![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gender and divinity
This spring I audited a theology class at the GTU called Gender in Greek Patristic Thought. Something like that. It ended last weekend. Basically, we looked at what major Eastern theologians in the early centuries of Christianity had to say about gender. We ignored Augustine, thank god, because he's part of the Western church tradition. This course consistently challenged me and got me all worked up theologically. Just when I feel like throwing in the towel on Christianity, I read some theology and discuss with thoughtful people and I come to realize that there's much to cling to in the Christian faith. I am especially indebted to the teacher of this course, a feminist Greek Orthodox woman, and the brilliant and thoughtful Byzantine Rite monk fellow student.
It is clear from reading the Eastern Fathers (the only ones I will reference) that gender does not matter ontologically. While there may debate about when the gender division occurred (was it God's plan from the beginning? Pre-lapsarian? Post-lapsarian?), no one denies that gender exists currently and that gender division causes division in general, but also none of the Fathers believe that gender has spiritual significance. Both sexes are created in the image of God, and based on such scripture as Matthew 22.30 and Galatians 3.28, gender will cease to be important once we die. While being male or female is part of who are here on Earth - try to imagine who you'd be in the opposite gender, for some this isn't all that difficult, for others it is a huge challenge - we are called to transcend our gender, not because gender is wrong or sinful, but because it isn't the most complete aspect of our authentic selves. Gnostic thought that the flesh is a hindrance to our knowing the Divine was solidly refuted by early Christianity. The idea that Christ was eitherwholly human or wholly divine was negated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, stating that Jesus was wholly both. This affirmed the incarnation which is quite a progressive theology, really; God is fully present in creation, thus things fully created have the potential to be one with God. Flesh is not some dead weight dragging us down into this world (as if this world is so awful). The point of the Christian path, especially in the East, is to grow closer and closer to the Divine, to participate fully in the Divine life. However, we will continue to grow in God even after death, so gender is clearly not what is essential about ourselves.
While none of the Fathers did a good job of applying this theology to lived conditions, it is still a very postive theology. I struggled a lot with the limitations of the Fathers. If they're so progressive then why didn't they rock the boat more in their own day? (And why don't we?) One thing to consider is that idea of roles were much more ingrained then. Hard to believe, but true. Order of all kinds was of the utmost importance. What is interesting in the Fathers' statements about gender is that they called for equality in treatment and standards. Sexual purity was not a concern only for women, but men were to be held to the same standards. Women alone should not be punished for adultery (as dictated by the civil law). I don't consider the Fathers to be as pro-women as some people do, but I do think they are worth studying and not just tossing aside as Grand Patriarchy like so many feminist scholars do.
Going back to theologies of gender, to pursue the idea that gender doesn't matter in the afterlife raises an interesting idea. In the gospel reports of Jesus' resurrection it is clear that his loved ones did not recognize him - not Mary Magdalene, not the male disciples. Something about Jesus was unfamiliar until, presumably by grace, he was revealed to them. This makes me wonder if his "gender" was more blurry, if he was somehow more authentically Jesus. The gospels reveal that he still had form; he was touched for proof, yet perhaps he retained more human characteristics because we humans are so limited in our sight. I like to think that Jesus in his resurrection became Jesus but More So. Familiar, but unfamiliar. If his humanity transcends gender yet retains his essence, then we too are called to grow into our fullest, most authentic selves, which will ultimately transcend our physical bits and gender programming.
This also has implications for my thoughts on Mary. Mary has long been the pinnacle of all things Feminine, usually to the detriment of women. Some theologians (especially among some hard-core Roman Catholics and Russian Orthodox) see Christ as the ultimate archetype of Male and Mary as the ultimate archetype of Female. This kind of thinking rests on a gender-essentialist paradigm, in which women ought to embody the Female, achieve their fullest expression of being through being a Woman and are made complete by Man; the inverse is true for men. For many reasons this is limited thinking and limiting to men and women.
I have long been annoyed at what feels like a completely patriarchal Trinity. In recent years I have become a fan of the Trinity, appreciating its mystery and relationality. But it appears to be dominated by male language. God, though theologically determined to be of no gender, is reflected only in male languageand imagery, Christ is male because he was incarnated into male form, and the Holy Spirit is well, mostly neglected. In this lesser position the Spirit is occasionally referred to in female terms. People then say "Hey! But the Holy Spirit is feminine, right? Quit your whining!" I have often thought it would be great to elevate Mary to an even higher status, so that we might have a God/Mary/Jesus trinity. But this only solidifies gender-essentialist ideas of divinity. Mary would be the feminine contrast to Jesus' maleness. Helpful though this is in visuals (humans come primarily in two sexes, it is nice to see both in artistic renderings), it is unhelpful spiritually. No one wants to be bound to being Male or Female, certainly not in their souls. If Jesus transcended his gender and became More Fully Jesus in his resurrection, then Mary, by virtue of being the only other human to achieve complete divinization in her lifetime according to Christian tradition, also transcended her gender. She is no longer the pinnacle of femininity but a shining example of Humanity. The Eastern Church does a great job of keeping their theology of Mary focused on this universal aspect. Sadly, with all of their quite liberating ideas, they are still mired in gendered and traditionalist ideas of what it means to be a man or woman in this world.
I am still mulling all of this over.
It is clear from reading the Eastern Fathers (the only ones I will reference) that gender does not matter ontologically. While there may debate about when the gender division occurred (was it God's plan from the beginning? Pre-lapsarian? Post-lapsarian?), no one denies that gender exists currently and that gender division causes division in general, but also none of the Fathers believe that gender has spiritual significance. Both sexes are created in the image of God, and based on such scripture as Matthew 22.30 and Galatians 3.28, gender will cease to be important once we die. While being male or female is part of who are here on Earth - try to imagine who you'd be in the opposite gender, for some this isn't all that difficult, for others it is a huge challenge - we are called to transcend our gender, not because gender is wrong or sinful, but because it isn't the most complete aspect of our authentic selves. Gnostic thought that the flesh is a hindrance to our knowing the Divine was solidly refuted by early Christianity. The idea that Christ was eitherwholly human or wholly divine was negated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, stating that Jesus was wholly both. This affirmed the incarnation which is quite a progressive theology, really; God is fully present in creation, thus things fully created have the potential to be one with God. Flesh is not some dead weight dragging us down into this world (as if this world is so awful). The point of the Christian path, especially in the East, is to grow closer and closer to the Divine, to participate fully in the Divine life. However, we will continue to grow in God even after death, so gender is clearly not what is essential about ourselves.
While none of the Fathers did a good job of applying this theology to lived conditions, it is still a very postive theology. I struggled a lot with the limitations of the Fathers. If they're so progressive then why didn't they rock the boat more in their own day? (And why don't we?) One thing to consider is that idea of roles were much more ingrained then. Hard to believe, but true. Order of all kinds was of the utmost importance. What is interesting in the Fathers' statements about gender is that they called for equality in treatment and standards. Sexual purity was not a concern only for women, but men were to be held to the same standards. Women alone should not be punished for adultery (as dictated by the civil law). I don't consider the Fathers to be as pro-women as some people do, but I do think they are worth studying and not just tossing aside as Grand Patriarchy like so many feminist scholars do.
Going back to theologies of gender, to pursue the idea that gender doesn't matter in the afterlife raises an interesting idea. In the gospel reports of Jesus' resurrection it is clear that his loved ones did not recognize him - not Mary Magdalene, not the male disciples. Something about Jesus was unfamiliar until, presumably by grace, he was revealed to them. This makes me wonder if his "gender" was more blurry, if he was somehow more authentically Jesus. The gospels reveal that he still had form; he was touched for proof, yet perhaps he retained more human characteristics because we humans are so limited in our sight. I like to think that Jesus in his resurrection became Jesus but More So. Familiar, but unfamiliar. If his humanity transcends gender yet retains his essence, then we too are called to grow into our fullest, most authentic selves, which will ultimately transcend our physical bits and gender programming.
This also has implications for my thoughts on Mary. Mary has long been the pinnacle of all things Feminine, usually to the detriment of women. Some theologians (especially among some hard-core Roman Catholics and Russian Orthodox) see Christ as the ultimate archetype of Male and Mary as the ultimate archetype of Female. This kind of thinking rests on a gender-essentialist paradigm, in which women ought to embody the Female, achieve their fullest expression of being through being a Woman and are made complete by Man; the inverse is true for men. For many reasons this is limited thinking and limiting to men and women.
I have long been annoyed at what feels like a completely patriarchal Trinity. In recent years I have become a fan of the Trinity, appreciating its mystery and relationality. But it appears to be dominated by male language. God, though theologically determined to be of no gender, is reflected only in male languageand imagery, Christ is male because he was incarnated into male form, and the Holy Spirit is well, mostly neglected. In this lesser position the Spirit is occasionally referred to in female terms. People then say "Hey! But the Holy Spirit is feminine, right? Quit your whining!" I have often thought it would be great to elevate Mary to an even higher status, so that we might have a God/Mary/Jesus trinity. But this only solidifies gender-essentialist ideas of divinity. Mary would be the feminine contrast to Jesus' maleness. Helpful though this is in visuals (humans come primarily in two sexes, it is nice to see both in artistic renderings), it is unhelpful spiritually. No one wants to be bound to being Male or Female, certainly not in their souls. If Jesus transcended his gender and became More Fully Jesus in his resurrection, then Mary, by virtue of being the only other human to achieve complete divinization in her lifetime according to Christian tradition, also transcended her gender. She is no longer the pinnacle of femininity but a shining example of Humanity. The Eastern Church does a great job of keeping their theology of Mary focused on this universal aspect. Sadly, with all of their quite liberating ideas, they are still mired in gendered and traditionalist ideas of what it means to be a man or woman in this world.
I am still mulling all of this over.