Re-examining our core homophobia.
The family must be nurtured and defended. In my childhood, I never imagined how much change I would live to see in American home life. Today, even the definition of the word family is up for grabs. No-fault divorce, cloning and gay marriage - things unimaginable 50 years ago - have joined the host of forces intent on tearing down the foundation of society, the home. Properly understood, the home provides care for the elderly, protection and training for children, respect for both men and women, sanctity for sex, and love for all. It is such a remarkable institution that when the Apostle Paul wanted to describe the marvelous relationship between Christ and the church, he turned to the home (Ephesians 5:22-33). If you look in our current catalogue on Page 5, you will find that our mission statement includes "stressing a lifelong commitment to marriage and the Christian family."
- David B. Burks in the most recent Harding Magazine
Several other bloggers have commented on Dr. Burks's recent Harding Magazine article, "Re-examining our core beliefs." My participation in the discussion on other blogs has been limited to short sarcastic statements. I want to discuss the article (or at least one part of it) further here.
For obvious reasons, I choose to focus only on the above excerpted paragraph. The paragraph begins with an assertion with which, facially, most people can agree: "The family must be nurtured and defended." Sure. I want to protect my parents and siblings. I want to nurture my grandparents and care for them as they age. I want to guard my mother and sister from harm whenever possible.
But that's not what Dr. Burks means. Dr. Burks assures us that Harding is here to defend the family from Change and especially from no-fault divorce, cloning, and gay marriage. Eschewing history and the Bible, he nostalgically and naively looks back in time and sees an (imagined?) Epoch characterized by familial strength and purity, an epoch that will quickly be brought to a close if we don't act. The good old days are being challenged. And not by progress. Not by accident. Not in the interest of those trampled on and marginalized by Dr. Burks's 1950's-style Ward and June Cleaver white middle class suburban America (itself largely a fiction of Dr. Burks's imagination). No. Instead, a 'host of forces' has joined together, 'intent on tearing down the foundation of society.' And, though Dr. Burks does not say it, we all know how you respond to a host of forces hell-bent on destruction: you go to war.
Dr. Burks has painted a near-apocalyptic picture for us in the first three sentences of the paragraph. His portrait is of a lovely home full of happy, smiling Christians who are intentionally torn apart by the invidious forces of chaos, by those who would purposely shake the ground on which society stands. By faggots who want to marry. A dark picture, indeed. Something must be done. The foe must be defeated.
Thank God Dr. Burks has such high respect for the institution of marriage. Or does he?
Dr. Burks goes on to describe what a home should provide. Among the things provided by a home: "love for all." This is interesting because of the phrase's close position in the paragraph to the call for war against those who would dispute Dr. Burks's normative view of family. Maybe instead of 'love for all,' Dr. Burks means 'love for those on our side'? Love for those like us? Love for those in our families? Love for those who deserve it?
I may sound a bit harsh here, but I think it's important to point out what Dr. Burks is missing. He is forgetting that I (one of those intent on 'tearing down the foundation of society') am already a part of someone's family, that I am worthy of love and respect. He assumes that I, and others like me, have no respect for the family because I want to marry a man instead of a woman. He ignores the fact that, far from wanting to destroy the institution, I want to join it (albeit in a slightly different way).
He also seems to forget something else: since when is the family the basic unit of society? Since when is the 'one man, one woman, 2.5 kids in the suburbs' model the norm? Since when is marriage primarily and institution that teaches respect for both men and women? Since Adam, whose son Cain killed Abel? Since Abraham, who took a wife and then conceived a child by another woman? Since Jacob, who had children by 4 different women? Since the days of levirate marriage? Since Jesus, who (so far as we know) never married and who, at one point, seemed to turn his back on his own family? Since Paul, who declared that celibacy was preferable to marriage? Since the days when women were passed like chattel, sold to the husband who could best bring title and fortune to the girl's father? Since the days women were refused medicine during childbirth because it was God's curse that they feel pain during birthing? Since the days, not so long ago, when women were trained to be obedient and subservient to their husbands, not matter what? Since the days when, taking the words of Jesus literally, divorced was refused to any who could not prove marital unfaithfulness, even to the woman who had been beaten to a pulp? Which 'good old days' should we look back to, Dr. Burks?
Instead, I would argue that, for the Christian, the family is not the foundation of society. God is the foundation. For the Christian, care of the elderly, the training of children, the love of others is the job of the whole community and the individual disciple. For the Christian, there is no reason to fear gays and lesbians who would attempt to be covered by the civil law of marriage; there is only reason to love.
I don't want this post to be too long, so I'll close with this. I stumbled across another paragraph about marriage today while reading for a class:
Marriage [] bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. 'It is an association that promotes a way of life, not cause; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects'...Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.
This was taken from the majority opinion in Goodridge v. Dept of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court requiring equal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. Sounds like they know what marriage is, doesn't it? Are you listening, Dr. Burks?
- David B. Burks in the most recent Harding Magazine
Several other bloggers have commented on Dr. Burks's recent Harding Magazine article, "Re-examining our core beliefs." My participation in the discussion on other blogs has been limited to short sarcastic statements. I want to discuss the article (or at least one part of it) further here.
For obvious reasons, I choose to focus only on the above excerpted paragraph. The paragraph begins with an assertion with which, facially, most people can agree: "The family must be nurtured and defended." Sure. I want to protect my parents and siblings. I want to nurture my grandparents and care for them as they age. I want to guard my mother and sister from harm whenever possible.
But that's not what Dr. Burks means. Dr. Burks assures us that Harding is here to defend the family from Change and especially from no-fault divorce, cloning, and gay marriage. Eschewing history and the Bible, he nostalgically and naively looks back in time and sees an (imagined?) Epoch characterized by familial strength and purity, an epoch that will quickly be brought to a close if we don't act. The good old days are being challenged. And not by progress. Not by accident. Not in the interest of those trampled on and marginalized by Dr. Burks's 1950's-style Ward and June Cleaver white middle class suburban America (itself largely a fiction of Dr. Burks's imagination). No. Instead, a 'host of forces' has joined together, 'intent on tearing down the foundation of society.' And, though Dr. Burks does not say it, we all know how you respond to a host of forces hell-bent on destruction: you go to war.
Dr. Burks has painted a near-apocalyptic picture for us in the first three sentences of the paragraph. His portrait is of a lovely home full of happy, smiling Christians who are intentionally torn apart by the invidious forces of chaos, by those who would purposely shake the ground on which society stands. By faggots who want to marry. A dark picture, indeed. Something must be done. The foe must be defeated.
Thank God Dr. Burks has such high respect for the institution of marriage. Or does he?
Dr. Burks goes on to describe what a home should provide. Among the things provided by a home: "love for all." This is interesting because of the phrase's close position in the paragraph to the call for war against those who would dispute Dr. Burks's normative view of family. Maybe instead of 'love for all,' Dr. Burks means 'love for those on our side'? Love for those like us? Love for those in our families? Love for those who deserve it?
I may sound a bit harsh here, but I think it's important to point out what Dr. Burks is missing. He is forgetting that I (one of those intent on 'tearing down the foundation of society') am already a part of someone's family, that I am worthy of love and respect. He assumes that I, and others like me, have no respect for the family because I want to marry a man instead of a woman. He ignores the fact that, far from wanting to destroy the institution, I want to join it (albeit in a slightly different way).
He also seems to forget something else: since when is the family the basic unit of society? Since when is the 'one man, one woman, 2.5 kids in the suburbs' model the norm? Since when is marriage primarily and institution that teaches respect for both men and women? Since Adam, whose son Cain killed Abel? Since Abraham, who took a wife and then conceived a child by another woman? Since Jacob, who had children by 4 different women? Since the days of levirate marriage? Since Jesus, who (so far as we know) never married and who, at one point, seemed to turn his back on his own family? Since Paul, who declared that celibacy was preferable to marriage? Since the days when women were passed like chattel, sold to the husband who could best bring title and fortune to the girl's father? Since the days women were refused medicine during childbirth because it was God's curse that they feel pain during birthing? Since the days, not so long ago, when women were trained to be obedient and subservient to their husbands, not matter what? Since the days when, taking the words of Jesus literally, divorced was refused to any who could not prove marital unfaithfulness, even to the woman who had been beaten to a pulp? Which 'good old days' should we look back to, Dr. Burks?
Instead, I would argue that, for the Christian, the family is not the foundation of society. God is the foundation. For the Christian, care of the elderly, the training of children, the love of others is the job of the whole community and the individual disciple. For the Christian, there is no reason to fear gays and lesbians who would attempt to be covered by the civil law of marriage; there is only reason to love.
I don't want this post to be too long, so I'll close with this. I stumbled across another paragraph about marriage today while reading for a class:
Marriage [] bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. 'It is an association that promotes a way of life, not cause; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects'...Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.
This was taken from the majority opinion in Goodridge v. Dept of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court requiring equal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. Sounds like they know what marriage is, doesn't it? Are you listening, Dr. Burks?
posted by GR at 2/09/2006 10:32:00 AM
28 Comments:
Which 'good old days' should we look back to, Dr. Burks?
Instead, I would argue that, for the Christian, the family is not the foundation of society. God is the foundation.
Wow. A resounding amen, GR. I'm going to keep that whole paragraph about "which good old days."
As always, thanks. (BTW, as another seminarian who has moved into the Anglican tradition, welcome. You're loved, accepted and affirmed and I pray that your time among us--however short or long--will draw you into deeper relationship with Christ and his body on earth.)
GR,
the answer to your last question is NO.
you're obviously an extremely intelligent guy with an outstanding ability to express your thoughts (the paragraph about the history of "family values" is amazing). however, your tone gives me the impression that you're way too invested in Harding and the CoC. we can't change the place we came from, but you're in another place now. let it go!
properly understood, that is, if we want to be radical christians about this...i should hate my mother and father. and, neither should've i gotten married and had a daughter (so far).
we christians conveniently forget that the new testament isn't anywhere close to as family friendly as we want it to be.
fundamentalists will read the letter of the law in many places...but then when "we" come across the pauline and jesusian comments that might call into question our devotion to the family hearth, "we" quickly justify and allegorize those passages to take out the bite.
I made this point in another forum, and I'm not really interested enough to go and blog it myself, but I really believe it's worth repeating that the Core Values article in that magazine probably shouldn't be read alone. It should be read along with DB's favorite books. In the same issue, besides the Core Values, we also have DB's favorite books:
1) John Wooden, My Personal Best;
2) Gracia Burnham, To Fly Again & In the Presence of My Enemies;
3) Jim Collins, Good to Great; and
4) Donald D. Holt, The Heart of a Business Ethic.
In his reviews of the four, DB mentions only one in relation to the university, Jim Collins's Good to Great. Burks writes, "It is one of the best books I have read in the last five years. The applications are endless in terms of how we should deal with others, get the right people on the bus, and understand the importance of asking 'who' questions as opposed to 'what' questions. I loved his description of the hedgehog concept, which at the University refers to our basic mission of integrating faith, learning and living. He talks a lot about passion, and I believe he is right on target with his approach to leadership."
That review's emphasis on "who" instead of "what" suggests a lot about the purpose of DB's "Core Values," including why he circles the wagons around "the family." Likewise DB's avowal of corporatespeak "hedgehog concepts," which according to Collins' web site, is "an understanding of what you can be the best at" rather than some generalized notion of "being the best." Assuming good faith on DB's part extends to here too, such that when he says Collins aligns with Harding's mission, he means it. And Harding's mission, as articulated in "Core Values" aligns pretty well with Collins.
Finally, I don't buy the "DB forgets" line, GR—which you may have used for rhetorical understatement, but which buries what I think is really going on. Burks not forgetting anything. Rather, he's making a decision that x is meaningful and y is not.
I'm glad that this element of the statement in the Harding mag is being discussed.
My surprise at the mention of cloning juxtaposed to gay marriage in the excerpted quote at the beginning of your post is genuine, but upon further reflection, perhaps the juxtaposition is explicable in terms of fear of blurred boundaries...whether those boundaries concern personal/physical identity or gender. Boundaries must be policed, is the attitude, so we better gird up our collective loins to get the job done before all hell breaks loose and we find ourselves having to interact with people who don't fit our boxy little categories. Shudder.
All,
I just re-read my post for the first time. Sorry for the editing errors. I rattled it off pretty quickly.
Greg,
I'm not sure. I think DB may actually be forgetting (or missing) something. I honestly think Christians sometime forget that I'm just a guy; instead, to them, I'm a gay. Instead of being a person, I'm something more abstract, something threatening. I don't know if this is a statement of meaning or if DB just honestly forgets sometimes that there is something more going on here than the 'issue' of gay marriage.
JTB,
Blurred boundaries are the most frightening thing in the world to a fundamentalist. I mean, first cloning, then gay marriage, then what? We can no longer predict the future, we can no longer maintain the status quo, we can no longer keep women in their place.
You know, the boundaries first started blurring when Harding was integrated. Perhaps we should stop admitting non-white students again. Otherwise, who knows? Women may start preaching, and then we're f*&$ed.
Hey, you're right, man. I don't have a citation, but periodically Ben Witherington will talk about the idolatry of the family, and this notion that that families are somehow in themselves something that saves people rather than being yet another fallen human institution that needs to be redeemed by being subjected to Christ's Church.
Point taken, but I think "to forget" is too easily cast as being benign. It is true that "memory" is an active choice, something that takes effort, and if we cast "forgetfulness" as some negation of that, then I'm on board with you. When "forgetfulness" is on par with the batty declarations of my senile great-grandmother, however, then I can't give Burks that out. When someone must remember that you are real, that someone is already way too far behind on his ethical obligations toward the familiar or unfamiliar other.
I could be wrong, but this feels like a straw-man argument you've drafted here. You have found more in Dr. Burks' statements than I can find; perhaps I am a bit obtuse. I guess what I am saying is that I find your piece a wee-bit inaccurate: I think you are attributing to Dr. Burks something he has not articulated.
Of course, I am glad that you are sensitive to Dr. Burks' observation that the family (humanity?) "provides...love for all." For it no doubt proves that you will be loving toward Dr. Burks, protecting his right to his views (nostalgic and naive as they may be), honoring his freedom to disagree with you, defending his dated belief that there are ideals better than your own (or the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts).
I find it interesting that Ward and June Cleaver, or even Father Knows Best, are cited by those who are critical of American family life as idealized (by some) in the 1950's. The reference is so frequent as to be cliche, and therefore trite. For it is the critics who are suggesting that either television show was emblematic; it's not the traditionalists who pine for THAT kind of family life who hold those shows up as standards.
Family life is complex, gay or straight. The fact is that Christianity has claimed that marriage between a man and woman is sacramental: it symbolizes and embodies a powerful metaphysical reality. It "sacraments" something: it points to something that cannot be understood outside its hallowed form. And it is for this reason that homosexual marriage is forbidden in Christendom: It is not capable of being sacramental.
Of course, the Protestant response to this has been to deny the sacramentality of marriage altogether. But even my Episcopalian brothers and sisters, who believe (mostly) marriage is sacramental, have begun talk about a new sacrament, knowing, as they do, that homosexual marriage fails to connect the sacramental elements: Episcopalians have been talking about the Sacrament of Relationship. Interesting.
Is it wise to say that you want to join the institution of marriage, yet "in a slightly different way"? Is that not like asking to join a tennis club, where rackets and yellow balls are required to play tennis on the old clay courts; and that you would like to join the club in a slightly different way? What would the slight difference be? Would you like to use skates and a puck; would you like to use a frisbee and a hoop? No doubt these are only slight differences, but are not even the slightest differences actually major changes in the game of tennis: that you are not really playing tennis at all, but a completely different game?
I appreciate your candid struggle here. I really do, and I am moved by the restraint you show. You could be militant and righteous. You are neither. There is a humility in you; a healthy dose of self-doubt. It makes you more effective, I believe, in helping others understand your position. I have visited many times; I have read your letters to self and family. You do impress.
Peace always, with grace,
BG
Contratimes,
I was using Ward and June Cleaver as a proxy for a particular family construction -- I wasn't asserting that DB actually refers to the Cleavers as a model family. Also, I've said elsewhere that Ward and June are a fiction. In real life, very few (if any) families look like the Cleavers. But DB and others pine for that which the Cleavers represent: a suburban life with a working father and a stay-at-home mom who always wears her makeup and makes excellent chocolate chip cookies, kids whose problems are fixed with a simple conversation ending with a hug, men who make decisions for the family and women who smile and offer unwavering support. These types of families may sound nice, but they should not be viewed as the only 'Biblical' way to do marriage.
Family life is complex, gay or straight. The fact is that Christianity has claimed that marriage between a man and woman is sacramental: it symbolizes and embodies a powerful metaphysical reality. It "sacraments" something: it points to something that cannot be understood outside its hallowed form. And it is for this reason that homosexual marriage is forbidden in Christendom: It is not capable of being sacramental.
You basically said that Christians can't recognize same-sex marriages because Christians don't recognize same-sex marriage. Christians can, in fact, sacramentalize same-sex marriage, because Christians decide what is a sacrament and what isn't.
And last: your tennis analogy may be a good one. I would argue, though, that I'm not trying to play tennis with a puck and roller skates. Instead, I'm trying to play with a pink tennis ball instead of a yellow one.
Pink tennis balls? Why not throw in a rainbow-colored shirt instead of the club-mandated white, while you're at it?
I'm glad you brought actual biblical families into this. I am usually astonished at how unthinkingly heterosexual monogamy is cited as owning biblical precedent. Aside from the 'leaving and cleaving' (hey, 'cleaving'-'cleaver'...) at the beginning, there is very little that, when closely examined, strikes us CoC-ers as normative.
I think Pres. Burks did hit a few things right, and those are the nouns he uses to characterize what a family offers: care, protection, respect, sanctity, and love. The litmus test seems to be, given our circumstances, how do we best achieve these goals? Does gay marriage prevent us from achieving them?
Nothing he describes precludes gay marriage at all, with the exception of the phrase, 'sanctity for sex,' with which we return, as always, to a tunnel-vision view of sexuality, whereby an entire relationship is defined by intercourse.
We've talked the sex talk numerous times on this blog, and it probably isn't the time to dig that tunnel again. Suffice it to say, I agree that there should be sanctity in marriage, but I disagree that sanctity is defined in terms of intercourse alone, or that intercourse's part in sanctity is reserved for opposite-sexed partners.
It is unfortunate, though, that we fashion our fears of difference, of threatened masculinity, in terms that implicitly cast the Other as uncaring, unprotecting, disrespectful, unloving, and, finally, unholy. This is strong, but, thankfully, ultimately empty rhetoric.
Thanks so much for this post.
I wish that ContraTimes had spelled out why exactly why gay couples cannot participate in the sacramentality of marriage, instead of merely asserting it.
This is not a sarcastic comment. This is an actual question. Why not? Especially given the fact that "in Christ... there is neither male nor female"?
GR,
Perhaps you are right: I have merely asserted a tautology. OK. Now what? You assert that homosexual marriage can also be declared "sacramental" by the Church. While most churches do not believe that marriage is in fact sacramental, I will ignore your assertion that suggests I've argued tautologically and ask you whether the sacrament of homosexual marriage would be the SAME sacrament as heterosexual marriage. If a sacrament reveals, in the flesh, an inward, invisible or transcendent grace and reality, then what would the invisible reality be that homosexual marriages reveal to us? Would it be identical to hetero-marriage, or different?
You wrote:
Christians can, in fact, sacramentalize same-sex marriage, because Christians decide what is a sacrament and what isn't.
Do you see the problem with this? You've (partly) proven my case: the Church has said that homosexual marriage is not, nor ever can be, sacramental. But what you are also saying is that the Church can do whatever it feels like, and, no doubt, right now it should feel like sacramentalizing homosexual marriage. I said earlier that my church, the Episcopal Church, is already aware that the sacrament of marriage cannot be conferred, as sacrament, on homosexual marriage. The reasons for this are ancient and complex; and they are not rooted in prejudice, bigotry, homophobia and literalist interpretations of the Torah.
Brian, I am grateful that you would like more information on the sacrament of marriage. I would urge you to look for any work on the marriage sacrament, particularly that written in either the New Catholic Catechism, or the Theology of the Body (by Pope John Paul II). Interesting links abound on this topic, like this one.
Theology in the Christian sense is not about what God said in Scripture (assuming that God has in fact said anything in Scripture). That's for the exegetes to argue. It is not about what God did, for that is for the historians to divine. Theology is about WHY God said what He said; about WHY God did what He did. Theology is about apprehending the MIND of God. If God says that it is wrong for one man to kill another, the theologian does not argue over what God said: He argues over WHY it was said at all.
So, why are a man and a woman, TOGETHER, the imago dei, the image of God? Why did God make men and women different? Does a penis MEAN anything, or a vagina? Does sexual intercourse MEAN anything to God?
These are starting questions (though not the only ones) in the Theology of the Body. Our bodies MEAN something, irrespective of what we want them to mean (hopefully the reality and our desires are identical).
Of course, I am a child of the Dutch Reformed and Baptist traditions; an evangelical Methodist who turned Episcopalian and is now on the threshold of the Catholic Church. My sense of the sacramentality of ALL of life is acute and dynamic; and it is not reflected in most Protestant churches who distrust sacramentalism as Popish and even pagan. What a sad, costly mistake.
Thanks for the challenges, my friends. I am known for slovenliness (due to haste), so thanks for holding me to account!
Peace to you all!
With mirth,
BG
BG,
I've never thought that a man and a woman had to be together in order for them to be the imago Dei. I always thought that each individual human was created in the image of God.
Are single people not created in the image of God?
I recently had a very wearing discussion elsewhere concerning someone's assertions about what our bodies MEAN, and I don't really want to get into that again here. Except I will repeat that "in Christ... there is neither male nor female."
I do agree, however, that it matters WHY God (or the Bible) said x, y, or z. I think part of this discussion turns exactly on just WHY the Biblical writers said what they said about homosexuality.
Oh, and though you really asked GR, I will respond to your question and say that yes, I think the the sacrament of marriage would be the same sacrament, regardless of the genders of the people involved. (I dislike the term "homosexual marriage". It's just marriage.)
Brian,
Two things. First, there certainly is "male" and "female" in Christ; just look around. If you are indeed a churchgoer, then you've seen the body of Christ, and it is filled with men and women. The text you cite actually should read something like this: 'In Christ there is neither "Jew" nor "Greek"; neither "male" nor "female," neither "slave" nor "free."' In fact, we know that there were Christian slaves (cf. Philemon); there (still) are indeed Christian Jews and Gentiles (Paul defined himself as a Jew; Luke defined himself otherwise); and Mary was indeed a very female follower of Christ (and we see a woman, elevated in heaven, in the vision of St. John's Apocalypse).
Paul was merely suggesting that no ONE group had special salvation privileges before God by virtue of being a member of that group, particularly by name. Membership in heaven is not contingent on possessing any superficial qualifications.
As for the sacrament that you suggest would be identical in either homosexual or heterosexual marriage: What is that sacrament; what does it symbolize and what grace does it bestow that cannot be known outside of marriage?
As for the single person, you tell me: if "marriage" is a sacrament (as you suggest), then are you saying that singleness is non-sacramental? If not, what is the sacrament which is singleness; what does it teach (or does it symbolize the same thing as marriage)?
My point in mentioning the imago dei is to emphasize that the created order is intentional and purposive; there is a reason male and female compose the image of God. I've never said that singleness was not an integrated state; it just might not be the best state. Perhaps in a fallen world singleness might be the best state, particularly for someone who, like Paul, is going to totally sell out to God in all matters. But singleness is clearly NOT a created ideal; most single people yearn not to be, while those who take vows of celibacy do so against what the Church has defined as a natural and glorious inclination: vows of celibacy are deemed sacrifices, where sexuality and dreams are sublimated into good works.
I am sorry you were in a very "wearing" argument about these matters elsewhere. If this is too tiring for you, you have my permission to bow out. I am not here to add to your fatigue.
Peace to you!!
BG
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
BG,
Of course my point from Gal 3:28 requires fleshing out. I quoted it as a kind of shorthand. Obviously, men and women exist in the church. But I think that in Christ, the defining roles that have been imposed upon men and women by society have been overcome.
But, yes, thank you, I will bow out of this discussion for now, lest I be wearied again. :)
Peace to you, too.
As a theologian, or, more modestly and accurately, a theologian in training, I can confidently assert that there is no consensus in the field on imago Dei=male and female together. Barth asserts this as part of his theological anthropology, and he has been soundly criticized for it by many.
I'm curious about the theological implications of such an assertion myself. If male+female=image of God, does this mean that God in Godself is both male and female? Is this an assertion we have any grounding to make? Does this ever show up in the Christian tradition? Is this a divine characteristic that most Christians believe or would accept?
Jen,
Although I'm no theologian, and not even one in training, I like to play at it. The imago dei question fascinates me. Since God is spirit, the image we're discussing here is one of spirit, correct? Not one of body? So, I'm confused. Are we contemplating that spirits are inherently male or female? Or, male + female in the case of God? I don't really consider my spirit to have gender. I consider my body to have gender. And while I'm on this subject, Jesus came to this earth poor, Jewish, and male. Could he have come rich, Roman, and female and accomplished his task? Never thought that thought before. Good comments all on this post. Makes me think...and I like that.
Hi Mom,
I'm not sure my anthropology is as dualistic as all that. I think it makes a real difference which body we are: human, male, female...this is why the cyborg question is theologically interesting to me. All the same, I do think that the mistake in defining imago Dei as male+female is that it takes a quintessentially human thing and projects back onto God; or, as you say, God is spirit, that is, God is not defined by the bodily realities that we as human creatures are.
The question of embodiment of Christ is a whole 'nother can 'o worms, now, ain't it?
Pat and JTB,
Interesting comments. I chuckle a little when thinking about the consequence of the assertion that male and female together = imago dei. Is that not the same as calling God a hermaphrodite (comprising both male and female components) or an androgyne?
I tend instead to think that the individual soul (or body/soul) is made in the image of God. But if I assert that I, a male, am made in the image of God, and that you (Pat and JTB), females, are made in the image of God, am I not asserting the same thing, that there is something hermaphroditic about the nature of God? That God either is both male and female? Or should I say instead that God transcends the male and female?
Perhaps this is why JTB is onto something: to call male and female the image of God, to call the image of God "androgyne", is to make God into something that can be categorized in human terms. God, and the image of God, in my experience, tends to be more than that.
I am late to the party, again!
It seems that my suggestion that imago dei is male and female together has generated some conversation.
Let me first say this: Calling God a Spirit is also an anthropomorphism. It is to suggest that God is like humans in their allegedly 'disembodied' soul. Or, perhaps a really astute observer might suggest that it is a negative anthropomorphism: that God is just human without skin. Is this latter a suggestion that there is something wrong, unspiritual or untranscendent about corporality?
Yes, indeed, there is a long tradition in Christianity in which the Godhead is deemed male, exclusively. C.S. Lewis once pointed out that compared to God everything in the universe is female: that is, passive (receptive) instead of active (dispensing). But without giving my whole position away in one big apologia, let's just point out one thing: God, as God is known to us, does not exist in a place of non-relationship. In other words, God is involved in a relationship to something outside himself, something that is not him. Morever, he never is shown to present himself to us in pure transcendent terms: he always shows himself in terms of creation, in terms of categories of created things. What does this mean to us? What does this mean to him? What is creation, for and to him? Why did he create; and what analogy can help us understand God's relation to his creation and our relation to him?
Let it be understood: God is not immanent, at least in Christian thought. Christians are not pantheists, claiming that God is IN everything, or that God IS everything one touches, tastes, sees, smells, hears. Nor are Christians panentheists, where God is IN everything and OUTSIDE everything; that he is immanent and transcendent. To Christianity, at least the orthodox form, God is pure transcendence with active and intentional power to enter His creation as a part of that creation according to his fiat. He does not exist in things. He is apart, removed, outside.
Hence, is his image not a thing, but a relationship? Is it not a quantity, but a quality? These are the questions we must ask (in the obscuring dark). But, and here is the key question, what IMAGES or REFLECTS God's relation to his creation? What IS the analogy we use to understand what God's relation, or position, is to the creation he stands outside of?
This may be terribly philosophical, but it is not unimportant. It is the most important part of this discussion, which is ultimately whether homosexual marriage can be sacramental. That is the point at which I joined the conversation at the Gay Restorationist.
Peace to all of you.
BG
Some Christians are panentheists.
Hermit Greg,
Your claim is only partly true, I think. There might be Christians who are panentheists, but there is no orthodoxy that embraces this. I could be wrong. Is there a Catholic teaching that I don't know about?
One reason Christians are not panentheists is that Genesis (and John 1) indicates that God's creative fiat is akin to a man speaking: God spoke creation into existence. Hence, creation is not of God's substance or essence; creation is of God's concepts, his words. He remains outside of the creation: His "words" remain inside. And his transcendence prevents humans from turning objects in this world into idols, or, it at least means that such idols are empty of God's essence. That is why goddess-religions are condemned by the church as pantheistic, tending toward idolatry: they believe the things inside creation are divine, identical with the Mother.
Peace.
I'm not Catholic. I put no store in whether the Catholic church espouses a doctrine of panentheism. I said some, and I am wholly right about that. Besides a longstanding panentheistic tradition in the Orthodox faith, as well as the leanings that way of the Emergents, individual theologians have also argued in its favor, including Marcus Borg and Barbara Brown Taylor. Is that enough to qualify as, well (to put it mildly), some?
Hermit Greg,
I am pleased that you used Wikipedia for a source:
The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a doctrine called panentheism to describe the relationship between the Uncreated (God, who is omnipotent, eternal, and constant) and His creation that bears surface similarities with the panentheism described above but maintains a critical distinction.
That's not saying a whole lot. I think I've been accurate in using the word panentheist accurately and strictly; it seems that the Orthodox Church merely countenances a loose or fuzzy panentheism. But I'll grant that you are right, that there are Christian panentheists. Now what? Perhaps my error is using the word panentheist when I mean panpsychic. Who knows?
I would personally argue that Mr. Borg, a protestant and self-described liberal, is a heretic. Strong words, I know, but he doubts the essential aspects of the incarnation: he's a gnostic in postmod garb. I may be overstating it, but that's what I think (at this time). His essay reminds me of Bishop J.A.T. Robinson's "Honest to God," which was also an appeal to defining God in less --how shall I say?-- vertical terms.
Lastly, the distance between Marcus Borg and the Orthodox and especially the Catholic Church, is really quite vast. His panentheism is nothing like that which Wikipedia has offered re: Orthodoxy.
But, I will concede. You are right. I am wrong. There are Christian panentheists. I might even be one. But the questions about sacramentalism remain.
Peace to you.
Post a Comment
<< Home