Friday January 6, In the year of our Lord 2012
My House, Caronport Sasktachewan
Posting Pre-Written post, 6:31 PM
Weather = Pleasant for January
A Theology of Gender Identity
Part of my studies have been addressing an issue that is very popular and sometimes hotly debated these days. Gender Identity. It is impossible not to at least touch on this this topic given that Feminism has risen to be a strong voice both in society as well as in theology. I don’t think I will be able to articulate the truly Christian understanding of gender identities nearly as well as my professor Dr. David Guretzki or the esteemed Dr. Miroslav Volf who could very well be the Christian voice of our day on this very issue. But after taking Theology of God and Creation and reading Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace I am compelled to right about Gender Identity to make sure that I understand it for myself. I do not consider myself an expert and I willingly admit that I have not read any of the strong feminist authors.
First a very brief overview of Feminist thought. Historically societies have been patriarchal in nature. The head of the house hold, clan, tribe, nation, are generally males. The rich and powerful are also usually males. Females by contrast have been viewed as inferior, weaker, less holy, and are generally oppressed by the patriarchal systems inherent in culture. These oppressive undertones (or overtones) need to be rejected and a new egalitarian system of understanding is required to place females on equal footing with males thus liberating them from oppression. This push is very apparent in Canada as government, businesses, schools, and churches are attempting to overhaul patriarchal assumptions and systems. A perfect example is the class law suit of female RCMP officers against the force for years of sexual harassment, bullying, and being overlooked for promotions by their male officers. Ten years ago these sorts of things weren’t considered ‘injustices’ they were just the way things were, but feminist thought is changing all of that.
Now turning to feminist thought in theology. Christianity is often charged with being patriarchal. We meet in churches governed by male priests, pastors, bishops, board members, what-have-you. We worship a male God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). And we bar females from positions of authority relegating female leaders to ‘children’s ministry’ or ‘worship pastor,’ or ‘women’s leader.’ Some feminist theologians have suggested that we first of all allow women to be church leaders but that we also worship a Goddess (Mother, Daughter, Holy Spirit) or at least a gender neutral God (Parent, Child, Holy Spirit).
Now that there is a context for me to speak into, I will begin my explanation of a Christian theology of gender identity.
I will begin at the beginning in Genesis.
“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”
Human beings are created as a polarity of gender they are either male or female. The maleness of the male and the femaleness of the female is intrinsically part of who they are. They are different. Every human being is born with a ‘sexed’ body, either male or female. The difference is not just physical though, males think and feel differently than females and vice versa. Occasionally a child is born who’s physical gender is miscellaneous, but doctors can tell what gender he or she is by looking at the chromosomes in the DNA. Now, a man can be ‘feminine’ and a female can be ‘masculine’ but even so it is different than female femininity and male masculinity. So to start things off, a truly Christian understanding of gender identities is that gender is a polarity, an either or, not a scale with Masculine on one side and Feminine on the other with everyone sliding in between the two (which is a popular idea in secular gender theories).
The other thing we learn from this passage is that both male and female are created in the image of God. The male is just as much ‘the image of God’ as the female and the female is just as much ‘the image of God’ as the male. This means that the female and the male are radically equal despite being different. Paul’s command for husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies builds on radical equality but also speaks of the fact that both sexes need each other. Relationally the male would not be male if there was no female and the female would not be female if there was no male. There is a tension that is necessary where male and female have their identities both in and of themselves but also in the other gender. (Volf) Men need women to be female for them to continue to be male and women need men to be male to continue to be female. If this balance were disturbed by say radical feminism where women tried to become like men and men tried to not be so male then both men and women would suffer identity crisis because 1) they are trying to be what they are not and 2) cannot be what they are because the other gender is not what it should be. But the question still remains, what then IS maleness or femaleness?
We could say that maleness is ‘being a father’ or femaleness is ‘being a mother’ and all that that entails but that wouldn’t be helpful. Historically the different views of gender roles can be placed on a scale with Complimentarian on the one side and Egalitarian on the other. The Complimentarian position states that the female is created to ‘compliment’ the male as a helper. The male is the leader the female is the follower. The Egalitarian view is that men and women share equal roles (women can be leaders just as men can). Both views can be legitimately supported by Scripture. Travel too far in either direction though and you traverse dangerous terrain. Emphasizing female submissiveness too strongly results in destroying gender equality (if not abusive lifestyles). Emphasizing gender equality too far destroys gender differences (the polarity between male and female) leading to a philosophy that is far more Leftist than it is Christian. I know that at this point I cannot articulate what ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness’ fully means (if such things can truly be identified by human beings) and am comfortable with saying “I don’t know.” What I do know is that for a male to be male is to live out God’s will in his life and for a female to be female is to live out God’s will in her life because it is part of being the image of God.
Now about the so-called ‘male god’ of Christianity. The feminist reasoning is that the orthodox understanding of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a male understanding of God. What they want to do is create a female understanding of God (Mother, Daughter, Holy Spirit) so that females may also have a field of spiritual perfection to strive towards. However, according to a truly Christian understanding of God this is wrong headed on several levels.
First of all the idea of projecting an image onto God (maleness or femaleness) is not Christian. We do not project images onto God, God speaks and we are faithful to his revealing of himself and he has revealed himself to be neither male nor female.
Why then do we call him Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, why do we say ‘he’ instead of ‘it’?
The answer to this question can be found in the problem of language. God is a person so we must use personal language when we speak to him. Unfortunately the only other persons we have to speak to are human beings who are either male or female which means that our language will be either masculine or feminine. English at least doesn’t have a gender neutral way of addressing persons. It would be correct to refer to God as ‘it’ but also incorrect because ‘it’ is a term reserved for inanimate objects which is disrespectful and creates theological confusion about God’s personhood (as opposed to God being like ‘The Force,’ an impersonal entity.)
What then is wrong with referring to God in the feminine? After all, God has male qualities just as much as he has female qualities.
There have been several attempts within orthodox Christianity to call God Mother instead of Father and the ‘femininity’ of God has also been explored many times. The problem though is twofold. First of all the revelation of God in the Scriptures is that Jesus called God ‘Father,’ not ‘Mother,’ and not ‘Parent.’ This has nothing to do with God’s gender so much as it does with the relationship God has with The Son. Within the Holy Trinity God The Father is father of The Son and The Son is the son of The Father. The Father would not be The Father if he never begot The Son and The Son would not be The Son if he were not begotten by The Father. Since God is not gendered the term ‘Father’ is to be understood relationally and this is important to consider. For instance If Jesus had called God ‘Mother’ then the assumption would have immediately been that The Mother gave birth to The Son, which is NOT what Christian doctrine teaches. All persons of the Holy Trinity are equal and have existed together as one essence for all eternity, The Son was not created or birthed but begotten in eternity past. We also cannot call The Son ‘Daughter’ because the incarnation of The Son was Jesus who was male.
The second reason why referring to God as ‘Mother’ has generally not occurred in Christian orthodoxy is because it creates theological confusion with the relationship between God and creation. If we speak of God in the feminine, then we are quickly moving towards a pagan understanding of the goddess birthing creation, as though creation were in some way a part of Goddess or Goddess a part of creation the same way as a mother and her children. In this sense we are all children of the goddess and creation being birthed from the divine goddess is itself divine and therefore ought to be worshipped. This is Panentheism, a heresy that says that God is a part of creation or that creation is a part of God. A truly Christian understanding is that God is Creator and that creation is creation. God is NOT in the creation and the creation is NOT in God, God is distinct from and separate from (but still intimately involved with) the creation and referring to God in the feminine confuses this point.
The issue then isn’t gender equality or gender accuracy but theological accuracy.
The Christian God is the god of males just as much as he is the god of females for he created both genders in his very image and gives himself up for all humanity, male and female.
Now going back to Paul:
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This does not mean that Christians are nationless, statusless, or somehow genderless, but that all religious, political, social and cultural barriers are removed in Christ. In Christ men and women are equal despite what is going on in society. If this is not true in the community of faith then Peter warns us that judgment begins with The House of God.
Now some people will point out that Paul also spoke as a typical patriarchal religious leader of his time:
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”
This statement, which is often cited in conservative churches and by liberal critics, needs to be understood within the context of the rest of Paul’s writings as well as all of Scripture. We have already citied Paul’s declaration that in Christ there is neither male nor female in that they are both equal. This means that he has either changed his mind on this or that we do not understand how the two statements properly relate to each other. I do not think that Paul has suddenly changed his mind here, when he speaks about the spiritual gifts he does not discriminate between gender as if women could not have some gifts (teaching included) while men were somehow more privileged.
“Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.”
As a general rule of hermeneutics a doctrine should not be a doctrine if it can only be supported by one or two questionable verses. The literal interpretation of the verse in question IS questionable because of its context. Paul was writing to the church leader in Ephesus (Timothy) encouraging him and instructing him in his leadership. Ephesus at that time in history was home of the Temple of Artemis which had a notorious cult that worshipped ‘Femaleness.’ Paul was instructing Timothy in a way that would make a clear distinction between those who followed the way of faith in Jesus and those who worshiped in Artemis’ temple. It was thought that women were the superior gender because it is women who give birth to men but Paul seeks to confront them with the truth that it was God who created both men and women as equal, not woman who primordially birthed humanity and is therefore superior.
This verse needs to be read in its historical context and in context with the rest of Scripture, not blindly applied literally to all Christians at all times.
In Pauline societies women do teach and are equal. His understanding was that The Holy Spirit grants gifts and works through human beings regardless of their heritage, political / socioeconomic standing, or gender. Who are any of us to question God? If he gives someone the gift of teaching or authority than who are any of us to say “you cannot do that because you are a woman.”? And if you firmly believe that I am heretical right now then rest assured that God gives Spiritual Gifts as he pleases and that he can ably discern who should get what gift and how it should be used as well as how to communicate all these things to the community. Your response as well as mine is to continue to listen to The Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth and faithfully submit to God’s will.
To any Christian reading this we should beware, lest we harden our hearts against God saying “it must be this way,” if He has said “no, it is different than what you think.”
Often it is culture and tradition that erects these boundaries, never God. In Christ male and female are both different and equal. In Christ the male can be male without oppression and the female can be female without oppression.
As far as I can tell, that is a thoroughly Christian understanding of gender identities.
Part of my studies have been addressing an issue that is very popular and sometimes hotly debated these days. Gender Identity. It is impossible not to at least touch on this this topic given that Feminism has risen to be a strong voice both in society as well as in theology. I don’t think I will be able to articulate the truly Christian understanding of gender identities nearly as well as my professor Dr. David Guretzki or the esteemed Dr. Miroslav Volf who could very well be the Christian voice of our day on this very issue. But after taking Theology of God and Creation and reading Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace I am compelled to right about Gender Identity to make sure that I understand it for myself. I do not consider myself an expert and I willingly admit that I have not read any of the strong feminist authors.
First a very brief overview of Feminist thought. Historically societies have been patriarchal in nature. The head of the house hold, clan, tribe, nation, are generally males. The rich and powerful are also usually males. Females by contrast have been viewed as inferior, weaker, less holy, and are generally oppressed by the patriarchal systems inherent in culture. These oppressive undertones (or overtones) need to be rejected and a new egalitarian system of understanding is required to place females on equal footing with males thus liberating them from oppression. This push is very apparent in Canada as government, businesses, schools, and churches are attempting to overhaul patriarchal assumptions and systems. A perfect example is the class law suit of female RCMP officers against the force for years of sexual harassment, bullying, and being overlooked for promotions by their male officers. Ten years ago these sorts of things weren’t considered ‘injustices’ they were just the way things were, but feminist thought is changing all of that.
Now turning to feminist thought in theology. Christianity is often charged with being patriarchal. We meet in churches governed by male priests, pastors, bishops, board members, what-have-you. We worship a male God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). And we bar females from positions of authority relegating female leaders to ‘children’s ministry’ or ‘worship pastor,’ or ‘women’s leader.’ Some feminist theologians have suggested that we first of all allow women to be church leaders but that we also worship a Goddess (Mother, Daughter, Holy Spirit) or at least a gender neutral God (Parent, Child, Holy Spirit).
Now that there is a context for me to speak into, I will begin my explanation of a Christian theology of gender identity.
I will begin at the beginning in Genesis.
“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”
Human beings are created as a polarity of gender they are either male or female. The maleness of the male and the femaleness of the female is intrinsically part of who they are. They are different. Every human being is born with a ‘sexed’ body, either male or female. The difference is not just physical though, males think and feel differently than females and vice versa. Occasionally a child is born who’s physical gender is miscellaneous, but doctors can tell what gender he or she is by looking at the chromosomes in the DNA. Now, a man can be ‘feminine’ and a female can be ‘masculine’ but even so it is different than female femininity and male masculinity. So to start things off, a truly Christian understanding of gender identities is that gender is a polarity, an either or, not a scale with Masculine on one side and Feminine on the other with everyone sliding in between the two (which is a popular idea in secular gender theories).
The other thing we learn from this passage is that both male and female are created in the image of God. The male is just as much ‘the image of God’ as the female and the female is just as much ‘the image of God’ as the male. This means that the female and the male are radically equal despite being different. Paul’s command for husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies builds on radical equality but also speaks of the fact that both sexes need each other. Relationally the male would not be male if there was no female and the female would not be female if there was no male. There is a tension that is necessary where male and female have their identities both in and of themselves but also in the other gender. (Volf) Men need women to be female for them to continue to be male and women need men to be male to continue to be female. If this balance were disturbed by say radical feminism where women tried to become like men and men tried to not be so male then both men and women would suffer identity crisis because 1) they are trying to be what they are not and 2) cannot be what they are because the other gender is not what it should be. But the question still remains, what then IS maleness or femaleness?
We could say that maleness is ‘being a father’ or femaleness is ‘being a mother’ and all that that entails but that wouldn’t be helpful. Historically the different views of gender roles can be placed on a scale with Complimentarian on the one side and Egalitarian on the other. The Complimentarian position states that the female is created to ‘compliment’ the male as a helper. The male is the leader the female is the follower. The Egalitarian view is that men and women share equal roles (women can be leaders just as men can). Both views can be legitimately supported by Scripture. Travel too far in either direction though and you traverse dangerous terrain. Emphasizing female submissiveness too strongly results in destroying gender equality (if not abusive lifestyles). Emphasizing gender equality too far destroys gender differences (the polarity between male and female) leading to a philosophy that is far more Leftist than it is Christian. I know that at this point I cannot articulate what ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness’ fully means (if such things can truly be identified by human beings) and am comfortable with saying “I don’t know.” What I do know is that for a male to be male is to live out God’s will in his life and for a female to be female is to live out God’s will in her life because it is part of being the image of God.
Now about the so-called ‘male god’ of Christianity. The feminist reasoning is that the orthodox understanding of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a male understanding of God. What they want to do is create a female understanding of God (Mother, Daughter, Holy Spirit) so that females may also have a field of spiritual perfection to strive towards. However, according to a truly Christian understanding of God this is wrong headed on several levels.
First of all the idea of projecting an image onto God (maleness or femaleness) is not Christian. We do not project images onto God, God speaks and we are faithful to his revealing of himself and he has revealed himself to be neither male nor female.
Why then do we call him Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, why do we say ‘he’ instead of ‘it’?
The answer to this question can be found in the problem of language. God is a person so we must use personal language when we speak to him. Unfortunately the only other persons we have to speak to are human beings who are either male or female which means that our language will be either masculine or feminine. English at least doesn’t have a gender neutral way of addressing persons. It would be correct to refer to God as ‘it’ but also incorrect because ‘it’ is a term reserved for inanimate objects which is disrespectful and creates theological confusion about God’s personhood (as opposed to God being like ‘The Force,’ an impersonal entity.)
What then is wrong with referring to God in the feminine? After all, God has male qualities just as much as he has female qualities.
There have been several attempts within orthodox Christianity to call God Mother instead of Father and the ‘femininity’ of God has also been explored many times. The problem though is twofold. First of all the revelation of God in the Scriptures is that Jesus called God ‘Father,’ not ‘Mother,’ and not ‘Parent.’ This has nothing to do with God’s gender so much as it does with the relationship God has with The Son. Within the Holy Trinity God The Father is father of The Son and The Son is the son of The Father. The Father would not be The Father if he never begot The Son and The Son would not be The Son if he were not begotten by The Father. Since God is not gendered the term ‘Father’ is to be understood relationally and this is important to consider. For instance If Jesus had called God ‘Mother’ then the assumption would have immediately been that The Mother gave birth to The Son, which is NOT what Christian doctrine teaches. All persons of the Holy Trinity are equal and have existed together as one essence for all eternity, The Son was not created or birthed but begotten in eternity past. We also cannot call The Son ‘Daughter’ because the incarnation of The Son was Jesus who was male.
The second reason why referring to God as ‘Mother’ has generally not occurred in Christian orthodoxy is because it creates theological confusion with the relationship between God and creation. If we speak of God in the feminine, then we are quickly moving towards a pagan understanding of the goddess birthing creation, as though creation were in some way a part of Goddess or Goddess a part of creation the same way as a mother and her children. In this sense we are all children of the goddess and creation being birthed from the divine goddess is itself divine and therefore ought to be worshipped. This is Panentheism, a heresy that says that God is a part of creation or that creation is a part of God. A truly Christian understanding is that God is Creator and that creation is creation. God is NOT in the creation and the creation is NOT in God, God is distinct from and separate from (but still intimately involved with) the creation and referring to God in the feminine confuses this point.
The issue then isn’t gender equality or gender accuracy but theological accuracy.
The Christian God is the god of males just as much as he is the god of females for he created both genders in his very image and gives himself up for all humanity, male and female.
Now going back to Paul:
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This does not mean that Christians are nationless, statusless, or somehow genderless, but that all religious, political, social and cultural barriers are removed in Christ. In Christ men and women are equal despite what is going on in society. If this is not true in the community of faith then Peter warns us that judgment begins with The House of God.
Now some people will point out that Paul also spoke as a typical patriarchal religious leader of his time:
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”
This statement, which is often cited in conservative churches and by liberal critics, needs to be understood within the context of the rest of Paul’s writings as well as all of Scripture. We have already citied Paul’s declaration that in Christ there is neither male nor female in that they are both equal. This means that he has either changed his mind on this or that we do not understand how the two statements properly relate to each other. I do not think that Paul has suddenly changed his mind here, when he speaks about the spiritual gifts he does not discriminate between gender as if women could not have some gifts (teaching included) while men were somehow more privileged.
“Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.”
As a general rule of hermeneutics a doctrine should not be a doctrine if it can only be supported by one or two questionable verses. The literal interpretation of the verse in question IS questionable because of its context. Paul was writing to the church leader in Ephesus (Timothy) encouraging him and instructing him in his leadership. Ephesus at that time in history was home of the Temple of Artemis which had a notorious cult that worshipped ‘Femaleness.’ Paul was instructing Timothy in a way that would make a clear distinction between those who followed the way of faith in Jesus and those who worshiped in Artemis’ temple. It was thought that women were the superior gender because it is women who give birth to men but Paul seeks to confront them with the truth that it was God who created both men and women as equal, not woman who primordially birthed humanity and is therefore superior.
This verse needs to be read in its historical context and in context with the rest of Scripture, not blindly applied literally to all Christians at all times.
In Pauline societies women do teach and are equal. His understanding was that The Holy Spirit grants gifts and works through human beings regardless of their heritage, political / socioeconomic standing, or gender. Who are any of us to question God? If he gives someone the gift of teaching or authority than who are any of us to say “you cannot do that because you are a woman.”? And if you firmly believe that I am heretical right now then rest assured that God gives Spiritual Gifts as he pleases and that he can ably discern who should get what gift and how it should be used as well as how to communicate all these things to the community. Your response as well as mine is to continue to listen to The Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth and faithfully submit to God’s will.
To any Christian reading this we should beware, lest we harden our hearts against God saying “it must be this way,” if He has said “no, it is different than what you think.”
Often it is culture and tradition that erects these boundaries, never God. In Christ male and female are both different and equal. In Christ the male can be male without oppression and the female can be female without oppression.
As far as I can tell, that is a thoroughly Christian understanding of gender identities.
No comments:
Post a Comment