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:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity