This song has, since the first time I heard it (Paul Robeson singing), haunted me. Rooted of course in the black slave experience, it speaks universally to human suffering and sadness and loss. Lord, help me to cling to you in those moments I realize there is an end to myself, an inability for me to travel on from the place I'm at. Help me to rely on your strength, and the strength of those you've given me to love me, and to abide in you at the moments of absolute weariness.
Paul Robeson:
Odetta (w/ interesting European Jesus movie clips):
Showing posts with label mother god. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mother god. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Is God Masculine? Part Two: Genesis 1:27 Egalitarian but Ambiguous
Part one, which is more a loosely fillled junk drawer of ruminations, led me to try and focus this portion of the program down to one specific. One specific verse, anyway...
For this episode, let's assume the egalitarian / mutualist theologians are correct and that God is not wholly or even primarily Masculine. (Non-egalitarian folk are still welcome to read and check in w/ opinions!)
Genesis 1:27 is where I as a layperson would begin in any discussion on gender essentialism and Scripture. And no wonder. It is the very first verse of Scripture which includes us humans in God's story. I would think we'd pay it close attention.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." - NIV (The oft-preferred hierarchalist English version)
and
"So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." - NRSV (The only true and absolute version of the Bible, because I said so! [Okay, I'm kidding.])
Now, on the face of it, that sounds like an egalitarian verse if ever there was one. God creates mankind / humankind in his image. And then, in the second and third phrases of the verse, we see an apparently expanding repetition of that fact. The NRSV interprets the second phrase as "created them" rather than the NIV's "created him" -- not vital but helpful to me in that it already opens up the mutuality of humanness as male and female in equivalence.
But the second and third phrases get interesting. Phrase One: "[I]n the image of God he created them;" Phrase Two: "male and female he created them." I am hoping the reader sees the conclusion coming. The two phrases, seen as a direct parallel (the second one further unpacking as well as repeating the first one), lead to a fairly clear conclusion that "in the image of God" is to be equated with "male and female." At least, that's how I've read it for quite a while, and have heard others seemingly agree with my brilliant exegesis.
Now, if the above is true, doesn't that mean that God is both Masculine and Feminine, and that the writer wanted us to know that in no uncertain terms?
Mmmm... maybe.
Except, upon further perusal of egalitarian resources and writers, I've discovered that many egalitarians would not agree. For instance, the above Genesis 1:27 verse could also be read as merely indicating that we are made in the image of God, both male and female being so made. The gender issue could be viewed as roughly analogous to hair color or skin color, having no "meaning" to God outside the biologically limited purposes of propogation of the species and (per Song of Songs) the joyful pleasures afforded each gender in their marital enjoyment of one another. Genesis 1:27 merely affirms that both men and women are created in God's Image, and therefore neither is less "human" than the other or less "in God's Image" than the other.
If that is the case, inferring that God Himself has masculine or feminine within his character is not a necessary conclusion at all. I was intrigued during my reading to note that Marva J. Dawn (in her "Truly the Community" which I'm using as devotional material) says in a footnote:
I realize in much of this discussion, I'm probably recreating the wheel. That is, someone out there in the Egalitarian / Mutualist universe certainly has biblically unpacked this to a far greater degree than I've imagined. In fact, I am fully aware I may not even be asking the foundational questions yet, if in fact I can use "foundational" while being a moderately post-structuralist kind of guy.
I may in my next bit wrestle with what "masculine" and "feminine" actually mean. That oughta be funny to watch. But it also might help me (and anyone willing to participate) to also sort out the masculinity / femininity in God thing. I hope.
tag: bible, Christians for Biblical Equality, egalitarian, father god, feminism, gender essentialism, is god masculine, mother god, mutuality, post-modernism, structuralism
For this episode, let's assume the egalitarian / mutualist theologians are correct and that God is not wholly or even primarily Masculine. (Non-egalitarian folk are still welcome to read and check in w/ opinions!)
Genesis 1:27 is where I as a layperson would begin in any discussion on gender essentialism and Scripture. And no wonder. It is the very first verse of Scripture which includes us humans in God's story. I would think we'd pay it close attention.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." - NIV (The oft-preferred hierarchalist English version)
and
"So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." - NRSV (The only true and absolute version of the Bible, because I said so! [Okay, I'm kidding.])
Now, on the face of it, that sounds like an egalitarian verse if ever there was one. God creates mankind / humankind in his image. And then, in the second and third phrases of the verse, we see an apparently expanding repetition of that fact. The NRSV interprets the second phrase as "created them" rather than the NIV's "created him" -- not vital but helpful to me in that it already opens up the mutuality of humanness as male and female in equivalence.
But the second and third phrases get interesting. Phrase One: "[I]n the image of God he created them;" Phrase Two: "male and female he created them." I am hoping the reader sees the conclusion coming. The two phrases, seen as a direct parallel (the second one further unpacking as well as repeating the first one), lead to a fairly clear conclusion that "in the image of God" is to be equated with "male and female." At least, that's how I've read it for quite a while, and have heard others seemingly agree with my brilliant exegesis.
Now, if the above is true, doesn't that mean that God is both Masculine and Feminine, and that the writer wanted us to know that in no uncertain terms?
Mmmm... maybe.
Except, upon further perusal of egalitarian resources and writers, I've discovered that many egalitarians would not agree. For instance, the above Genesis 1:27 verse could also be read as merely indicating that we are made in the image of God, both male and female being so made. The gender issue could be viewed as roughly analogous to hair color or skin color, having no "meaning" to God outside the biologically limited purposes of propogation of the species and (per Song of Songs) the joyful pleasures afforded each gender in their marital enjoyment of one another. Genesis 1:27 merely affirms that both men and women are created in God's Image, and therefore neither is less "human" than the other or less "in God's Image" than the other.
If that is the case, inferring that God Himself has masculine or feminine within his character is not a necessary conclusion at all. I was intrigued during my reading to note that Marva J. Dawn (in her "Truly the Community" which I'm using as devotional material) says in a footnote:
"Out of my concern to reach the widest audience possible, I have chosen to refer to God with the masculine pronouns he, his, and him. I recognize that these pronouns are inadequate, for God is neither masculine nor feminine, but more than all our words can ever connote."That simple, brief summary stopped me dead in my tracks. Was (am) I anthropomorphizing God myself by reading back into the Godhead masculine and feminine attributes which instead are part of the creation among many species including human? Hmm. And oddly, another egalitarian commentary on bible verses having to do with God as Feminine in Scripture seemed to be right down my original idea's track, but end abruptly with this:
"As we seek to follow biblical inclusivity, let us also affirm the consistent witness of the church, namely, that God is neither feminine nor masculine (gender), neither male nor female (sex). God, who is transcendent Spirit, possesses no physical body, yet accommodates to human limitations by using physical, relational, gender-laden images for self-disclosure. Some of those are feminine. Inasmuch as God inspired the biblical authors to be inclusive, who are we not to be?" [Dr. Margo G. Houts]At present, I'm thinking, pondering, and trying to gather information here. I really liked my "God is both masculine and feminine" riff based on the Genesis 1:27 phrases, but admit that it may well be a case of sloppy exegesis allied with human bias (my own!). As we all know, that's biblically and intellectually a no-no. But I'm not entirely convinced yet, even after reading Marva's footnote, Margo's article, and even some other folks with the same idea who have unpacked it a bit more.
I realize in much of this discussion, I'm probably recreating the wheel. That is, someone out there in the Egalitarian / Mutualist universe certainly has biblically unpacked this to a far greater degree than I've imagined. In fact, I am fully aware I may not even be asking the foundational questions yet, if in fact I can use "foundational" while being a moderately post-structuralist kind of guy.
I may in my next bit wrestle with what "masculine" and "feminine" actually mean. That oughta be funny to watch. But it also might help me (and anyone willing to participate) to also sort out the masculinity / femininity in God thing. I hope.
tag: bible, Christians for Biblical Equality, egalitarian, father god, feminism, gender essentialism, is god masculine, mother god, mutuality, post-modernism, structuralism
Is God Masculine? Part One (The Overview)
Sometimes the biggest cans of worms are opened with the simplest-sounding questions.
What follows is extremely "beta" and perhaps "alpha" in quality as far as being in any sense "finished" or "authoritative." (The latter term to me is not a very useful one anyway.)
Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen can be blamed for the most recent gyrations I've been making re women, men, male, female, feminine, masculine, and many related subjects. Her use of one term -- "gender essentialism" -- flipped tumblers that further clarified some things for me as I've continued reading on what it is and means. But it also opened doors to new questions, many of those more for other egalitarians than for the so-called "complementarians" (whom I prefer to call what they are: male hierarchalists).
So here's the question that I think lies behind many of the other questions:
Is God Masculine?
Well... on one hand he is called "Father" and "He" the majority of the time in Scripture. And most of us, when picturing God in our minds, have either Jesus' face or an oversized, bearded male's body (Michaelangelo's "Creation of Adam" is one example). That mix of apparent biblical evidence and traditional cultural detritus stops many faithful folk from considering the question any further. They would answer, "Yes, of course God is Masculine!"
But what they have not figured on is that even hierarchalist theologians (or at least the thoughtful ones) know that masculinity and maleness are not the same thing. God is NOT male, despite Michaelangelo's depictions of him being so. Rather, as Jesus says, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24, NRSV).
It is inevitable that we anthropomorphize God. We can hardly help ourselves. And God seems more than willing to allow us, as the very finite creatures we are, to do this within certain boundaries. The Word does it, often in analogy and allegory, in order to aid us in comprehending the otherwise incomprehensible Holy Infinitude of God Almighty. Does God walk around with a giant penis (or vagina)? No. He doesn't even have a body!
So what exactly do we mean by even asking if God is masculine? What do we mean by the word "masculine" in the context of Spirit?
Uh....
Invariably, we fall back on using ourselves (esp. if we're male!) to extrapolate what masculinity is. Testosterone? God hasn't got it. That's a biological, thus body, thing. Strength. Well, God doesn't have muscles, because that's a body thing. He certainly does have strength -- an infinitude of power able to merely speak and bring creation into existence. But is this strength really "masculine"?
And when considering God being masculine, we also have to consider God NOT being feminine. That is part of where this word "essentialism" comes into play. Let's trace some of the potential theological pitfalls.
As Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen powerfully showed via her talks at the Cornerstone 2007 Festival this summer, a Christian luminary no less than C. S. Lewis fell into a series of errors rooted not in Scripture, but rather Greek thought, by his promoting gender essentialism.
In a nutshell, and these are my definitions (not to be blamed on M. S. V.), "gender essentialism" assumes that all creation is gendered in one way or another. Further, it is gendered precisely because it mirrors God's own Nature, which is in the west almost always assumed to be Masculine. (Some would say "primarily" masculine, but that doesn't really help.) Further discombobulating things, it is assumed that since a Masculine God created man first and woman second, and that Eve (as created in man's image rather than God's, as Adam was) caused the fall, God also created a male-ordered hierarchy wherein the masculine (God) leads and initiates over the feminine (the spiritually and mentally and physically weaker sex).
Now of course the above has been ameolorated somewhat by hierarchalists trying to keep up with women's forward movement in our modernist culture. A woman did not officially run the Boston Marathon until 1984, and the story of women in athletics is one almost entirely creditable to the feminists most Christians love to hate. Yet the proof that women's bodies are capable of stupendous athleticism, and womens' minds are capable (potentially even moreso as far as multi-tasking than mens'?), and that women can lead, work, and achieve in the public sphere every bit as well as their male counterparts, forces thinking hierarchalists to recalibrate their rhetoric.
Yet among evangelicals, the idea of "roles" "functions" and all the old hoary myths rooted in the gender hierarchy myth, itself rooted in the Masculine God idea, continue. In some cases, such as that of the Southern Baptist denomination, they have actually been strengthened in order to disenfranchise women back to their "proper God-given roles."
As an egalitarian (not my favorite word) or a mutualist (better), I and many other bible-rooted Christians reject the hiearchical view of God as Masculine. But as we'll see in my next post, that doesn't solve things and doesn't even really (even from a mutualist viewpoint) answer the question, or the additional questions the original spawns. Such as:
What is masculine?
What is feminine?
Who says these things (is there any biblical evidence for such definitions?)
If masculinity and femininity are only human constructions, what does that do to the concept of "male" and "female"? (In short, are we falling into a sort of androgynous gender fog?)
Egalitarians-only question: Is God neither masculine nor feminine, or both masculine and feminine?
And so on...
I don't promise to answer all or any of these questions. But I will try to explore them a little so others can start asking further questions and maybe helping us collectively come up with a few answers...
tag: Christianity, Christians for Biblical Equality, father god, feminism, gender, gender roles, is god masculine, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, mother god, mutuality
What follows is extremely "beta" and perhaps "alpha" in quality as far as being in any sense "finished" or "authoritative." (The latter term to me is not a very useful one anyway.)
Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen can be blamed for the most recent gyrations I've been making re women, men, male, female, feminine, masculine, and many related subjects. Her use of one term -- "gender essentialism" -- flipped tumblers that further clarified some things for me as I've continued reading on what it is and means. But it also opened doors to new questions, many of those more for other egalitarians than for the so-called "complementarians" (whom I prefer to call what they are: male hierarchalists).
So here's the question that I think lies behind many of the other questions:
Is God Masculine?
Well... on one hand he is called "Father" and "He" the majority of the time in Scripture. And most of us, when picturing God in our minds, have either Jesus' face or an oversized, bearded male's body (Michaelangelo's "Creation of Adam" is one example). That mix of apparent biblical evidence and traditional cultural detritus stops many faithful folk from considering the question any further. They would answer, "Yes, of course God is Masculine!"
But what they have not figured on is that even hierarchalist theologians (or at least the thoughtful ones) know that masculinity and maleness are not the same thing. God is NOT male, despite Michaelangelo's depictions of him being so. Rather, as Jesus says, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24, NRSV).
It is inevitable that we anthropomorphize God. We can hardly help ourselves. And God seems more than willing to allow us, as the very finite creatures we are, to do this within certain boundaries. The Word does it, often in analogy and allegory, in order to aid us in comprehending the otherwise incomprehensible Holy Infinitude of God Almighty. Does God walk around with a giant penis (or vagina)? No. He doesn't even have a body!
So what exactly do we mean by even asking if God is masculine? What do we mean by the word "masculine" in the context of Spirit?
Uh....
Invariably, we fall back on using ourselves (esp. if we're male!) to extrapolate what masculinity is. Testosterone? God hasn't got it. That's a biological, thus body, thing. Strength. Well, God doesn't have muscles, because that's a body thing. He certainly does have strength -- an infinitude of power able to merely speak and bring creation into existence. But is this strength really "masculine"?
And when considering God being masculine, we also have to consider God NOT being feminine. That is part of where this word "essentialism" comes into play. Let's trace some of the potential theological pitfalls.
As Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen powerfully showed via her talks at the Cornerstone 2007 Festival this summer, a Christian luminary no less than C. S. Lewis fell into a series of errors rooted not in Scripture, but rather Greek thought, by his promoting gender essentialism.
In a nutshell, and these are my definitions (not to be blamed on M. S. V.), "gender essentialism" assumes that all creation is gendered in one way or another. Further, it is gendered precisely because it mirrors God's own Nature, which is in the west almost always assumed to be Masculine. (Some would say "primarily" masculine, but that doesn't really help.) Further discombobulating things, it is assumed that since a Masculine God created man first and woman second, and that Eve (as created in man's image rather than God's, as Adam was) caused the fall, God also created a male-ordered hierarchy wherein the masculine (God) leads and initiates over the feminine (the spiritually and mentally and physically weaker sex).
Now of course the above has been ameolorated somewhat by hierarchalists trying to keep up with women's forward movement in our modernist culture. A woman did not officially run the Boston Marathon until 1984, and the story of women in athletics is one almost entirely creditable to the feminists most Christians love to hate. Yet the proof that women's bodies are capable of stupendous athleticism, and womens' minds are capable (potentially even moreso as far as multi-tasking than mens'?), and that women can lead, work, and achieve in the public sphere every bit as well as their male counterparts, forces thinking hierarchalists to recalibrate their rhetoric.
Yet among evangelicals, the idea of "roles" "functions" and all the old hoary myths rooted in the gender hierarchy myth, itself rooted in the Masculine God idea, continue. In some cases, such as that of the Southern Baptist denomination, they have actually been strengthened in order to disenfranchise women back to their "proper God-given roles."
As an egalitarian (not my favorite word) or a mutualist (better), I and many other bible-rooted Christians reject the hiearchical view of God as Masculine. But as we'll see in my next post, that doesn't solve things and doesn't even really (even from a mutualist viewpoint) answer the question, or the additional questions the original spawns. Such as:
What is masculine?
What is feminine?
Who says these things (is there any biblical evidence for such definitions?)
If masculinity and femininity are only human constructions, what does that do to the concept of "male" and "female"? (In short, are we falling into a sort of androgynous gender fog?)
Egalitarians-only question: Is God neither masculine nor feminine, or both masculine and feminine?
And so on...
I don't promise to answer all or any of these questions. But I will try to explore them a little so others can start asking further questions and maybe helping us collectively come up with a few answers...
tag: Christianity, Christians for Biblical Equality, father god, feminism, gender, gender roles, is god masculine, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, mother god, mutuality
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)