Professional Documents
Culture Documents
htm
July 9, 2002
The footnotes are dynamically linked. Click on the
number to read the footnote, and click on the footnote
number to return to the text at the reference point.
1 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
With this paper, I hope to move the conversation forward along the lines
that Dr. Scaer has identified. I proceed on the assumptions that 1) God is
male (a point to which I will return) and 2) the male/female dichotomy of
the Scriptures is NOT the product of history’s sustained oppression of
women (an article of faith). I therefore do not expect to provide a
definitive answer to theological feminism, since these assumptions make
my entire line of thinking impossible for feminists to accept. I do hope,
however, to consider the maleness of God and its implications in a way
that attempts to escape cultural perceptions of gender, all of which are
rooted in sin.
Missouri’s Feminism
Scaer rightly observes, "We are only deceiving ourselves if we believe
that the LCMS has not been affected by feminist thought." 2 Who can
argue with that? Voices/Vision believes that the Missouri Synod’s
prohibition of women’s ordination must be subjected to "dialogue and
discussion."3 This group actively seeks
The Daystar Network shares this call for change, setting up its straw man
with the following assertions:
2 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
Professor Todd points out that "the woman question" has been part of
synodical conversation in Missouri since 1938.11 But don’t let the
apparent longevity of the conversation fool you. Theologically speaking,
Missouri’s feminists have likely only begun to fight. If their agenda
mirrors that of their counterparts in the Church at large, it will not stop
short of "a thoroughgoing revision of traditional Christian doctrines and
symbols."12 In other words, women’s ordination might not actually be the
goal of Missouri’s feminists, but only a step along the way toward
something much more Canaanite. For this reason, the Missouri Synod
must confront feminism as a whole, and not only insofar as it manifests
itself in her midst.
3 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
But before this male God self-incarnates, He first creates. His act of
creation is as inevitable as His redemptive act of incarnation, because of
the sense in which the perfect God remains incomplete apart from His
creation. God must both create and redeem because He depends on His
creation for the full expression of who He is:
God is love (1 John 4:8), and like hope, love requires an object. In order to
be and to do that which He is, God has no choice16 but to create a
recipient of His love. And so God creates humanity. This humanity defines
God insofar as it is the highest object of God’s devotion. By comparison,
nothing else matters to Him—not even His own incarnate existence, as
the crucifixion so graphically demonstrates.
God creates Adam, the perfect image of the perfect God (imago Dei),
perfect in holiness, speech, contemplation, love, etc. But perfect Adam
shares the perfect God’s sense of incomplete definition: Adam is love, but
Adam has no recipient of his love. "It is not good for the man to be alone"
(Genesis 2:18), so God then creates for Adam a perfect and flawless
creation. In this creation, the image of God is individually made
manifest—as it is in Adam—through attributes completely unique in all
the rest of creation: holiness, speech, contemplation, love, etc. (imago
Dei).
By creating Eve, God also completes Adam’s own created existence. Eve
is created, not that she may love Adam, but that Adam may first love her.
Eve is the image of God precisely because she is the image of God’s
creation: that which God loves above all else. Just as humanity completes
the expression of who God is, Eve likewise completes the expression of
4 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
who Adam is, because she is created for Adam to love. Eve’s love is by no
means inferior or incidental, but her love is a receiving love, a
reciprocating love, a love that glories in being loved. "We love [God]
because God first loved us" (1 John 4:19). The reality that woman is
dependant on man loses all sense of inferiority or oppression in the
realization that man is likewise completely dependent on woman. Adam
comes, not to be served, but to serve. He cannot serve without Eve.
The creation of two distinct sexes suggests that man and woman together
comprise the image of God. If God’s image consists merely of physical
perfection, holiness, etc., then we may content ourselves with the
assumption that Adam and Eve each individually bore His image, even in
the hypothetical situation that they may have parted ways as soon as Eve
is created. But if God’s image indeed consists of His perfect love and its
expression in a recipient, then the image of God is fully manifest only in
Adam and Eve together. Adam alone is not fully in the image of the
Creator because Adam alone has no one to love. And the fact that God is
male and Adam is male in no way suggests that Adam’s image of God is in
some way superior to Eve’s (a point that cannot be repeated enough).
Rather, Adam and Eve’s unique place with respect to each other and
distinct from each other fully and corporately expresses the divine image.
When the image of God is lost in the fall, not only do Adam and Eve lose
their individual attributes of this image, but they also lose their corporate
ability perfectly to express God’s love. The divine gift of marriage remains
as a skeleton of this expression, but marriage, too, must hope for
redemption. This redemption that redeems everything (including male
and female and marriage and conceptions of gender) later becomes
anticipated in the mark of circumcision. Circumcision is, as Luther says,
"imposed by God until the coming of Christ."17
But why choose a uniquely male act for the covenantal mark?18
Commenting on Genesis 17:11 Luther connects the circumcision
commandment to Adam’s sin:
5 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
punishment.
Could this, then, indicate another reason for the uniquely male act of
circumcision, beyond the reason Luther gives? If this covenantal mark
truly is an anticipation of redemption, as Luther repeatedly states,20 is it
not possible that the act also indicates the anticipated uncovering of that
which has become covered through sin, namely, true maleness in the
image of God? A covenantal mark is not necessary for Sarah and her
daughters because true femaleness stands and falls with true maleness.
The receiver cannot catch a football that the quarterback fails to throw.
Love cannot be received (femaleness) when love is not first shown
(maleness), but both reception and reciprocation are made possible only
by love’s re-establishment.21 Thus, circumcision’s anticipation of
re-established love, when fulfilled by the incarnation of Christ, includes
both man and woman, precisely because the mark is given only to the
male.
6 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
The more attractive option for biblical feminists is to develop the early
Church’s premise that God is beyond gender, even if they do in so ways
that explicitly reject the original intention of the premise. For example,
Letty Russell builds on the presupposition that God "is beyond sexual
distinctions"27 by suggesting:
7 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
The early Church set forth the philosophical presupposition that God is
beyond gender in order to respond to the acute problem of Arianism,
which claimed that the Father created the Son. As William Weinrich
summarizes,
"It was, in fact, against the heresy of Arianism that the Church
most clearly detailed its belief that the Triune God is
transcendent to all creaturely categories, including that of male
and female. The Christian Church does not worship a male god,
nor does it worship a female goddess.
"This does not mean, however, that the Christian does not
worship God the Father and God the Son. For very decidedly
the Church does worship God the Father and God the Son. The
prophets and the apostles and the Church have simply been
careful to remove God from any notion of father as a physical
progenitor."29
Yet this philosophical presupposition that God is beyond gender not only
opens the door to such revisions as those suggested above by Letty
Russell, but it also prevents the maleness of Jesus from playing a central
role in the question of women’s ordination. We are then left to dabble
around with prohibitions and with "orders of creation" arguments, all of
which merely scratch the surface of theology and none of which burrow
to the core of all theological argumentation: Jesus Christ the God-Man.
For this reason, I suggest a different philosophical presupposition, which
in no way contradicts the witness of the Scriptures: the Triune God is not
beyond gender, but He is male, and this quite apart from all "biological
and cultural distinctions."
8 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
But what exactly is the connection between the maleness of Jesus, the
apostles, and by extension, all pastors? It does not seem too difficult to
surmise, at least on the surface of things, that they are His
representatives.31 When they speak His words and distribute His gifts,
the Church receives these things in precisely the manner described in the
Catechism: "as from God Himself, not doubting, but firmly believing,"
and, "as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself." Thus, the
Catechism identifies corporate worship as the connection between Jesus,
the apostles, and the entire Office of the Ministry.
9 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
this destroys the created fact, "male and female He created them"
(Genesis 1:27). As I have attempted to show here, it is for reasons of
grace and mercy that God creates and redeems in this way. To lose sight
of the distinction between male and female, created together in the image
of God to portray the image of God, is to lose sight of the Triune God
Himself.
ENDNOTES
10 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
11 de 12 20/10/07 15:52
Sermons and Papers http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/malegod.htm
12 de 12 20/10/07 15:52