I have been thinking a lot recently about the role and expectations on women in life and in the church (see previous posts) and there has been something bugging me. It has often been said in the church that Jesus understands every temptation and struggle/suffering that we can endure as humans. Now correct me if I am wrong but Jesus was a dude. He had a penis and not a vagina so therefore he has never experienced child birth or period pain (both real suffering by all accounts). He has never felt what it was like to be the voiceless of his generation or the sexually promiscuous of ours. He has neverr been in fear being raped on a date or even struggled with heart ache in the same manner as a woman does. He would never have been tempted by the hot boy on the basketball team or felt the intensity of love for a child (or the intensity of pain if that child is lost). In short, we can only safely say that Jesus understands and relates to half the population of this planet past and present.
So where does this leave the believing woman? How can such a large proportion of the planet follow a God and a Saviour who, really, has never had to bear their burdens? Granted God talks a lot about being like a mother to wayward children, but in reality the best female understandings of God we get are metaphorical in nature. The only physical representation we have of God is in Christ and that has the potential to alienate half the globe. What would it feel like for men if they were walking into a church every week that celebrated a female incarnation of God and how would they be able to relate to that? How are we to reconcile Christ with womanhood?
It has also become apparent to me in thi how much I would have preferred being a man, something which I beliee has been subvertly taught to me. There are very few strong female role models, and an awful lot of bimbo ones. Our lives are shaped by how we look, our bodies, our faces and our clothing. We are judged on our appearances more often than our brains, not to mention the monthly cycles that are such a hassle and cost so freaking much!! The joy of bringing life into the world is overshadowed by the pain of it. And all of this in contast to how easy it would be to be male, how many strong men their are out there who are applauded for their strength (yet on the flip side there are many missing fathers too.....).
I am frustrated (you may be able to tell haha) and have no idea how to teach a new generation of women how to be strong leaders without falling into the trap of sounding like a man hating, bra burning, lesbian feminist. I don't want to sound like that at all! Yet how do e point out the flaws in how are women are treated and portrayed in the world in a way that is intelligent, passionate and yet loving and focused on growth?
Hi Christine, I think the church Fathers helped when they specified that Jesus became fully human (the word for human and not male) in the creeds. They understood the identification had little to do with gender.
ReplyDeletebut sarah, how can he not have had a gender identification when he was in body a male? unless he was somehow less than a man, or more than a man? and this is why christology does my head in!!
ReplyDeleteGood on your for blogging again Christine.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Christine. I think that if Jesus' humanity had little to do with gender then his incarnation was not an incarnation of our particular humanity (unless gender is a total construct). If the incarnation wasn't to our particular humanity, then it was not our particular humanity that was redeemed. Gregory of Nazianzus' famous quote "that which is not assumed is not redeemed" has some major implications for the particularity of gender. I don't think the issues are insurmountable, but they are issues
Andrew Picard