Yes, I am a feminist.
October 5, 2009
Note to self: if a professor for whom you’re grading does not agree with feminist/liberation theology in the slightest, and assigns texts which not only go completely against this perspective, and is perhaps a slap in the face to engaging the role of women and the language of God, drink heavily before grading papers.
“Some reject Jesus’ maleness on the grounds that it is oppressive to women to think about God in gendered terms, but God had to be incarnated as a man in order to model and teach true servanthood.” Marva Dawn, Talking the Walk, (Grand Rapids, Mi: Brazos Press, 2005), p.22
Please discuss.
Advertisement
12 Comments
leave one →
This is one of those discussions that you think the rest of the Christian world has already dealt with and is far beyond… until they come up again and you’re forced to think, “Wait, we’re still talking about this?”
Sure, Jesus was a man. Big deal. There are a list of reasons most people try to give as to why God was incarnate as a man… but the above reason is just silly and really quite offensive.
But do we really need to talk about God in gendered terms? Are we saying God has a physical body? Are we really going a step further and saying God’s physical body has a penis? Come on! Let’s just apply a little logic here and do away using gender specific terms to identify a force and spirit as great as the creator God.
And if we MUST use gender specific terms, let’s start giving equal time to both genders. Can we start talking about God as mother – especially when we see God acting as a mother so much in the biblical narrative.
God clearly relates to us as Father and Son. The Hebrews operated under a God-ordained patriarchal society, and the ancient Bible uses masculine imagery / grammatical forms, though no gender is attributed to God-is-who-it-is. jddamiani, does it do justice to the original translation and understanding of the language to substitute female articles when the original text is clearly masculine? Or how about cases where the original translation is gender-neutral? Likewise, shekinah and other feminine words should certainly not be de-feminized in a translation. Are we so retarded as readers that we cannot see God as being complete, having both feminine and masculine? If you undermine the intelligence of the reader, your “translation” will have very little value in scholastic circles and have little enduring value.
It seems appropriate that we should worship as the early church did. There have been so many theologians of antiquity who have written about this subject, and we have a firmly established ancient church tradition that women should not be either bishops or priests. Marva Dawn’s analysis is one of many that I have read, though I think that there’s a much more direct reason: God relates to us as male, and in turn, my pastor, as a representative of God, relates to me as a male. That’s the nice thing about having a fundamentally sacramental view of Christianity. When I begin to doubt the abstract elements of my faith, I can think: was I baptized? Yes, without any doubt; therefore, I can think back on the physical element and receive comfort knowing that I have received salvation in Christ’s death. Did I drink the blood and eat the body of Christ? Yes. There can be no doubt that I communed with the saints; God’s promise is true and is for me, and I have received forgiveness. Does God relate to me as a man? Yes, and I can then understand as a man that it is appropriate for me to have and express my deep feelings; I can model the great love that my Christ had for my neighbor, and talk about it and discuss it. I am driven to embrace the feminine aspects of spiritual and physical life (rather than divorce from them) and I begin to understand that God created first the mud-man, then removed something from its side: the woman, who I must love and cherish as Jesus loves his bride the Church.
In the case of scriptural issues that are “not otherwise specified,” there is a group of us who will try to error on the side of caution. If I read a letter that says, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety,” then I am inclined to look at the image of mud-man Adam, who was created genderless, but then BLESSED so that he would understand the relationship between himself and God, just as he would understand the relationship between himself and his greatest earthly gift of Eve. And I am inclined to look at my pregnant wife, who is capable of something miraculous that I will never do: out of herself, and my blessed union with her, comes new life.
And here is a hierarchy that God himself has established. I now have the opportunity to live in the confines of a Holy, blessed theocracy inside my basic unit of social interaction — inside of my own home. Do we engage in power struggle and operate as inefficiently and ineffectively as some bureaucratic agency? No! There are not two heads, but one head — for our efficient survival. Is the President better than the vice-president? Is the Presidential role worth more? Or does the President work for, and in loving passion, sacrifice Himself that we lose nothing and indeed gain everything?
Blessings and peace,
-Jeff
Jeff,
Do you worship with a church of Christ? Your arguments and analogies are those I heard within my congregation for a significant portion of my life, so it piqued my curiosity.
Krystin
I did hang with the LA Church of Christ for a while when I was exploring, but I’m pretty much a conservative Lutheran (which might help explain why the quote in Libby’s article really caught my attention). It struck me that the quote seemed to miss the mark since my understanding of this theological concept had more to do with ordering: Adam was out of mud, and Eve was out of Adam; Eve sinned, and so did Adam. As such, an atonement for all of creation would be a all-powerful male child sacrifice, and women would be saved through bringing the plan to completion through child-birth. Also, the idea that the author can claim to know why God *had* to do something a certain way seems a bit presumptuous…
Ah, such a fun debate. Just a quick question – is this from a class at Fuller??
Ben -
It’s from a book I’ve seen used by a few faculty at Fuller, yes.
Feminist theology can certainly not be adequately agrued in its totality in a few paragraphs, so my comment on this current discussion will come only in response to the comment from Jeff above: “If you undermine the intelligence of the reader, your ‘translation’ will have very little value in scholastic circles and have little enduring value.”
From someone who has studied scripture in “scholasitic circles”, let me offer my opinion on the “enduring value” of such translation and interpretation, and its influence on my “intelligence as a reader”. From my own experience, and from the experience of many of my colleagues, an expression of th Holy One using gender exclusive language only stands to limit how God, Triune and relational by nature, relates to humanity. Expressions of God as Father and Son are certainly accurate, but as are images of God as Creator (as your wife is, Jeff), Mother tending to her young, and as Spirit (which in the original language, is feminine, btw) are also just as accurate. In addition, God’s Wisdom is personified as a woman throughout the book of Proverbs. So, from a scholastic standpoint, exclusivity only serves to limit our learning potential- inclusivity serves to increase our capability and capacity for justice, change, and growth.
Additionally, it is interesting that the comment was made that the culture that was structured throughout the Bible should continue to serve as a model for our society today (ie adhering to certain gender roles). I would encourage you to consider the local and global context in which the Bible is written. For instance, when is the last time you stoned someone or kept a slave? If you haven’t, then you are responding to our responsibility to read and interpret scripture with an understanding of context- a practice which also proves helpful from a scholastic perspective.
Before I sign off, let me ask- what are the “feminine aspects” of the Divine- love? care? sensitivity? Are there then Masculine aspects? Based on the overall message of your arguement of your comment, I would assume that you assign authority and power as masculine- I know many people, men and women alike, who would take offense to that.
Also, the Head comment- two things. 1) The Presbyterian and other Protestant churches have done very well, thank you, w/o one head. 2) What will you ever do if that President is woman? Well at least your wife will have someone to look up to.
I realize this seems harsh- but being oppressive with soft language, as I believe you have, Jeff, is much more harsh indeed.
Until next time…Ben
Ben, I definitely agree that feminine theology cannot be argued effectively in a few paragraphs, or even in a page. By now it should be obvious that I’m not a strong theologian myself, and that I have a limited exposure to theology. However, my comment regarding the worthless translation was to attempt to understand where jddamiani asserted that using gender specific terms should allocate equal time to both genders. I think that it is possibly dubious to take gender-neutral or feminine Hebrew words and convert them into masculine imagery or vice-versa in a given translation of the Bible, even though the reader knows that God is gender-neutral (this should be obvious). One certain deficiency is the sense of the Hebraic feminine attributed to the Holy Spirit, and I would love to discuss how this is / where it has been rectified in current English translations.
Regarding context, the culture in which we obtain Jesus is the culture of the New Testament, in which we are presented with Jesus, the bridegroom and head of the Church. In Ephesians, wives are ordered under their husbands. Please explain how this sort of ordering is unjust; I posit that when this model is properly applied, power is properly attributed to God, and not to husband or to wife. All power, authority, and glory are properly given to God alone, but the thorn in the flesh points out that we are so corrupt that we, in our idolatry, need redemption, and that justice is never achievable except through Christ alone.
Please, where I am oppressive, point it out — bluntly. I am certainly not here to assert that the feminine is less valuable than the masculine, or vice-versa. If anything, Jesus, who was male in a very physical sense, “made himself nothing” and was a servant to all, though, to Him was given “all authority in heaven and on earth.” I do consider the masculine aspects of divine love described as protector, cherisher, authority, and sacrifice. Likewise, feminine aspects I consider: author, council, beauty, defender, wisdom, and instructor. I would love for you to point out how my view implies exclusivity.
Blessings and love,
Jeff
Ok, I’m in.
Jeff–you’re right. Ephesians 5:22-33 talks about husbands being the head of their wives, let the wives be subject to their own husbands, etc. Ok, it says that.
However, that is utterly irrelevant to this conversation. These same verses in Ephesians never say “Let women be subject to men” or “Men are the head of women.” Our marital relationships may come under the jurisdiction of these verses, but our more general relationships as men to women (which is where Libby’s conversation STARTED, and where it’s point should remain) are not determined by these verses. So, without arguing about these more specific verses regarding “wives being subject to” their husbands, we need to talk about women (in general) and men (in general). Too often men (and women too) use these very verses to disregard feminist theology and other issues related to gender and the church because “hey look, it says wives are to be subject to their husbands.” But these verses to not delegate gender roles; they delegate marriage roles, which are utterly different. And while some could still argue that the “submission” verses have been misinterpreted throughout the years, the point is this: all men are not married to all women. Thus all women are NOT subject to all men. So these verses are moot with regard to this issue. When Libby posts a topic about wives and husbands, THEN we can bring them back.
Plus it’s funny that we always forget Paul’s other words, about how there is no male or female when we are in Christ, but Christ is all and is in all.
Now for my real reason for writing–this paragraph:
“It seems appropriate that we should worship as the early church did. There have been so many theologians of antiquity who have written about this subject, and we have a firmly established ancient church tradition that women should not be either bishops or priests. Marva Dawn’s analysis is one of many that I have read, though I think that there’s a much more direct reason: God relates to us as male, and in turn, my pastor, as a representative of God, relates to me as a male. …Does God relate to me as a man? Yes, and I can then understand as a man that it is appropriate for me to have and express my deep feelings; I can model the great love that my Christ had for my neighbor, and talk about it and discuss it.”
My responses:
A. I don’t think it seems appropriate that we should worship as the early church did. First of all, the term “early church” should be defined. For example, if we look at the Church in Acts–the communal, sell everything you have, share possessions, Church–we see that women were an equal part of Church life, some serving as prophets and some serving as deacons, and there being “no male nor female” in Christ. If we look at the later-early-Church, which is where your “theologians of antiquity” refuse to allow women to be bishops or priests, we also see the Crusades, the forced conversion or killing of Muslims (and others) in the name of Jesus Christ, the conjoining of politics and religion and the spread of Christianity for the sake of Empire–all of which, when we actually read the gospels, are bogus, erroneous, and embarrassing plights on our Christian history. So I don’t give much credit to your phrase “we should worship as the early church did”, unless, of course, you’re referring to the Church in Acts (but I don’t think you were).
B. You say that your pastor is a representative of God. That may be true. But as a Christian, am I not also a representative of God, whether or not I am a man or a pastor? The Bible states that we, followers of Christ, are God’s hands and feet on this earth (and thus, God’s representatives). It never limits that statement to include only ministers, only pastors, or only males. Perhaps this is not what you meant, but the way you wrote it made me think that the reason your pastor is an adequate representative of God is because he is a man, and the reason that you can relate to your pastor (and, subsequently, to God) is because you, also, are a man. Does that mean the women in your church can’t relate to your pastor, or to God? What if your church had a female pastor, would that hinder your relation to God?
C. You say God relates to us as a male. That’s not necessarily true. God may relate to YOU as a male, but how dare we limit our deity to say that the way God relates to one person is the way God relates to all. God relates to me as a Father, but I don’t think that makes God a male. My older sister sometimes relates to me as a father, taking care of me, protecting me, and other things. That does not make her a male. I know it may seem contradictory to say this, but I truly believe that Fatherly characteristics do not make someone a male. I know plenty of women who act fatherly, and I know plenty of men who don’t.
So God relates to me and/or you as a father. Ok. But I have a friend whose dad physically and verbally abused her growing up, and she almost refused to know Christ as her Lord and Savior because she didn’t want another father like that. But when she examined God’s characteristics, those that are ideally fatherly and those that are ideally motherly, she was able to see past the gender-ascribed language and to the love which underlies it.
So maybe you do think God has a penis, and maybe you do think that God relates to you as a man because God, too, is a man. And whether or not I think you’re wrong or right, I also think it’s safe to say that if calling God (the transcendental, genderless Creator) “father” or saying “God is a man” hinders someone from coming to know God through Jesus Christ–and if, knowing of this hindrance, we STILL refuse to change–then we are poor representatives of our namesake.
I was under the impression that when Paul said “there is no male or female in Christ,” it relates specifically to salvation, thus not implying there are no gender roles in the church. Yes? No?
Well, yes, it does, in a cursory assessment. The text speaks not only to the reconciliation that Christ’s atonement provides through the cross, but it speaks to the reconciliation that we as a community of God should live out. What’s the point in Paul telling us that God saves all, but unequally. It would go against the precedent of the text to separate the roles of men and women, and not the slave and the free, the Jew and the Greek. It seems abundantly clear that Paul is arguing for equality and community amongst race, slave/free, and gender roles in the church and outside of it.
You can see this further at work in the following verse, where Paul says we are all heirs, but doesn’t say that being heirs means that one gender must lead the other.
Look at it also this way: if we are neither free nor slaves, it would inherently and directly argue against any persons’ subjugation. Why/how then can the church argue that subjugating women is appropriate. If we are neither slave nor free in Christ, why must I be a slave to a man in Christ?
Libbyam and AndyH –
Your comments and lives inspire me to live more fully and faithfully for Christ.
(And no, I don’t usually say “spiritually cheesy” things like that. Case in point – I currently refuse to A.) go to church, B.) tell someone I am praying for them, or C.) sing contemporary worship songs.)
Thank you for speaking on behalf of those of us who still haven’t found a way to clearly articulate a cogent response.