Thursday, 09 February 2012
-
Can Women Relate to a Male Savior?
By Sharon at SheWorships
I know that today’s title is provocative, but I didn’t choose it for the purpose of provoking. Instead, I chose to address this question because it is one that some Christian women genuinely ask. In fact, a few feminist theologians have gone so far as to ask the far more provocative question:
Can a male savior save women?
From some of you, this latter question immediately seems absurd. To give you a little backdrop on its origins, the question is a response to the patriarchal perversions of Christianity and the sinful distortions by which Scripture has wrongly been used to hurt and oppress women. Some feminist theologians believe that these evils are the natural end of a male-dominated religion. And from such a perspective, it is difficult for some women (and men) to conceive of how a patriarchal religion could possibly be liberating for women.
I will leave the nuances of Christianity and patriarchy for another day. Today, I want to engage one aspect of the title question, an aspect that is relevant to all women, feminist or not.
Hebrews 4:15 tells us, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Likewise, church theologians have historically affirmed the fullness of Jesus’ humanity and the representative nature of his human experience. In St. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) he famously wrote of the debt that humanity alone owed but God alone could pay.
Inherent in both Scriptural and traditional statements about Christ’s humanity is the belief that Jesus was fully human and fully able to represent us in our own humanity.
And yet, Jesus’ human experience was not like that of many humans. For one thing, he never married, a distinction that separates his human experience from a large bulk of the earth’s population. But even more importantly, Jesus was a man. He never had the experience of being a woman.
Now the issue of Jesus’ gender is not important from the standpoint of salvation. Men and women alike are made in God’s image and have the same fallen natures. There is a commonality to being human that transcends gender, so it is not theologically problematic that Jesus can represent humanity.
For me, the more relevant question is that of relationship, of being known. When Jesus was on earth, did he really get women in the way that he got men?
The short answer to that question is yes. Jesus did understand women on the most personal level because he created us. Jesus knows each one of us intimately because he was there at our conception and he knit us together. He knew who we would be and where our lives would take us.
But over the last three months I have learned an additional way in which woman can relate to Jesus, in a uniquely female way.
After I became pregnant and began to experience the symptoms of first trimester sickness, my body’s changes came as quite as shock. As someone who has had NO major health issues my entire life, it was rather jarring to experience such extended nausea and fatigue. My body has always done what I wanted it to (except in the realm of athletics!) so these three months have represented a loss of control that I have not readily embraced.
This pregnancy has taught me, in a way that I did not understand before, that bringing new life into this world entails the laying down of my own body. To create new life, I must sacrifice my own comfort and well-being. But out of that sacrifice springs forth a new body and a new soul.
In this way, pregnancy is a beautiful analogy of Christ’s sacrifice. Though the pains of pregnancy and labor are nothing compared to the pains of crucifixion, it is nevertheless one of the closest pictures we have of what happened on the cross. In both instances, a physical body suffers in order that a new birth can occur. While there are plenty of other ways in which Christians can model this analogy (ie. laying ourselves down in sacrificial ways to bring about the salvation of others), it is rare that one’s physical sacrifice literally breeds new life.
Now, I don’t think that mothers have a monopoly on understanding the sacrifice of Christ anymore than married people have a monopoly on understanding Christ’s relationship to the church. However, I do think this is one area of womanhood in which we have a unique connection to Jesus. As I continue to endure the hardships of pregnancy, I can hear divine echoes amidst the illness. When I feel tired and cranky or nauseous, I can remember the sacrifices that Christ made to give me new life. As I experience my morning sickness and fatigue, I get to participate in a faint reflection of the same life-giving sacrifice modeled by Christ, all the while praying that my sacrifice leads not only to a new child, but one day a child of God as well.
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: sheworships
- Name: Sharon
- About Me: Sharon Hodde Miller is a North Carolina girl, born and raised! She is originally from Charlotte, NC, and she received her undergraduate degree and Masters of Divinity from Duke University. Sharon has worked for Proverbs 31 Ministries where she was a contributing writer to the ministry’s daily devotions and radio broadcasts. She has written for Relevant Magazine’s online articles, Lifeway’s Collegiate Magazine, Ungrind Webzine, and she continues to write and minister to women all over the world about being a Christian woman in an ever-changing culture. Sharon currently lives in Durham, North Carolina with her husband, who is currently pursuing a Master of Divinity at Duke Divinity School. If you would like to contact her regarding a speaking or writing opportunity, if you have any questions, or would like to submit a blog topic, please e-mail her at sharon(at)sheworships(dot)com.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 324 Views: 0 248436 Comments: 0 2719 View all posts by sheworships
Comments (57)
Interesting point. It's also something to consider that, in pregnancy, women experience an incredible connectedness with another being that is quite literally sharing their body with them. It would be difficult for most men to quite understand that. Conjoined twins would be the only analog I can think of right now.
Love this. I think this is part of the reason why it's important to have female religious leaders. When our male savior, traditionally "male" God, and religious texts written by men are filtered only through the viewpoint of male leaders down to lay people.....much of anything that resembles the female experience is lost.
Am I dying breed of women? I have NEVER once had an issue with God or Jesus being a male. I have never once questioned if a male savior/God could save me. It IS absurd.
I have never once felt belittled or held back or unwanted or less because God/Jesus & church leaders & Bible authors were male. Ridiculous!
You want to know who is ultimately responsible for the family unit as a whole in God's eyes? The man! Why the heck would I want THAT responsibility on MY shoulders?! It's enough for me to have my own life on my shoulders to answer to God for.
It isn't that I CAN'T or WON'T take that responsibility. I just fully accept God's plan. He is God & I am not. Easy to understand.
What @MyTwoCentss@xanga - she said!
Great post. I believe God has the best aspects of both men and women in Himself, so I don't have trouble relating to Him in that sense. Even if I did have trouble with it on an intellectual level, my experiences with Him have proven to me that He knows me intimately and loves me the way I need to be loved. While I relate to God as male, I know that when I need him to be, He is also the best of mothers. The bottom line is that he characterizes Himself as male, but he understands each gender intimately because He created us and gave all of us aspects of Himself.
This post is a testimony of how one's true religion, feminism, was justified by Jesus Christ.
I have problems with the concept of the Trinity, so to some extent can view it in detached mode. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The doctrine purports that Christ is both fully God and fully Man. To concentrate on the latter, means that along with natural and spiritual temptation (Hebrews 4:15) the man Jesus Josephson had a natural ignorance of some matters. He had probably never heard of the Olmecs for instance. He never knew what it was to be pregnant or indeed, old or a leper. He had probably never heard Gaelic or Norse or indeed, the Bushman clicking pronunciation. He was not a women that is true. Neither was He a Sub-Saharan African, a trans-Alpine European, an Apache medicine-man or a Japanese emperor. He did not know what it was to be a heathen warrior, howling into his shield and yearning for Valhalla. He was of a specific gender, race, class and religion. Conventional wisdom in the main-stream has it that he was unmarried. Allowing that, he did not know what it was like to be a mother but neither did he know what it was like to be a father.
However, such experience or knowledge is peripheral to the human experience. By "fully Man" is meant the essence of humanity, the human experience. The use of the capital for "Man" here is warranted. He was fully human and experienced the fullness of being human. He was tempted and being a man He knew sexual desire, one of the most powerful if not the most powerful human experience.
My point being that majoring on what human peripheral He had not experienced that was unique to a section of humanity, such as being female, old and decrepit, or a Gaul fearful of the capricious gods, does not invalidate His role as fully Man.
To major on what He was not is to miss the point and to focus on what is temporary about Man or humanity if you will. The Trinity focus on His humanity is the focus on what is permanent and universal about humanity. To ignore that for the temporary is to focus on a peripheral, to adore a shadow; in other words, idolatry.
@Lovegrove@xanga - Well, I had to check out your site. This was a most interesting comment....
Oh, dear. I got sidetracked. Again. Really enjoyed your post, Sharon. I fear if I were to put some of my own thoughts down, you would come to realise that I am, in fact, the loony Lutheran of the bunch...
@Kellsbella@xanga - I'm tired of the shallow level of theology commonly banded about, especially from evangelical Protestants but not only. I'm not a trained theologian by a long shot, but the arguments seen on Xanga at least and by so many public figures, especially on what one bible text or the other means or doesn't mean, appears as if they have adolescent script writers. No wonder I gave up.
@Kellsbella@xanga - Nice to have you subscribe. No point in my reciprocating for obvious reasons. let me know if you will, if you decide to write something.
Lovegrove says that I should post my thoughts. Okay, here we go. I kind of feel that Jesus was married to Mary M. and did procreate. I mean, it was the Jewish custom. I also don't feel that this would have upset the Trinity as part of being human is procreation. I sure hope I didn't freak everybody out totally 100%.
@Kellsbella@xanga - He was a devoted religious ascetic with a wandering ministry, it seems.
Just like the Essenes. There was a lot of it going on, or not as the case may be. Therefore, it is more likely than not, that he did not marry. Religious ascetics tend to give things up to attain a "higher" level of consciousness. But as you intimate, it wouldn't make a difference to his ministry, except he'd leave a widow and orphans to fend for themselves.
@Lovegrove@xanga - There is a book I would love for you to read. It is called Jesus & The Riddle Of The Dead Sea Scrolls by Barbara Thiering. She's a bit out there for me, but she actually hits upon some of the feelings that I have on this. I understand your argument about religious ascetics, but, from what I have read, they limited their "intercourse" rather than become like a monk. No offense to the Catholics, but it (abstinence) seems to be an unnatural practice and I would think God is of the Laws of Nature.
@Kellsbella@xanga - If one keeps to "natural practices" to be spiritual, then one would slaughter one's enemies and take all their daughters away for dubious purposes. And why not? If it was good enough for Moses (Numbers 31) then its good enough for me.
What comes natural for Man on the whole, is best avoided.
@Kellsbella@xanga - Your book reference sounds interesting according to this critique. I'll keep my eye open for it.
Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls"We once quoted James Charlesworth as referring
to scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls who are confused or perhaps even
"insane". I thought he only meant John Allegro of “sacred mushroom”
fame, until I read Thiering’s
. Now, at least, I know there’s two people in that subset.
Words cannot describe the breadth of astonishment I feel at the
bald historical revisionism, the outright oddity, of this book’s thesis;
moreover, I am astonished that a respectable publisher like
HarperCollins would print this, but I suppose the Almighty Dollar is a
most persuasive god to serve.
What’s the bottom line here? Thiering relies on certain basic assumptions that no respectable scholar would accept:
<li>That certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls are to be dated much later than they are presently, into NT times;<li>That Christianity and the Qumranites were pretty much one
movement, prior to the advent of the church, which distorted the
message; and,
<li>That the NT (notably the Gospels and Acts) were written using an esoteric method of exposition that, once we know the key, reveals a history of Christianity and Jesus totally unlike that we know.
Needless to say, almost no support is offered for the first two
suppositions; one would hope for an entire book’s worth of arguments in
order to overturn the present monolithic consensus in the matter. As for
the third, Thiering relies upon a backwards form of a eisegetical
interpretation method used by the Scrolls people called the “pesher”
method. Basically, the interpreter read an OT passage and interpreted it
in light of current events - so that Habakkuk’s pronouncements, for
example, actually referred to the Roman occupation. Similar methods are
often used today by people who interpret the Book of Revelation.
Thiering, appropriately enough, rejects such interpretation, but
then goes on to suggest - based on the highly questionable Christianity =
Qumranites equation, that the NT was written as a “reverse pesher” that
reveals a true history of Christianity. I need not go into many details
here; the peculiarities suggested by the “new history” include, for
example, the idea that Jesus was actually crucified at Qumran, along
with Simon Magus (who is described as “Pope”) and Judas Iscariot. From
there, it's less credible as we go along. Thiering whisks her way
through
her new history, never stopping to offer sufficient documentation; what
little documentation is offered mostly comes from displaced NT quotes,
her own works, and from the works of similarly questionable sources like
Carmignac.
Of greatest concern to the Christian reader is how to deal with
"people who believe that Thiering’s material actually has some substance
to it. My answer is the same as for those who adhere to the Christ myth:
Present the Gospel clearly, then leave. Then, find someone else to
talk to whose mind has not been affected by this and similar material.
Jesus has very feminine characteristics for today's society. He would be more feminine than masculine. He is anti violence, anti retaliation, pro love, pro cooperation, pro sharing, and infinitely forgiving. Those are not traditionally masculine traits in our society.
If anything, I think men have an extremely hard time relating to Jesus. Look at people like Mark Driscoll. Look at Christian men who think women shouldn't dress provocatively.
I have read countless Christian ideas that men are attracted visually and it can't be helped. But Jesus said NOT to look at anyone with lust.
I think Jesus is more female oriented than male oriented.
As I posted above, I do believe she is quite out there. But, never fear; I will not let my own convictions in my beliefs be swayed by a book. I am sure I interpret very many things in a different manner than most people. For instance, I had to teach the story of Jonah to my 1st and 2nd grade Sunday School class. I don't interpret that story as a fella being swallowed by a whale. But guess what? That's exactly the way I taught it. I suppose as long as the final outcome to my conclusion of my interpretations is well with God, then all is well.
@ShimmerBodyCream@xanga - Being a gentle soul does not mean one is effeminate in any way.
@Kellsbella@xanga - Watch yourself even with the youngest of listeners. Whales can't swallow people is one common retort. Best to introduce kids to interpretive methods asap. Otherwise, you'll get asked the question i asked at my first and last Sunday school class "where did Cain get his wife?"
@Lovegrove@xanga - I didn't mean to imply Jesus was effeminate, I'm saying he is more relatable to women than men if anything.
@ShimmerBodyCream@xanga - I didn't think you did. I just couldn't think of a more appropriate word. :)
The world is full of gentle men and always has been.
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - well said, and i agree.
@Lovegrove@xanga - I will not teach what my interpretations of a big fish are. I focused on Jonah's unwillingness to obey God's wishes. I did do my Stuart from Madtv "I don't want to" imitation, because I'm a bit silly. We tend to do a lot of singing and role playing and artwork in my class. Oh, and getting outside. Cause it's fun. I know I'm probably your nightmare as a teacher but I do think I get the message across.... I hope.....
@Kellsbella@xanga - I'm sure you are an excellent teacher. I like children myself. They're great with potatoes and apple sauce.