***************
When humanity realized that God was not a woman I’m sure it was scandalous and made headlines all over the world. “Extra, extra! Read all about it! God is NOT a woman!” Believe it or not, people used to imagine that God was a woman who gave birth to us – humanity. Imagine that, life coming from a woman’s womb! But, I’m sure glad we got God’s gender cleared up because doesn’t it make so much more sense that life would be generated from a man creating things externally with his hands - instead of a woman generating us from her very being (in her likeness)?
Jesus must not have heard the news about God’s sex change because he was still talking about people being born from God, and all that jazz. That must have made for some awkward conversations between his disciples,
John: “Shhh, don’t tell him. He seems so happy.”
Peter: “I know, but it is so embarrassing!!”
Mary Magdalene: “Shut the hell up, boys!”
Judas: (ringing hands thinking about the financial gains of a new reality show called, “God: Male or Female?”)
(Poor Judas. He gets such a bad wrap since that REALY BAD decision! I guess sometimes there are no second chances.)
Anyway, I’m sure God doesn’t really care what people think her gender is because we’ve been talking silly-talk since the day we were born. I’m sure she’s used to it!
***********
To read more about second chances, please check out some of the recent posts by Grace at LFNJ. She is a wonderful writer with great stories.
23 comments:
Ah, you're so sweet! I feel so special being hosted on your site! I'm always checking your blog because I enjoy your perspective and writing so much.
Thanks Katie!
Thank you for your thought provoking conversation pieces and for taking the time to write.
This is Mike, and I hope you first know I think the world of you. If you would rather I not comment on your blog, just give me a call and we can talk instead. In respect to this article, I have a couple of questions meant in the most sincere tone (I know internet is poor at communicating tone of voice).
1. Katie how do you presently feel about Jesus? I know you have claimed to believe in Christ & the Bibles' testimony of him and have been fruitful in his ministry in the past - I am just making sure that this is still your perspective. If not, then no problem - I have would just have different questions. If so, then continue...
2. I know you did not write this article, but clearly embrace its ideas. That being given, what role do the books of the Bible play in contributing to your perspective?
3. Can you honestly say that if the Bible made claims that God was a woman, you would still be antagonistic toward the idea that she was a woman, and post a similar message claiming he was a man? If not, then you are being inconsistent in your logic and your motives are in question.
4. If the Bible claimed that God was a woman, while at the same time maintaining that Christ is to take a "bride" for himself as the culmination of human history - would that make him homosexual? Is so, are you prepared to proclaim him as such.
5. Clearly the idea of Christ (a man) taking a bride that collectively is made up of both men and women has a divine mystery about it. Certainly as well, both men and women were clearly made in the image of God. The question is what does that mean? Where might one look to discover if there is anything to know about what the image of God (the Christian God) might be?
6. Finally, the ultimate question is whether or not your motives for stirring this pot are for the "building up of the body of Christ in love" or that your words might be "for the edification of those who hear"?
If so, then I think that maybe you can communicate your issues in a less antagonistic and more loving manner - so that others might join hands with you in resolving some of the inconsistencies of Christianity. The desired "end" should be to help one another develop more into the likeness of Christ - not to break it down first. (I know this was not your article, but I am speaking of the Blog as a whole). If not, then what are your motives?
To paraphrase Martin Luther,'Like it's bridegroom Christ, the church is bloody, dirty, humiliated, shamed and broken.'
If it were not so, that sinful people are most welcome to be in relationship with Christ, then we have no gospel.
I love you and respect you. You are a wonderfully gifted and beautiful person. I only wish that you would use your energies for more positively.
Katie - Sorry, Im an idiot. My computer disconnected 4 times while I was writing. I had no idea it was going to post 4 times. Please delete. Mike
Dear brother Mike,
I'm not Katie and don't claim to speak for her, nor do I believe I know you, but I feel, as someone who may represents a differing opinion and as someone who claims to belong to Jesus that the content of your argument invites a response.
I understand from the thrust of your six theses that Katie's link to Grace's post challenges your image of who Jesus was, but especially IS. I would challenge you to be aware that there are many varied persepectives on Jesus that perhaps you have not been exposed to. Sometimes we forget this -- or are not aware -- because we have been surrounded for so long by people who only agree with our interpretations and share our perspectives and worldview. This is a sociological phenomenon that is true for any Christian group.
Second, the same principle, of course, applies to the readings and understandings of the books of the bible. I would surmise that Christians in Venezuela, for instance, practice their Christianity -- and interpret their bibles! -- very differently than you and your tradition do. Just a guess.
What I will call your "3a" point is a false dichotomy. The choice is not between a "male God" and a "female God". God, according to the scriptures, is spirit and sexuality is a human phenomenon. Additionally, this exposes a presupposition on your part that the bible claims God is male. I would challenge that. Lastly, on 3a, I would suggest that you not read Grace's post so literally. She is using the image of God as female as a literary device to do exactly for the reader (you) that I am doing using another literary device: logic and reasoned rhetoric. I chose this form of rhetoric because your post was infused with it, so I thought I would respond in kind. We should both keep in mind that the Bible itself uses many varied forms of literary devices, many of which we very often fail to acknowledge.
Regarding 3b, regarding the emphasis on the "bride of Christ" as specifically female, frankly I just find this silly. I know of no one who twists their reading of Paul to insist that the church, itself, has taken on human gender. Surely we both can agree that the verse is infused highly with metaphor and this would make your argument moot.
In the absence of your point 4, I proceed to point five and suggest that your question (which, it is important to note for clarity, is clearly loaded to reflect your own interpretation of the argument) is well covered by my critique thus far: there are many varied interpretations of scripture (and many leading theologians, such as Phyllis Tribble and others, who come to different conclusions than yours on the "imago dei" passages), different understandings of Jesus, etc.
Friend, as for point 6, the article was not directed at any specific group or individual. It is a critique of mainstream Christian culture and thought which typically has created itself in the image of male to the express exclusion of women. Sometimes those critiques need to be pointed and brazen: please look to the prophetic traditions in our own scriptures for examples, including our Lord and Paul! Motives here, and again I don't speak for Katie, could be very much towards a clarion call for the church to be what it should be: a witness to the liberating power and holistic salvation offered by God's inbreaking kingdom through Christ. Luther, himself, was a striking example of just this approach. I doubt you would regret the outcome of his use of this approach even though it, by definition, fractured, rather than built up, the body of Christ.
I encourage you not to challenge the faith(fulness) of those who do not share your doctrinal opinions. Certainly a case can be made that your approach and line of questioning here is to force Katie "in" or "out" of your specific understanding of what Christ's body is. That certainly is not edifying.
Blessings in Christ,
Matt Westbrook
(friend of the Pattison's and spouse of Grace Westbrook)
Now now, do we really need to revert to name calling "fundamentalist"? - how quickly we categorize and divide - surely this is not how the Lord intended us to build one another up.
My hope was sincere dialogue. If I ever do decide to write here again, I would appreciate it if you would let Katie answer for herself. I must have misinterpreted what I thought this blog was. I heard one day my friend Katie had a blog - so I found it. If its some sort of online community - wonderful.
I apologize for even mentioning that the logic of Grace's article could have been tainted in any way. I should have known better.
Logistical and rhetorical tennis will just lead to endless arguments which will end nowhere and accomplsh nothing. No one here is questioning the mystery of God's nature as spirit, nor the gender of spirits in general, nor the gross mistreatment of women on multiple levels throughout history and today. My questions were about God, the bible and Katie - not women. Those are great issues which I am sure are discussed in other areas of this site.
For the rest of you - If you would like to dialogue on something I am would be grateful to hear from you about, I have a couple simple questions.
1. What role (if any) should the Bible play in forming a responsible understanding of Jesus and God?
2. Are the motives which drive some of these discussions reflective of Christs exhortation to build one another up in truth and love? Who is 'one another'? I am not questioning your motives, just asking if I am way off in feeling a disconnect here.
On the moot side point of whether or not the Bible attests to God's gender - I hope that we will understand in heaven, it truly is a mystery. All I know is that there are feminine pronouns in both Greek and Hebrew and no where are they used of God in the Bible. I don't care at all if God is a man or woman or both or neither. It just seems that Jesus addressed God as 'father' instead of 'mother' or 'hey you big spirit'. Which leads me to think that if someone was proposing with any sort of dogmatism that God was a woman - it would seem that their motives were in question - thats all.
Most importantly - for God's sake, please don't accuse me of questioning Katies faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am an eye witness of her faith. I asked at the onset of this discussion to assume the best of my intentions - apparently that is more difficult than I hoped it would be (and I am surely to blame as much as anyone).
I am here, listening to all of this and smile - BIG. I have not thought through my response, you will are receive one. I look forward to thinking this over tonight and posting or emailing some notes.
I love you all. Thanks for getting into it. I love it! And, for the record: I always hope to be interpreted out of love and not ever just for the hell-of-it. Blogs are a wonderfully terrible forum. They allow semi-anonymous journal-like writings while being totally public at the same time. Please forgive me if I ever step on your toes...but let me know too so I can apologize.
I was writing too fast and used the wrong words in the comment above, can you understand me? (Duhh, this is why blogging makes me crazy!)
Brother,
Regarding language: Sophia (the LXX translation of wisdom and is personified and associated with the deity) is feminine.
Old testament God-employed metaphors include God self-identifying as "a hen gathering her chicks".
Isn't it intriguing that the whole metaphor of "new creation" in the NT, through Jesus, is associated -- not with a male-like approach of artisanship (creating with the hands) that we find in the first creation, in Genesis, but with metaphors from the (usually strictly) female body?: rebirth, born of water, being now called "children of God" through this rebirth, etc.?
Again, think Venezuela.
As for your comment:
"No one here is questioning the mystery of God's nature as spirit, nor the gender of spirits in general, nor the gross mistreatment of women on multiple levels throughout history and today. My questions were about God, the bible and Katie - not women."
This, of course, is exactly the point. For too long have questions of God, the bible and specific individuals (women like Katie) been separated from those other categories you mention. We are trying to show that they are connected.
As for heaven being a mystery on the topic of gender, I suggest that it is not. Jesus explicitly tells the Pharisees that they are silly for not knowing that "in heaven, there will be no giving of people in marriage", i.e.: there will be no marrying because there will be no gender. This is why Paul can build a corresponding theology of "neither male nor female". The Kingdom of God inbreaking among is should mean that the church is a sign and symbol of what that future will look like, a testament to a world that wants to dominate, exclude and chariacature. These discussions are important and the nuances, if missed, will usually miss the whole point. It is in this vein that I do affirm to you that our (my) motives are to build up the church by calling it to its true nature as a sign and symbol. Without the prophetic voice it simply will reflect the dominant power group. [This is historically demonstrably true and is why disgruntled and former Christians such as Karl Marx and F. Engels can have a gripe against the church. I just wrote a paper on the topic that suggests that their disenfranchisement with Christianity, among other things, led them to find other means of deliverance from domination: atheistic communism.] One simply cannot take away this important tool of the church without rewriting most of scripture (and church history). Again, I ask that you reflect on the process by which you can even hold the views you do: you can do so only by the prophetic process of the Reformation.
Lastly, I can't respond to your questions because they still appear to me to be explicitly attempts at apologetic "evangelism" -- a reason/rhetoric device used to frame the conversation to a pre-determined logical conclusion. As you suggest, I simply may misunderstand your motives. But please forgive me as I have been burned by those with motives less sincere in this process too many times. And, indeed, have burned others likewise through the same means. If you were to ask my "how do you use the bible as a person of faith?" I might be able to respond. Combining it with #2 seems to weaken your claim on innocent motives from my limited perspective (and sorry if I am misreading them).
PS: Blogs are normally considered public forums. Without any guile, may I suggest that if you don't want others to read or respond that you use email as your mode of correspondence? I apologize for intruding and I hope you understand that my comments were never intended to be in place of Katie's response. I would not want to be the male mouthpiece for any female on this issue.
Blessing in Christ,
Matt
Wow, all this hype because of little ol' me? I'm so glad that I've provoced such a wild and passionate response (I guess). It shows there is still a lot of work to be done and I'm on the right track.
Hi Mike,
I am the “pot-stirring” culprit – not Katie. I, too, thought you were questioning the authenticity of her faith and found this unfortunate, especially because that provocative piece was not even written by her.
What if she just found it entertaining, or interesting, or curious? And so what if she found it to be a genuinely important critique to the long-standing assumption that God is male? Does it really upset you that a woman may find comfort in the imagery of God is a birth-giver instead of a crafty work-man?
Your response to my piece was typical in the Christian tradition I am from. They would have responded to me exactly how you did. I have since found solace in other Christian communities where it is not the norm to be so openly hostile toward women or the idea of them symbolizing the sacred. And you were, in fact, speaking and reacting to dialogue about women - not just God and Katie. Why are you surprised that her other friends would post their opinions to her blog, as you have? Did you expect all her friends to share the same opinions on things? (My tone is sincere.)
What I find so fascinating in your long and passionate response to my short and provocative piece is that you raise the issue of “the body of Christ” as a rhetorical response to my assertion that God may be more easily imagined as a female than a male. But even more compelling is that you paraphrased Luther by saying, 'Like it's bridegroom Christ, the church is bloody, dirty, humiliated, shamed and broken. You remind us that Paul imagines the church as a female and God as a male. (This is apparently an important inclusion for the avoidance of homosexuality by God).
The association of women with physical, bodily matter is not a new thought but an ancient one that dates back to Plato, at least. Plato associates women with the physical/material realm in opposition to the spiritual/mental spaces that men employ. Of course, these two realms are not without hierarchy and we know which one dominates over the other (or should, at least). Paul adopts this worldview in his imagery of the church as a female “body”, the “head” of which is Christ – her male authority.
Following Plato (and before Paul), the Hebrew codes of conduct treated the body as a site of pollution, especially as it relates to the female physical realities of sexuality, reproduction and the blood of menstruation. Women were, because of their bodies, excluded from holiness more often than men were and men were excluded if they became tainted by her dirty, bloody, unholy presence.
If imagining God as a woman brings to your mind “bloody, dirty, shameful” bodies then I recommend that you don’t. I believe God does not differentiate between our bodies and minds, males and females, and moreover, is not threatened by our examination of our forced gendering on her/him.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that I love my bloody body because I know that the blood that flows between my thighs in not the source of filth, shame, or unholiness on earth but instead it is the very source of life. Unfortunately, I have had the experience my body as a site of “humiliation” and “brokenness” when it comes to male dominated communities of Christian faith.
I hope you consider my thoughts and experience as a tool for re-examining your strong reaction to idea of the feminine as a posotive symbol of the sacred (Spirit).
..."positive" that is.
...and "provoked"... oops... shoulda spell check I guess...you get the point.
I would also like to point out how interesting it is that what is in question here is NOT the fact that I have taken sympathy with the man why betrayed our Christ to his death or that Mary Mag. would say "shut the hell up".
Hmmm.... thinking...
ya, I can't spell.. it's not exactly 7pm here on the east coast.
Well,
I'm sorry. I love you all. Please forgive me for all my apparent ignorance. Before I leave you, let me encourage you to pray deeply about who the real 'enemies' may or may not be in this life and if people like me are one of them.
"We are in a war to cast down every high thing that exalts itself against the one true divinity which is the mind of man." - Karl Marx.
Thank you all for participating. This was the first time anything like this happened here and it made me shake all over with nervousness and smile with joy that I have such intelligent and passionate friends. I will probably not post or comment all the "answers" I have to questions raised, but if you're interested I would be more than happy to discuss them. Just let me know.
I love you all!
(And as John would quote from WW, "let's let our legacy be that we raised the level of debate in this country." Or something like that.)
We'll raise the level of public debate in this country and let THAT be our legacy.
John
John, you made me laugh out loud when I read that. :) :) :)
Season premiere, tonight!
West Wing fans,
I heard Larry O'Donnell -- MSNBC news analyst, West Wing producer, Bartlett's father in one of the last episodes of Season Two -- interviewed on Air America the other day. He says that on November 6th the West Wing will feature a debate show between the Republican candidate played by Alan Alda and the Democratic candidate played by Jimmy Smits. O'Donnell said it would be a debate Americans have been waiting for. But here's the kicker: the episode will be totally live and not all of it will be scripted! The producers are working to secure a moderator, someone O'Donnell says has a lot of experience moderating presidential debates.
John
Omigosh! That'll be sweet!!!
I missed the first week because I hadn't heard that the switched the TIME as well as the day. I turned the TV on at 9 and found out I just missed the show.
Damn.
Post a Comment