|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Male language, male Jesus
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
After several years unable to describe myself as a Christian, though with a lively faith, I seem, like it or not, to be on my way back to Jesus... I even went to church today. But, as ever, language and the maleness of Jesus are two major roadblocks for me:
Language: God as male, Father and Son - the mainstream Church is showing no signs of changing this language, except in a very few enlightened places. I believe God is beyond gender - I'll come to Jesus in a moment. Is that the most commonly accepted view, or is the male God still regarded as a theological necessity? If not, why does the Church continue to mislead us with the Father/Son images?
As a woman, I have a huge difficulty with the fact that Jesus was male. I'm told that he is God made flesh, that in Jesus God shared our humanity. Well, sorry, but he didn't share my experience as a woman. Does God share the Church's apparent view that male is better? There's a sense of hurt and loss that my gender is not part of the incarnate God. OK, he couldn't be both, but I would welcome any comments on this as I try to find a way of coming to terms with it.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's a whole ton of issues that could be brought up with regards to this, but I'll start with the most important: I'm sorry for whatever hurt this whole mess has brought you.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
MM - On your second point, I understand your issue with the maleness of Jesus. The church has not done a great job of working through that issue. But I would ask, then how you would deal with male exclusion if he had been a woman?
In becoming human, Jesus had to be one or the other, but couldn't be both. Being born in a specific time and a specific place, being male rather than female meant he could do things (travel about, teach in a synagogue etc.) that he needed to be able to do.
Is his male-ness a big thing, though? I believe it happens to be true that he was male, but I don't think that's important about him or what he said, except as a statement of historical fact with no theological importance at all.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If Jesus was going to really own the Suffering Servant thing, then no question: he should've been born female. If you load in the King and Priest thing, though, then maleness (in His time period) do become necessary.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I think I get around this by reading most Biblical references to "man," as "mankind" and the "he," pronoun for God as just a habit of language like "she," for ship. I don't believe that God or ships actually have genders.
Jesus being male born of Mary a female also just seems like practical conveniences of the time. From the first visit to the temple a young girl would have had such problems.
I know it must be hard for anyone, man or woman, to keep hearing about God as "our Father," if she/he has had a bad relationship with their father or men in general, but the same problem would be reversed if God was prayed to as "our Mother."
I find it hard to hear God called she, simply because then all of a sudden in my mind, God does have breasts etc, where the sound of he is so routine to my ears that I can ignore it and not actually visualize a gendered being.
I don't know the answer. The "Universe?"
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Isn't the offset the business of the Church itself being the female Bride married to God the male?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Apparently, when more women become doctors, fewer men apply to follow the same career. The effect of having a female Jesus, even if successful in life and death, on the development of the Church needs to be seen in that sort of perspective.
Twilight's point about the visualisation of God as a physical woman would also have been a difficulty for men. I had never found that to be a problem, because I tend to visualise faces rather than other features.
That women who have had negative experiences of men can have serious problems with having to see God as male won't have been recognised as a problem, of course. And the introduction of Mary would have helped.
And I don't think the concept of the Church as Bride would be helpful, either. It's making something sexual rather than gendered out of something which isn't that at all.
[ 07. August 2016, 20:54: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
This page might help.
A number of feminist theologians deliberately use feminine for the Holy Spirit in ways similar to those used by the writer of this hymn.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm not even going to tackle the other members of the Trinity. But when it comes to feeling excluded from Christ because of his maleness--well, no, not me, not this woman. Because if he really meant all that stuff he was saying (including through Paul etc.) about us being the Body of Christ, then Christ IS feminine (as well as masculine) and has feminine experiences (as well as masculine). In fact, he has MY experiences. And even in his Gospel-reported lifetime we catch him saying things like " How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23) It's a very feminine image, and he just throws it out there as if it weren't no thang. And I don't think it was a "thang" for him, based on how he behaved toward women--just as if we actually were human beings, ha. Similarly we get things like this:
quote:
Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. (1 Peter 2)
What is that if not a reference to the Lord as a breastfeeding mother?
I grant you, my male fellow church members can be remarkably thick when it comes to the feminine aspects of God, the church, what have you. And some of them have caused me a shedload of grief. But darned if I'm going to accept their concept of women having a lesser share in Christ because of his maleness. They might as well be concerned with the fact that he was not a Gentile either, nor a 21st century person, nor a comfortably-placed Westerner, nor an English-speaker...
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Christianity is sexist. It began in a sexist world and has carried this sin with it. This is a significant issue. That women don't lead things and are excluded. Some changes here and there within the past century, but a lengthy history of sexism to overcome. Which requires understanding. We are just getting to the start of understanding of this. Just starting.
It is the sin of our civilzation that we culturally propogate through all of our human institutions. Many accommodate to it, many don't. It will be a while to sort it out. And correct it. Some old guys probably need to die out first.
This is not the same issue as Jesus being male. He just had to in the time and space of 2000 years ago. God as male? Merely a product of the perception of the people of that time. It doesn't matter if people think he is a boy, except for the sexism of it per the sexism of the ancient world and our continued sin of propogating this.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Orthodox Church teaches that Christ obtained all of his "flesh" (human nature) from his mother, and all of his spirit (divine nature) from his Father.
One way of interpreting this is that he had no Y chromosome. Yet he identified as male. Hmmm.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Yeah, they knew lots about genetics back then.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Jesus had to be male, to fulfil all of the OT prophecies and commands, including circumcision, and to be the firstborn male who was presented to God in the temple, so that we may inherit what he inherited.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yeah, they knew lots about genetics back then.
So you think they were just wrong?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think it is a nice story. Not true except in the poetical or aesthetic sense.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
For me, I agree with probably most of the comments made above. Myself, I tend to perceive God the Father as being male, Jesus as being male and the Holy Spirit smetimes as male and sometimes female, depending on how He's presenting Himself so to speak. That may not be theologically correct, but it seems to me that God within Himself, has female and male attributes (that is, what might be traditionally thought of as such), for example one might tend to attribute strength and power to males and gentleness to females. That doesn't mean to say that men can't also be gentle and women strong. I'm not explaining myself particularly well, but of course we tend to see things from our human perspective. God made us male and female to bring different aspects of humanness together (and for reproduction..I suppose he could have caused us to reproduce differently like amoebae or something, but He chose to do it the way He did). I think I'm trying to say that He made each person with different personalities with different strengths etc, including male and female attributes...maybe so that all of humanity together we are a (dim) reflection of all that He is? (Although not perfect yet by far).
I wouldn't get hung up on whether God is literally male or female, I don't think He is per se - He's really not the same as us...if that makes se any sort of sense.
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think it is a nice story. Not true except in the poetical or aesthetic sense.
So you're outside the historic flow of creedal Christianity. Which is fine but then your comments are those of an outsider and don't help to make sense of the story from within.
[ 08. August 2016, 00:05: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
To be fair, I think there is a difference between talking about God the Father in the context of the inner life of the Trinity and God as Father in his relationship with us.
In the Greek worldview, "Father" was considered to be the source, the generative fount of being. It in this context, that the first person is rightly described as "Father", because he is the source, ground, wellspring, and generator of all that is. He is not called Father because he has what we would consider masculine characteristics. I argue, putting aside the baptismal formula, it is quite alright to use terms other than Father for the first person, such as "Source, Ground, Root, Wellspring" of all being, because I think that would be somewhat consistent with the theology of the Nicene Creed.
The problem, of course, is that "Source, Ground, Root, or Wellspring of all being" is not as sentimental or touching as "Father."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The problem, of course, is that "Source, Ground, Root, or Wellspring of all being" is not as sentimental or touching as "Father."
Or as personal. God the Father is a Person, not an impersonal Force™ or wellspring or whatever. The relationship between Jesus and God "the Father" is more like that between an offspring and a parent than it is like that between a root and a plant, or a river and its source.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
In the Old Testament the word for Spirit of God is actually feminine. And the word for Wisdom of God is also feminine. John just adapts that word to a male noun, I think primarily because Jesus was born a male.
But you have to understand that Jesus was also probably the first male feminist in recorded history. His interactions with women throughout all of his life left his counterparts scandalized. Only once do we find him dismissing a gentile woman, but when she stood up to him he was amazed at her forthrightness. He ended up praising her for what she did.
There are many references to God doing feminine actions, like a hen brooding over her creation, or gathering her chicks to protect them.
The one word for the Spirit of God in the New Testament "pneuma" is gender neutral. The other words are masculine.
It is less than 50 years since women started to be ordained in churches. As women theologians have begun to study the scriptures they have started to sensitize the church to the feminine nature of God.
Myself I have no problem referring to the first person of God as Father/Mother, nor do I have any problem referring to the Holy Spirit as she. Now some people argue that in the Lord's Prayer Jesus does use Abba in referring to God, but it can be argued Jesus is not so much referring to God as "father" as he is referring to a special relationship of the love of a parent to his or her child. I try to keep references to God as gender neutral as possible. Instead of using the second person male pronoun referring to God, I will just use the term God.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think it is a nice story. Not true except in the poetical or aesthetic sense.
So you're outside the historic flow of creedal Christianity. Which is fine but then your comments are those of an outsider and don't help to make sense of the story from within.
No, I don't accept that. I don't accept the literality of it, nor do I necessarily accept the culture-bound nature of some of these conceptualizations. I might call you dogmatic in return, but let's not escalate, and I'll let "outsider" pass.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think it is a nice story. Not true except in the poetical or aesthetic sense.
So you're outside the historic flow of creedal Christianity. Which is fine but then your comments are those of an outsider and don't help to make sense of the story from within.
No, I don't accept that. I don't accept the literality of it, nor do I necessarily accept the culture-bound nature of some of these conceptualizations. I might call you dogmatic in return, but let's not escalate, and I'll let "outsider" pass.
But it can't pass. I'll take dogmatic, no problem. But if you reject those things, you place yourself outside them. By definition. And those things are part of the historical thread of creedal Christianity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
In my opinion, the best answer is to create new hymmody and liturgy that utilizes multiple images of God, such as Mother, Lover, Friend and Companion as a supplement and addition to the Christian Tradition.
I don't believe however that we should "do away" with the traditional images of God as "Father", "Lord" and "King". They have sustained and giving great comfort to many people throughout the ages.
I also argue, that crucially, both the baptismal formula and the Lord's Prayer should be retained in their traditional forms, as signs of our continuity with the faith of the past.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
If you go back to Genesis when God made man in "our image": he wasn't complete until woman was added. I think that says a fair bit about who God is.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
If you go back to Genesis when God made man in "our image": he wasn't complete until woman was added. I think that says a fair bit about who God is.
I'd suggest that it says much more about the author, rather than the One who inspired what is written.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
If you go back to Genesis when God made man in "our image": he wasn't complete until woman was added. I think that says a fair bit about who God is.
But it doesn't say that. (Or at least not as clearly as your statement suggests it does).
In the first narrative, God creates adam in God's own image, adam who is male and female - even if we often translate it as 'man'.
In the second narrative, God again creates adam, who only becomes ish and ish'shah (man and woman in most translation) once divided to make a help-mate - who is described in the same sort of language routinely used of God, not of an inferior being.
[Edit: Code]
[ 08. August 2016, 07:49: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think it is a nice story. Not true except in the poetical or aesthetic sense.
So you're outside the historic flow of creedal Christianity. Which is fine but then your comments are those of an outsider and don't help to make sense of the story from within.
No, I don't accept that. I don't accept the literality of it, nor do I necessarily accept the culture-bound nature of some of these conceptualizations. I might call you dogmatic in return, but let's not escalate, and I'll let "outsider" pass.
But it can't pass. I'll take dogmatic, no problem. But if you reject those things, you place yourself outside them. By definition. And those things are part of the historical thread of creedal Christianity.
Hmmm, that's a pretty big leap from a made up dark age dogma that Jesus was a clone of Mary with what would have to be a female genotype and a male phenotype (unless one of the first X chromosomes was magicked to Y), without presenting with de la Chapelle syndrome, to being creedal. Or have we jumped to the patriarchal economic Trinity of the creed as jumping off point? I would always want to start with the creed and then deconstruct as necessary: we must be totally inclusive as we progress. The non-negotiable bottom line of the creed is that ineffable Love incarnated and transcendently rose from the dead. Everything else is enculturation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
The angel told Mary what was to happen. We aren't told exactly how it happened. That's something we don't need to know.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm no biologist, but somebody pointed out to me a few years ago that Jesus's maleness is evidence for the virgin birth as conventionally understood, in a way that no one in the C1 BC or AD could have known. If, by some freak of nature, as far as I know unrecorded in human history, a woman were to produce a child spontaneously in her own womb without male intervention, that child would receive only her genetic material, would be some sort of clone. The child would therefore have to be female.
Going back to the OP, mancunian mystic, I accept that what I'm going to say may strike you as insensitive, but it's important. I hope it doesn't put you off in your search, because without some awareness, you may well call off your search before you have any chance of finding again who you are looking for.
One of the things a lot of us find most difficult, is when, or if, it dawns on us that we have to accept God on his/her terms, not ours, as he/she is, not as we'd prefer him/her to be. The issues may be completely different for you than for, say, me.
He made us in his image. A lot of the time, we'd so much prefer to remake him/her in our image, be that male, female, stern, cuddly, and supporting our pet causes, be they right wing, left wing, environmentally engaged, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, lover of Bach or Hillsong or whatever. We'd so much rather enlist him in support of us and our causes, than let him be who he is, let him shape us rather than expect him to fit in with us.
So one of the things to take into account is whether what makes us uncomfortable is the fruit of how other people have over the centuries tried to fit God to suit who they wanted. To what extent is what makes you feel uncomfortable, a perception which is God's gift to you, his calling to you? Or is it just to do with where you are at the moment?
So to your final comment. I think we have to accept that to be incarnate, Jesus was bound to be male or female. There's no third option. Likewise, though, you had to be born male or female. There's approximately a 50% chance either way, but we have no control over which way for us the die was thrown. By the time we are conscious, it's far too late. And, however we may try to skate round saying this, those who genetically are not clearly of one gender or the other are tragically disabled.
This may not cheer you, but there's quite a lot to be said for accepting, rather than rebelling against, the things one cannot change. It certainly makes it easier to perceive who God is, to reduce the number of preconceptions one is going to insist on imposing upon him.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]..... if you reject those things, you place yourself outside them. By definition. And those things are part of the historical thread of creedal Christianity.
This would warrant a thread of its own, I think.
Are you saying that I can't be part of my Church if I don't accept every detail of its doctrines?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think we are becoming increasingly separated from the way people from previous generations, centuries, millenia, thought and believed. If we expect their writings to conform to our current understandings about personal morality and justice issues, we are showing very little understanding of the worlds in which they lived.
In Christian terms, these words from the letter to the Galatians are interesting (Gal 3:28)
quote:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
In a recent sermon in my local church, the speaker observed that Paul could have stopped at "neither Jew nor Greek" since the dispute being tackled in the letter was whether non-Jewish Christian converts needed to conform to Jewish customs and laws. Not only did Paul give the answer "no" to such conformities, he added gender and social status to the answer "no".
The speaker observed that these words and others along similar lines in the New Testament, started a moral trajectory on our understanding of justice issues which is still being worked out today.
And throughout the history of the church, there have always been those who argued that the principle is more important than the prevailing cultural norms.
And there have been others who argued that the cultural norms were right in pointing out that equality of worth does not necessarily qualify people for particular roles. Thereby they became in danger, inplicitly and sometimes explicitly, of condoning what we would now see as the oppressions experienced by slaves, women, folks who weren't members of the dominant race of nation.
So the history of the church, and its sacred writings, reflect those tensions, and the outworking of that moral trajectory. And that does not apply just to the history of the church, but the history of the world. Nor is it limited to sacred writings. Just to pick one example, the antisemitism of "The Merchant of Venice" in some of Portia's famous speech jars horribly in modern ears with "the quality of mercy is not strained".
The church has been around for 2 millennia and so our history and our thought have been affected by this moral trajectory, this struggle for a more just and fair way of looking at one another. And I'm a nonconformist. So I sieve the writings and the history in the light of that struggle. And I argue that we must be prepared to embrace changes in outlook and expression to reflect that struggle.
The seven last words of the church are "We've never done it this way before".
[ 08. August 2016, 09:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
That God has no gender and is neither male nor female is entirely orthodox Christianity (although some conservatives try to IMHO evade the implications). There's no more problem with talking about God as a woman than there is with talking about God as a man. Both are metaphors.
That Jesus became incarnate as a man is hard to avoid. I'm aware that as a man I'm speaking from the privileged position here, so I can't say much for it.
I will note that theologically what is important for the incarnation is that Jesus became human (i.e. it doesn't confer any ontological privilege on middle Eastern skin coloration, Jesus's hair or eye colour, whatever sexuality Jesus happened to have, or on masculinity). So although some churches think Jesus' masculinity has implications for who can be a priest, for example, I think that has to be a mistake. The accidents of Jesus' humanity have to be incidental, or the incarnation doesn't work.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I will note that theologically what is important for the incarnation is that Jesus became human
In fact, that's exactly what the Creed says. It's true that, in the English translation that most of us are familiar with, it says that he was made man. But the Greek that it was written in says that he was made human, not that he was made male.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]..... if you reject those things, you place yourself outside them. By definition. And those things are part of the historical thread of creedal Christianity.
This would warrant a thread of its own, I think.
Are you saying that I can't be part of my Church if I don't accept every detail of its doctrines?
Thanks for posting that. It is what I feel when this sort of militant stridency bursts forth. I might add to not accepting, not fully understanding.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
mancunian mystic
Very interesting OP and posts. May I suggest that, instead of heading only in one direction, back towards Christian belief, you might also take a clear look in the other direction as well?
You might find that a perusal of, for instance, the BHA's views might help you to situate yourself more securely wherever you decide is right for you.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
I remember many years ago someone at my church said, God became a man in order to show men how to behave towards women (in fact, I think the person said something like men needing an example of how to behave even more than women did, presumably because of men's traditional social privileges). Jesus regarded a number of women as close friends, and he did not treat any women as inferiors, let alone as sex objects.
I don't think this is the only reason he became a human, but how men should behave towards half the human race seems a pretty important issue on which to set an example. He set an example of behaviour to many smaller social groups (Samaritans, the sick and leprous, the insane, the criminal, children, tax collectors, etc), why would he not come to set an example of behaviour to women?
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In fact, that's exactly what the Creed says. It's true that, in the English translation that most of us are familiar with, it says that he was made man. But the Greek that it was written in says that he was made human, not that he was made male.
Until about 30 years ago, that was everyone understood 'made man' to mean. It's a recent change of English usage that has caused 'made man' to become ambiguous as to whether it means 'made human' or 'made male'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
MM - On your second point, I understand your issue with the maleness of Jesus. The church has not done a great job of working through that issue. But I would ask, then how you would deal with male exclusion if he had been a woman?
In becoming human, Jesus had to be one or the other, but couldn't be both. Being born in a specific time and a specific place, being male rather than female meant he could do things (travel about, teach in a synagogue etc.) that he needed to be able to do.
Is his male-ness a big thing, though? I believe it happens to be true that he was male, but I don't think that's important about him or what he said, except as a statement of historical fact with no theological importance at all.
John
But I would ask, then how you would deal with male exclusion if he had been a woman?
I don't know, John - I acknowledged that I know he couldn't be both - but God apparently went for male and, reasonably or not, I find that hurtful and rejecting, especially as 2000 years of misogyny has been able to excuse itself as a result. This isn't a logical position, I know - it's coming from somewhere deeper than that.
Is his male-ness a big thing, though? I believe it happens to be true that he was male, but I don't think that's important about him or what he said, except as a statement of historical fact with no theological importance at all.
As a man, you can say with confidence that the incarnate God knew what it was like to be a human like you - I can't. Just as there are aspects of male experience that I can never know, there are aspects of being female that are closed to you - and to the male Jesus.
However, what occurs to me as I write that is that I'm assuming that gender is binary, an assumption I need to consider more closely.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
I have never had a problem with Jesus being a man. However, while still not having a problem, I have seen things differently since in seminary a NT professor read to us his completely feminised translation of 1Peter. He had used female pronouns throughout, and referred to Jesus as Debra Christ. I was blown away at the immediacy of it, while the men in the class were equally overwhelmed by their feelings of exclusion. This does not address the OP in its original question, which is about how can Jesus know my experience as a woman, but I found it helped. It reminds me that while Jesus did not know the physicality of womanhood, many of the cultural things we women may know - being marginalised etc. were not unknown to him. (And he didn't fight them, but made them part of his redemptive work, but that is maybe another story.)
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mancunian mystic:
As a man, you can say with confidence that the incarnate God knew what it was like to be a human like you - I can't. Just as there are aspects of male experience that I can never know, there are aspects of being female that are closed to you - and to the male Jesus.
For what it's worth I'm not sure that follows - I don't think gender confers on me the ability to understand what it's like to be *any* man. I'm not sure most of the time, because it's not uniform, what it feels like to be me!
I don't know what it's like to be anyone else, except in the abstract of treating others how I would like to be treated. Consequently my understanding has always been rather that it is even more miraculous that God knows what it's like to be every single person on Earth.
I certainly don't think God knows what I feel like because I'm a man and he was a man too. That almost makes it a conjuring trick or an accident of genes. Jesus is God made man, but God is also omniscient...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think I get around this by reading most Biblical references to "man," as "mankind" and the "he," pronoun for God as just a habit of language like "she," for ship. I don't believe that God or ships actually have genders.
Jesus being male born of Mary a female also just seems like practical conveniences of the time. From the first visit to the temple a young girl would have had such problems.
I know it must be hard for anyone, man or woman, to keep hearing about God as "our Father," if she/he has had a bad relationship with their father or men in general, but the same problem would be reversed if God was prayed to as "our Mother."
I find it hard to hear God called she, simply because then all of a sudden in my mind, God does have breasts etc, where the sound of he is so routine to my ears that I can ignore it and not actually visualize a gendered being.
I don't know the answer. The "Universe?"
"Humankind" is even better than "mankind"!
Language, and the inability in English to move away from labelling God as either masculine or feminine, is a major problem when talking about God. Until a few years ago I would have said that the almost universally used male pronouns weren't a problem to me, but I was inspired by reading Sue Monk Kidd's The dance of the dissident daughter" to try substituting the feminine equivalents. The effect was considerable, and I think it was noticing what you describe, that the self-conscious changing of God's gender seemed to limit God that made me realise that the male usages are just as limiting- but so ingrained in our minds that we don't even realise just how much they affect our image of God. Changing to the feminine made me approach God differently, feel differently about him/her, have a very different image. Now I try to stay beyond gender, using "Godself" or just "God" instead of making a choice. It can be a bit clumsy and repetitive, but I think it's better than imposing even subconscious limitations on my view of God. Now, when I read a book that uses "he" all the time, it really grates on me: every use of the pronoun makes a statement that limits the divine and excludes the feminine.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Penny S:
[QB] And the introduction of Mary would have helped.
But would it? Mary, as presented by the Church, offers women the choice of Virgin/Mother as role models. Whereas Jesus is offered as an example of a fully-realised human being who is also divine! As a single woman, that view of Mary is of no use to me, (though I can find my own way through to an understanding of her that's rather less simplistic).
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm not even going to tackle the other members of the Trinity. But when it comes to feeling excluded from Christ because of his maleness--well, no, not me, not this woman. Because if he really meant all that stuff he was saying (including through Paul etc.) about us being the Body of Christ, then Christ IS feminine (as well as masculine) and has feminine experiences (as well as masculine). In fact, he has MY experiences. And even in his Gospel-reported lifetime we catch him saying things like " How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23) It's a very feminine image, and he just throws it out there as if it weren't no thang. And I don't think it was a "thang" for him, based on how he behaved toward women--just as if we actually were human beings, ha. Similarly we get things like this:
quote:
Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. (1 Peter 2)
What is that if not a reference to the Lord as a breastfeeding mother?
.
Thankyou Lamb chopped, lots of helpful stuff here. And reading it has led me to consider Jesus's encounters with women - the woman at the well, the woman who annointed him with oil, Mary in the garden after the Resurrection - and the way he is able to relate to them with deep understanding and empathy. Very grateful - you've given me plenty to reflect on.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
If you go back to Genesis when God made man in "our image": he wasn't complete until woman was added. I think that says a fair bit about who God is.
Like that! Thankyou Midge
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Hurray! I was hoping some of that would help you as it helped me. In fact I'm using it to remind myself of a parallel problem just now--the fact that I'm getting old ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) while Christ died and rose at ca. 33 years, and how can he comprehend the experience of old age and etc? But of course the same applies, that my experiences ARE his experiences (just recalled Paul on the subject, when he spoke of "filling up what is lacking in Christ's suffering" which can't possibly refer to helping with the work of salvation (already accomplished), but could easily refer to filling up the sum of Christ's human experience, most of it through us. Heck, there's also that bit where he says to Paul, "Why do you persecute ME?" when Paul is actually persecuting his followers. If the connection between us and him is that intimate that he takes it for granted, then I suppose he knows all about old people's aches and pains and marginalization. I'm going to try to remember that.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That Jesus became incarnate as a man is hard to avoid. I'm aware that as a man I'm speaking from the privileged position here, so I can't say much for it.
I will note that theologically what is important for the incarnation is that Jesus became human (i.e. it doesn't confer any ontological privilege on middle Eastern skin coloration, Jesus's hair or eye colour, whatever sexuality Jesus happened to have, or on masculinity). So although some churches think Jesus' masculinity has implications for who can be a priest, for example, I think that has to be a mistake. The accidents of Jesus' humanity have to be incidental, or the incarnation doesn't work.
Thankyou Dafyd: very helpful. It strikes me now that when we move beyond physical gender, we all have our own unique mix of "male" and "female" traits: maybe Jesus holds them in balance? That's just a speculative comment, but one I'll ponder on!
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Hurray! I was hoping some of that would help you as it helped me. In fact I'm using it to remind myself of a parallel problem just now--the fact that I'm getting old while Christ died and rose at ca. 33 years, and how can he comprehend the experience of old age and etc?
Good analogy! (And one that might concern me too, when I move on from all the gender stuff!)
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by mancunian mystic:
As a man, you can say with confidence that the incarnate God knew what it was like to be a human like you - I can't. Just as there are aspects of male experience that I can never know, there are aspects of being female that are closed to you - and to the male Jesus.
For what it's worth I'm not sure that follows - I don't think gender confers on me the ability to understand what it's like to be *any* man. I'm not sure most of the time, because it's not uniform, what it feels like to be me!
I don't know what it's like to be anyone else, except in the abstract of treating others how I would like to be treated. Consequently my understanding has always been rather that it is even more miraculous that God knows what it's like to be every single person on Earth.
I certainly don't think God knows what I feel like because I'm a man and he was a man too. That almost makes it a conjuring trick or an accident of genes. Jesus is God made man, but God is also omniscient...
I think there's a lot of value in this. How well does Jesus identify with any of us, male, female or trans-gendered? So, I'm a man as was Jesus. I'm also a father, Jesus was not. Jesus was an itinerant preacher, I fill in occasionally at my own church. Jesus was a carpenter, I often find it difficult to tell the sharp side of a saw from the blunt. Jesus was a Jew, I like my fried bacon. Jesus was never married, I've been married and separated. And, on the list goes ...
In his 30 odd years of life, Jesus experienced a very small range of the possibilities of being a man. Jesus cannot possibly know what it is to be you or me by direct experience. Yet, somehow, God in Christ has experienced all that is needed to identify with us, to come along side us in our pain and weakness and say "I understand". Which is a miracle.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I will note that theologically what is important for the incarnation is that Jesus became human
In fact, that's exactly what the Creed says. It's true that, in the English translation that most of us are familiar with, it says that he was made man. But the Greek that it was written in says that he was made human, not that he was made male.
In that case, the Church really needs to improve its translations! (or stop distorting them in the interests of male power). I didn't know that. It'll make that line of the Creed a bit easier to say. Thankyou.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
