning from a false premise. ( )

E-books IV