In a fit of genius I anonymously suggested the topic of "the femininity of God." I assumed that when my father came home from work after reading the suggested topics of that Sunday he would mention it around the supper table, I'd confess my silliness, and we'd all have a good laugh. However, several weeks into summer, when my father was starting his sermon for that Sunday all of a sudden I realized that he was reading my suggestion... he was actually going to preach on... the femininity of God!
Of course, what followed was a sermon on how God is the creator of gender and is not subject to it Himself. Both genders equally reflect aspects of His nature as both genders were created in his image.
Despite the fact that this is somewhat common knowledge within Christian circles there has been quite the controversy surrounding the various portrayals of God in William P. Young's book, The Shack.
In Young's book God the Father is portrayed as both a man and (primarily) as a woman... a lot of people say they think of Aunt Jemima based on his description of her
... mmmm, pancakes...
Anyway, I've sometimes wondered if God had chosen to reveal Himself (yes, I still use the traditional masculine language) through a matriarchal society rather than a patriarchal society of the Ancient Near East if He would have revealed Himself as primarily feminine.
Acknowledging that this is completely speculative, what do you think?
At this point in my theological life I am fairly confident that God's self revelation to humanity as primarily male has everything to do with the cultures to which He was revealing Himself and little to do with gender itself... like I already said, God created both genders in His image. God is hyper-gender.
There is a theological concept called Accommodation. It is the idea that God uses certain means to make connections with people for specific purposes. The means He uses doesn't box God in to be limited to those means...
For example (and remember that we're talking about "God the Father" here:
God is not a burning bush... He just revealed Himself to Moses as one in order to evoke a certain reaction.
God is not pillar of fire.
God is not a pillar of cloud.
God is not a still small voice.
God is not a man... or a woman.
God is not a lot of things.
What other images of God does the Bible provide us that "God is not ..."?
The fact is that in order to grasp the concept of GOD we need something to hold on to. We can't grasp the Godliness of God and so God accommodates Himself to us by revealing Himself to us in varying ways.
Does that make sense to you?
13 comments:
"I've sometimes wondered if God had chosen to reveal Himself ... through a matriarchal society rather than a patriarchal society of the Ancient Near East if He would have revealed Himself as primarily feminine." I think you are forgetting that God did not start by revealing himself to a society in the Middle East. He started by creating a man, out of nothing. Then creating a helper for him. Thus he created a patriarchal society. I believe God reveals Himself in different ways but that He also works in the structure that He created in the first place. That is why scripture refers to the Father in the masculine gender. Not because of the culture that God is talking to.
Tim S.
Don't worry, Tim, I wasn't "forgetting" about the whole creation order thing... I just don't think that creation order indicates that God is masculine because following that logic would mean that women are "less" in God's image than males are and that is (in my opinion) counter biblical.
Nor do I think that God inteded Males to be "in charge" from the beginning. Hierarchy only came about after the fall, as part of the curse of sin. In other words God's intent in creation was complete equality but when sin entered the world so did the need for hierarchy (I would be pretty hesitant to proclaim all matriarchal societies as inherantly sinful).
This leads to yet another SPECULATIVE question: why did God choose Adam to be in charge?
Was it because Adam was formed first? Maybe.
Or was it because Eve sinned first?
Wasn't Adam essentially in charge before the fall? Because why else would Eve be called a "helpmate" and not just a "mate". Wasn't she there as a support to Adam, not as a duplicate?
People only need support when they are in charge. Then they hire people like me to clean up their messes.
A very important (and very difficult) aspect of Biblical Interpretation (aka: hermeneutics) is to make sure that the definitions of CURRENT DAY language do not interfere with the original meaning of the words used in the BIBLICAl TEXT.
In order to accomplish this difficult task the standard hermeneutic practice is to see how a particular word is used by the Biblical writers. Thus we can see how they utilize the word and its implicit Biblical meaning. The perfect example is AGAPE in the New Testament. In the Greek cuture AGAPE had very little meaning and was rarely used. In the New Tesatment, however, it has an unbelievably profound meaning and is used 80% of he time we read 'love.'
This method is crucial in understanding "helper/helpmate":
The Hebrew word for helper/helpmate is the word "ezer" (as in Ebenezer). According to Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Tesament words, "Two-thirds of the uses of this noun have God as the designated helper, for he has the ability to save and deliver. 'I lift my eyes to the hills, where does my EZER come from? My EZER comes from the LORD, maker of heaven and earth (Ps 121)... With so may references to God as our helper, it is obvious that an ezer is in no way inferior to the one who receives help..."
So, according to my Biblical Languages Dictionary and this standard hermeneutic practice, the "helpmate" noun actually is an arguement for non-hierarichal equality.
I don’t see how God being masculine means that women are less. Perhaps our thinking of hierarchy as greater and lesser is part of the fall. Gen 2:18 God declares that He will make a helper for Adam. Not that they are not equal before God or they both don’t carry the attributes of God but they are to serve a different function. Eve was there to help Adam. If this was not the standard set by God then why does Paul say that sin entered through one “man”. It was the Woman who sinned first. But because Adam was in charge, he takes the full blame.
The Scriptures are recorded through culture and there are cultural differences to the way people act and the way they do things. Some of those things are just recorded as they way they did it back then. But some are recorded as the way it should be done. If we believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God then it would be safe to assume this is the way he wanted it to be. Perhaps, right from the beginning. Take for example 1 Peter 3, some have tried to reason that it was a cultural thing and it does not apply to us. But that puts us on pretty shaky ground. Again in Ephesians 5:23 Paul says that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. Is this because of the culture they are in? Or is this the way God intended it to be? I believe that the Word of God was written in culture but transcends culture so that the truth of God can come through.
Tim S.
PS. Sorry, after dry walling all day I had to engage in something intellectual. Thanks for the venue.
No worries, Tim. I love a lively debate. I created this blog to be a safe venue for stuff like this.
Also, I think it's important for me to say that, while I personally am an Egalitarian (complete M&F equality) I have no real problems with a respectful Complementarianism (M&F are 'equal' with differing 'roles' and the M 'in charge').
That being said:
First of all a question: If God himself is literally masculine how is it possible for women to be in his image?
Secondly, I don't find Eph5 to be problematic. Full context paints a picture of mutual submission. Often 5:21 is left out of the picture even though this verse is what leads into the whole discussion. The Greek is once again quite important. "Submission" here is a greek military word meaning that subordinates are to "fall in line." This begs the question, how do all of us "fall in line" TO ONE ANOTHER as vs 21 says? This mutual "falling in line" creates an interesting dance!
Thirdly, I don't find 1Pet3 to be problematic either. Once again, full context gives us a larger context for submission: all people within God's Body are called to submission; no one is exempt. 1Pet2:13-17 calls all believers to "fall in line" under Gov'ts. 2:18-25 calls slaves (we don't still endorse slavery like Paul and Peter did do we?) to "fall in line" under masters, 3:1 calls wives to"LIKEWISE" "fall in line" to their husbands and 3:7 "LIKEWISE" addresses husbands. Vs 8 ends this with a call to unity and love in the midst of all of this submission.
I believe the call of the Gospel of Christ is an holistic lifestyle of constant mutual submission. I believe that this is a greater call than simplistic patriarchal hierarchy. After all, Jesus makes it clear that some rules are permitted due to our "hard hearts(Mk10:2-9)." In this same passage Jesus also says (quoting Genesis) that husbands and wives are no longer two but ONE. How can there be hierarchy within a single entity?
I just don't think that simply "doing what the Bible says" actually does the Infalible Word of God justice. There are numerous other passages (ie 1Tim2 and 1Cor14) that we can get into but what often frustrates me is that people look to the controversial passages for guidance rather than seeing the bigger picture of God's redemptive movement in his loving interaction with his creation.
Let's keep the dialogue going!
And to you other readers, don't let us 'Tims' keep you from jumping in to the discussion:)
Here's a question that may not belong: should women be allowed to be pastors? Not just pastors of women's ministry and children's ministry, but full, all-out pastors who preach on Sunday?
Aaaah! At last the can of worms has been fully opened... I hope I don't spill them all over the place:)
Once again I need to make several disclaimers:
*These are my opinions and they do not necesarily represent the opinions/official stance of MBC or the BGC as such*
**I am admittedly biased: it was on this topic that my father did his Masters thesis, and it was on this topic that my mentor at Bethany did his Masters and is doing is Doctorate**
My opinion in short: YES!
In order to flesh out my whole arguement I'd love to have you read 3 or 4 books and a dozen or so essays... blogging it all is in no way satisfactory.
However, we can start here: the fact is that throughout the Bible we see Godly women who are Judges, Queens, Prophets (OT & NT-Acts 21:9), disciples (Lk 10:39 etc), and even apostles (Rom 16:7). Nor is it a stretch to point to Priscilla (with her husband Aquilla... word order is EXTREMELY important in Koine Greek) as a church leader.
All of these women were led by God into leadership roles. If God has already set a strong Biblical precedent of female leadership (keeping in mind how counter-cultural that is) I don't see why He wouldn't allow for it now.
I lean towards respectful complementarianism. There are inherent male/female differences that fit them for different roles. Ever read the book Brain Sex? (Can't remember the author) It is a secular book that shows the differences between the male and female brain and gives the implications of those differences. We are wired differently!
However, we all know couples where it appears she is a better leader and a better speaker then he is. And there are many very capable female leaders. And I believe God leads them to a place where they can use these gifts. But I do also believe over all that males are more naturally gifted for and comfortable with leadership.
One aspect seldom talked about in these discussions is children. I believe women were given gifting for child care in a different way than men, and if we pursue heavy leadership responsibilities in the church and/or the world, it really limits the time and energy available for family. The advent of birth control today has made it possible to put a family on the back burner when this was not possible for thousands of years, but if women renege on this priority I believe families and the world will suffer, and indeed are suffering. Many, if not most, social ills would be solved by women putting their leadership skills to use in the family.
Yes, both male and female attributes reside and have their source in God, and we as male and female bear His image, but there are differences, and only He can encompass them all. We need to embrace who we are and use the gifts He has given in the way that He intends.
I say male and female are equal, but not interchangeable.
Sorry it's so long!
Hmm, that was an interesting last comment. It may be that God has given most women the ability to be better child caregivers than men, but let's be honest, not all women are great with children and not all women want children of their own (and not all men are bad with children). Not only that, but God doesn't always grant women the ability to have children or families. (Yet that seems to be the expectation of today's church that women are around to get married and have families and often that's all they're good for.) So if God has given them the gift of leadership instead of a family, why must they always be expected to use that in terms of leading children?
When I talk about wanting to have a leadership role in a church, everyone always says "Do you want to be a children's pastor?" I don't mind running children's programs but I'd certainly rather preach or do drama or encourage people or usher or many other things. But because I'm a woman people think that's all I should be capable of doing and it seems rather demeaning if that's not what your passion is. (That being said, I am interested in a position as a children's worker at a local church but it's not working directly with kids so I should be okay.)
I guess I just feel that young women in today's churches are constantly bombarded with the expectation to become wives and mothers and aren't really encouraged to build their gifts in other directions. (Otherwise why would I be asked almost every week "Where's your man?" or "Didn't your husband want to come?")
It really does come down to the belief that men are superior and women are not complete without them. If men and women are equal in God's sight, and men are free to do what they want as single people, why aren't women allowed to be single as well? Why is there an expectation to only be child-rearers? On the other hand, if God is equally male and female is it true that a person is really not complete without a partner?
Sorry, another slightly off-topic rant.
I think you bring up an important point, Lisa. The complementarian stance on "roles" is workable and functional only so far as it is a GENERALIZATION. What do we do with the exceptions to the rule (ie. Deborah from Judges 5,6)?
God has clearly planted exceptions to the "roles" idea throughout the Bible. So while the concept of equal partnership with differing roles works well for the majority it is clearly not a divinely instituted "rule."
I think a key passage for this discussion is Gal. 3:26-29 (but read the whole chapter/book). This passage starts off with Paul saying (vs 15) "I speak in terms of human relations..." and then goes on to speak of the purpose of God's Law. Then, in the passage I highlighted he says that we are ALL "sons of God through XJ." Since we've been baptized into the Body of Christ there is no longer any basis for external judgements: "There is neither Jew and Greek [racism], there is neither slave and free man [slavery], there is neither male and female [sexism]; FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE (masculine singluar) IN CHRIST JESUS..."
The body of Christ was not to make judgements of any kind (including who was permitted to participate in ministry) based on race, social status, or gender. Just as we are all united as one through baptism so we are all one in Christ Jesus.
This theme is consistant with the whole of God's revelation. The passages we see Paul writing in 1Cor14 and 1Tim2 is him dealing with specific issues within a specific church at a specific time. In 1 Corinthians the issue is orderly worship. In 1 Tim the issue is heresy in the church. The rules he comes up with for those specific situation are not consistance with the whole of scripture... they are the exception to the rule.
I think that the "Lion" in God delights in exceptions. God is very orderly and lays down foundational laws in the universe, and then, lest we become too rigid and predictable and bored, throws out a few amazing exceptions- like making a bumblee fly when apparently it's impossible aerodynamically. We do have this tendency to become rigid, so we need to remember that the Lion is good, but not tame.
AMEN!
Post a Comment