Can God Give Birth? – Introduction

Exploring the notion of a divine feminine in Christianity & Mormonism
A couple of weeks ago, an LDS commentator brought up Genesis 1:26-27 and its application for traditional Christianity.1 This passage reads:
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.2
He seemed quite certain that this passage creates a problem for Christians which Mormonism neatly solves by teaching the existence of at least one divine female person, usually known as Heavenly Mother.3 In Mormonism, he argued, men are created in the image of Heavenly Father while women are created in the image of at least one Heavenly Mother. In contrast, traditional Christianity is stuck with an all-male or all-masculine God with few tools for explaining how it is that women are created in the image of this male or masculine being.
Or so he thought. The purpose of this series is to explore what both religions have proposed to explain this issue and share my own beliefs on the matter. It is my contention that those who conclude that the Bible teaches a strictly male or masculine God are in error and that Mormonism holds no clear advantage over traditional Christianity for explaining this issue. It is a problematic issue for both camps, but one can even make the case that Mormon theology is less woman-friendly than traditional Christian theology.
Some Notes on the Series
Let’s get a few things out of the way so that they don’t come up over and over again as we try to discuss this:
  • We are distinguishing between gender and sex. Sex “refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs” while gender “describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.”4 For example, Mormons believe that God the Father has the body of a man and is therefore both masculine and male. Traditional Christians reject the idea the God the Father has a body, so the only thing up for discussion is whether He is masculine, feminine, neither or both.
  • We are not discussing divine embodiment. That is a related issue, but I am doing my best to isolate the matter of God & gender in each religious system. The debate over whether or not God has a body deserves a discussion of its own. 
  • We are only discussing what it means to be made in “the image of God” in so much as it applies to gender. As an evangelical Christian, my interpretation of what it means to be made in the image of God is that it refers to humanity’s role as God’s authorized representatives on earth, or in other words, it is an affirmation of our dominion and authority over the earth. Mormons might agree with that definition, but most would also add that it refers to a physical similarity between God and mankind.5 For the purposes of this discussion, I’m content to let these differences stand.
  • I write from an egalitarian perspective. I’ve seen numerous Mormons across the Bloggernacle express outrage over Calvinism, calling it ugly and monstrous and saying that’s enough reason to reject it even if it is true. It just so happens that I feel the same way about any theological system which mandates the subordination of women to men. I’m wary of proposals regarding God and gender which can be used to support the idea that women are meant to take a subordinate role to men, and I will see this as a con to any proposed system which calls for such views. Such systems might be consistent, but I do not believe they are very satisfactory.
All that said, please remember that I have never taken a theology or philosophy class in my life. This series represents my own formative thoughts on the issue and I am very much a neophyte, but I am open to constructive criticism of and expansion on these ideas.
So, enjoy the posts.
———————————————————-
Other Posts:
  • Can God Give Birth? – Introduction – Exploring the notion of a divine feminine in Christianity & Mormonism
  • Can God Give Birth? – Part I – Traditional Christian theories on whether or not God is an essentially engendered being
  • Can God Give Birth – Part II – The biblical data on God’s gender
———————————————————-
[1] This happened during the discussion with diligentdave on the “How to Witness to Mormon Missionaries” thread. His first comment on the matter (now disemvoweled) can be found here. To read the comment in full with vowels, go here. It should be noted that I don’t believe diligentdave’s assessment represents the best Mormonism has to offer; I only bring it up because that’s how I decided I would write about this topic.
[2] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations for this series are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[3] Throughout this series I will often refer to traditional Christianity as simply “Christianity.” This is not meant to imply that Mormons are not Christians, it is merely a shorthand form of distinguishing between the two religious traditions.
[5] See James Patrick Holding, The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible, p. 12-15 for a discussion of this definition of “image” in contrast to the LDS view.T

Comments

Can God Give Birth? – Introduction — 5 Comments

  1. I’m psyched about this series. I took a couple courses involving feminist philosophy back in college, so I’ll do my best to contribute whatever abstract theories I can remember.
  2. Jack,
    This is so funny! I am currently writing this very minute a paper for a class in which I discuss the evolution of concepts of deity and divinity in ancient Israelite religion, and my focus is on the contributions of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly groups through their conceptions of gender, sex, physicality and anthropomorphism, and death. The paper first sets the stage by discussing current biblical scholarship regarding notions of polytheism, henotheism, monolatry, and monotheism, and then I delve into my discussion and arguments for how I believe the aforementioned groups shaped concepts of YHWH and contributed to the evolution of the idea of monotheism. I also go over Genesis 1 in some detail and lay out the issues for a number of texts relevant to this discussion. The paper looks as though it will be about 30 or so pages long, but it is by far the best thing I have ever written in my life. I wish I could get it posted before you write this series! Oh well.
    Best wishes,
    TYD
  3. I’m curious to see where this series goes since you spent this first post restricting and narrowing it. And I’ll go ahead and say it now that I’m not sure I will be able to abide by your rules of “what we will not discuss.” We’ll see.
    Now just a thought about “created in the image of.” We often call one of my children “Little Brian”—we share so many personality traits that she is almost a clone of me. So no, I’m not at all persuaded by diligentdave’s logic.
  4. Whitney ~ I haven’t taken any feminist philosophy courses, so maybe you’ll teach me a few things.
    TYD ~ Sounds like your project is a lot more ambitious than this. But you’re no doubt familiar with the feminine imagery for God in the Old Testament then. Maybe you can give us some feedback on that when we get to it.
    As it turns out, there’s a bit of feminine imagery for the Father in the New Testament in the form of James 1:15-18. I’m looking forward to discussing that.
    Brian ~ They aren’t ironclad rules, I’m mostly just laying them out to keep newcomers from trying to delve into those topics willy-nilly.
    I don’t really agree that a gender connection is necessary to be an imitation of something, either. After all, aren’t men and women alike supposed to be imitators of Christ? But you’ll find that some evangelicals (mostly complementarians) do believe that God is a strictly masculine being and they still think women are made in His image, so they don’t agree with dd’s logic, either.
  5. THANK YOU for pointing out that gender and sex are not the same thing. So many people can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that sex is biological and gender is social. I am planning on working on sex/gender issues for my dissertation, and it can be hard to communicate using correct terminology since “sex” usually makes people thing of “intercourse”, so I am excited to see how you handle it.
Categories: Read more »

Can God Give Birth? – Part I

Traditional Christian theories on whether or not God is an essentially engendered being
Let’s briefly outline the views on this topic as held by different types of Christians.
  1. God is masculine – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all specifically referred to with masculine personal pronouns throughout the Bible, therefore God is essentially masculine. Any potential feminine imagery for God is merely metaphor and does not convey any truths about God and gender.
  2. God is both masculine & feminine – Certain passages in the Bible refer to God with feminine imagery as well as masculine, and both men and women are said to be made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). Therefore, God is somehow both masculine and feminine.
  3. God is neither – Gender is a social construct and sex is a creaturely construct, therefore God has neither one of them. Most species in the animal kingdom have sex, yet they are not said to be made in the image of God, therefore sex is unrelated to what it means to be made in the image of God.
  4. God is feminine – God is better conceived as a feminine being than a masculine one. The conception of God in male terms came about due to the dominant patriarchal culture of ancient times so that the true nature of God was obscured.
If I have forgotten any significant ones, please let me know and I’ll add them.
View #1 is held by some (but not all) complementarians and male headship advocates, often as part of an argument for why men ought to have headship over women. Usually it is argued that women and femininity is a derivative of men and masculinity (1 Cor. 11:7 can be used to support this line of argument). However, because they are gendered beings (just as God is), women still bear the image of God.
Views #2 and #3 can be held by any Christian; there are egalitarians who subscribe to either view. View #4 is held by the more liberal feminist theologians and I won’t spend much time discussing it; it is virtually incompatible with inerrancy and therefore incompatible with evangelical Christianity. There are some noteworthy variations on view #2. For example, some argue that God the Father is masculine and God the Son is masculine, but God the Spirit is feminine.
In the Winter 2005 issue of Priscilla Papers, William David Spencer touched on this debate among evangelical Christians. He wrote:
God anticipated our confusion about gender, schooling Israel back at Mt. Horeb not to look for either a male or female when contemplating God (Deut. 4:15-16). Despite that warning, some religious gender hierarchicalists are arguing currently that God is somehow masculine, but not sexually male. Transgender advocates agree and add that they are also genders, but trapped in sexual bodies which need to be adjusted. For many hierarchicalists, the argument seems difficult to negotiate. Complementarians have always maintained this flaw in their system. They envision God as somehow masculine but not male—dividing gender from material sexuality. However, when the post-Michel Foucault transgender advocates employ the same argument, contending they are one gender trapped in the material markings of the other, these same complementarians recoil and reject the argument. One cannot have it both ways: either gender relates both to the spirit and the material or it does not. I have always been content to rely on the counsel of God through Moses and the words of Jesus that marriage is not an aspect of heaven or human resurrection (Mark 12:25), God as spirit does not have gender. That is a difference between God and Zeus. God creates and Zeus copulates. Instead, whatever is true spiritually about the triune God eternally in relationship translates itself sexually in the teaching tool of male and then female. However, God is supra-genderal. There is not consensus on this point, of course. Other egalitarians believe that God contains both genders and we humans reflect one or the other aspect of God.1
I currently favor view #2 with heavy sympathies for view #3, and I’ll explain why as this series progresses.
———————————————————-
Other Posts:
———————————————————-
[1] William David Spencer, “Editor’s Ink,” Priscilla Papers 19 no. 1 (2005): 3.

Comments

Can God Give Birth? – Part I — 9 Comments

  1. I think I agree with you on supporting 2 but possibly 3…I honestly hadn’t considered #3 in that context before, but I like it. My main catch is trying to decide what “supra-genderal” entails–is it all inclusive or a separate meta-analysis altogether (thereby making it #3)?
    I’m also thinking about this in the context of Plato’s Forms as described in The Republic. If there are perfect Forms of Masculine and Feminine, must they be separate or can they be united? Put another way, are masculine and feminine as expressed in our reality the imperfect reflections of one united Form, or two?
    And I also love the logical link to transgender issues. Transgender issues just fascinate me.
  2. Jack — A question and a request:
    1. Re option 1, could you point out an example of where the Holy Spirit is specifically referred to as male in the Bible? (In the New Testament cases that I’m aware of where a pronoun is used to refer to the Holy Spirit, the Greek pronoun that is usually translated as “he” can also mean “she” or “it.”)
    2. If it fits in with your thesis, could you say something about the nature of Jesus’ post-Ascension body? Since I don’t think anyone could credibly argue that in mortality Jesus wasn’t male, to what extent is that relevant to the nature of God now?
    (Transparency alert: The reason I’m asking about Jesus’ body isn’t so much because of the question at hand, but because when I’ve asked my evangelical friends about the current nature of Jesus’ body in other contexts, I’m unable to get a straight answer.)
    Looking forward to the rest of the series!
  3. Eric asks two very interesting questions.
    Jack, I’ll be patient and wait for later posts that explain why you favor #2 over #3, but thought it worth registering my doubts about #2 at this point. The logic of the passage doesn’t click in my mind: it rests on the assumption that “in the image of” entails gender, when it could easily mean nothing of the sort. To be clear, I have no problems with the idea of a being that is both masculine and feminine.
  4. Whitney ~ I kind of felt like Spencer’s response was an attempt to bridge views 2 and 3 with his “supra-genderal” statement. I think his answer leans toward #3 though.
    As I’ve studied this issue, I’ve been pretty fascinated by how LGBT advocates seize upon certain arguments. It’s an interesting controversy.
    Eric ~ Your questions:
    1. Usually the Spirit is described with neuter adjectives and modifiers in the New Testament (since the Greek word for “spirit” is neuter) and feminine adjectives and modifiers in the Old Testament (since “spirit” is feminine in Hebrew). However, in John 16:13, the text rather jarringly calls the Spirit ἐκεῖνος, which literally means “that male one.” The feminine is ἐκεῖνη and the neuter is ἐκεῖνο, so the author could have chosen one of those, but he didn’t. I believe there are one or two other verses that do this, though usually pronouns aren’t used of the Spirit at all.
    2. I’m going to do an entire post on Christ and what the Incarnation means for this question, so I’m not sure if I want to tip my hand and try to answer this right now. Will you hate me if I save it for that post?
    Brian ~ I have more reasons for supporting #2 than just Gen. 1:26-27. I agree that being made in the image of God doesn’t necessarily have to have anything to do with gender.
    Seth sent me a talk a few weeks ago by Wheaton’s John Walton on Genesis 1. In it he argues that the Hebrew word for “create,” bara’ (ברא), should be understood to mean “to give something form or function.” With that in mind, Genesis 1:27 would mean:
    So God gave humankind the form and function of bearing His image, God gave them the form and function of bearing His image, God gave them the form and function of male and female.
    The act of making humankind male and female would then be separate from the act of making them the image of God.
  5. Jack — I promise not to hate you. And thanks for the answer on pronouns. I really do want to do some formal study of Greek grammar sometime.
  6. I offered to teach Hebrew and Greek classes for anyone interested last year, but I had no takers…how can people not want to learn Greek and Hebrew…it’s just beyond me! Heh.
    TYD
  7. (Gen. 1:26-27). Therefore, God is somehow both masculine and feminine. which fits in with Geoff’s divine chorus image of God.
    I’d not thought of The act of making humankind male and female would then be separate from the act of making them the image of God. I’ll have to think more about it.
    I’m not sure it follows from that parallelism though.
    Interesting thoughts.
  8. I am looking forward to the next installment. I was wondering how or if your Trinitarian views affect what option you select. I find myself a solid 3 but find no reason to question the soundness of 2.
    The difference between 2 and 3 I think would be grounded on differences in what the image of God encompasses while I think that a 1 or a 4 could only exist with a flawed view of the Trinity. For example the Lutheran view of the “image of God” in man would, I think, force choice 3 while a “conservative” complementarian who holds to view 1 would be somewhat modalistic in his or her view of the Trinity.
  9. Heh, I’m looking forward to the next installment, too. I’ll probably finish it tomorrow evening. I have about half of it written right now, but I have to work tomorrow and take care of some of my daughter’s disability paperwork.
    Part II will probably be the last part of it I have time to do until after finals though. Things are really heating up on my schoolwork load.
Categories: Read more »

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity