As the media coverage lessens, I wanted to focus a little bit more on some issues of theology as it relates to transgenderedness. I'll look at some of the issues that surround the topic, and as much as possible present all the ways the verse might be interpreted, not just those that would support one side over the other. If you have a verse or issue you'd like me to look at, leave it in the comments section and I'll try to get to it.
I thought I'd start with the question "What Gender or Sex is God?" The question is relevant as we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27); called to be transformed into the likeness of His Son (Romans 8:29); and are being transformed into an image of His glory (2 Corinthians 3:18). First off, it is possible that Genesis 1:27 tells us nothing about God, as we do not know to what degree we are made in His image. We could be made in his image in terms of character, but not in our sexual or "engendered" natures of male and female. I would have some real problems accepting this view, as verse 27 itself refers specifically to male and female forms. Also, some specific verses (like 1 Corinthians 11:7) seem to draw a specific connection between sex and the image of God (although I'll be the first to admit that verse is difficult to interpret).
Excluding the possibility that our sexual natures are something not related to the image of God, we are left with two interpretations. The first (I'll call it the "Traditional" interpretation) is that God is masculine. The second possibility is that God transcends descriptions of sex and gender. The first interpretation is better supported if the Hebrew "Adam" in Genesis 1:27 is translated as "man" not as "mankind" (different translations treat this word differently). This interpretation would consider man as made in the image of a masculine God, and woman made in the image of man (not as an image of God in her own right). This also seems to be the line of logic suggested in 1 Corinthians 11. Of course, if you take this viewpoint on scripture, a number of dictums naturally come with it, such as male headship in the church. Based on the very few female clergy in the Free Methodist Church, this may very well be the position they take. Of course, then the question of "what does it mean to make ourselves transform or conform to the image of God?" becomes quite problematic. Are women supposed to be more like men to better reflect the image of God? I have heard nobody who suggests such a thing, but it seems to follow from the above logic. That is unless of course, you mean that women are supposed to be like God only in character and are doomed to inhabit a body which is not made in God's image.
The second position is that God transcends gender. If you are asking why I don't include the possibility that God is strictly feminine, it is simply that it goes against too much of what you find in Scripture to really be supported ("Our Father, who art in heaven . . . " etc.). Oddly enough, 1 Corinthians 11, which I said above seems to take the logic of the first position, also contains things which might support the second (Hey, I warned you it is hard to interpret). 1 Corinthians 11 describes God as the originator of all things, in the same way that man "originates" from (is born of) a woman. God certainly has many attributes that we might call more feminine that masculine, such as compassion and grace. If you take this view, conforming or transforming to the image of God is something that people may pursue with their whole being, whether masculine or feminine, male or female.
I'm sure some stumble over the fact that Genesis 1:27 says God created them "male and female" and that anywhere "in between" is anathema. To that, I'd say, this was a verse referring to before the fall, and now we have very hard to dispute middle grounds, like true hemaphrodism. I don't know anyone who would claim that Christ didn't die for hemaphrodites, though I'm sure there are some extremists out there. If transgenderism, is "hemaphrodism of the brain" can we not accept it at the worst as a result of the fall? At best, it might be an expression of the image of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I am sorry you are having to go through this process of searching. God Bless
To the person who left the comment above: Why is having to go through a process of searching something for which to feel sorry? After all, it is only those who seek that find, right?
Josh, Julie, thanks so much for what you're doing. In the interest of disclosure, I'm Ally, I'm transgendered, and I'm in Christian ministry. I came out to my family last year, and I'm planning to transition (with their full support) at the end of this year. Your courage and conviction are inspiring to us!
Now, as to the issue at hand... It seems to me that whatever Genesis 1:27 says about humanity and God's image, it says it equally of males and females. The parallelism of the Hebrew verse here (a nearly universally acknowledged Hebrew literary convention) requires that the reader understand both the male and the female as being made in God's image. Whatever aspect of God exists in people by virtue of their divine origin, it exists in all people, regardless of biological sex.
As far as God's sex or gender, it's worth noting that the issue is primarilly a hermeneutical one. It would seem that interpreting gender-specific passages as implying God has a literal sex is hermeneutically on par with interpreting Psalm 31:5 ("Into Thy hand I commit my spirit") as implying he has literal hands or 2 Chronicles 16:9 ("For the eyes of the LORD move to and fro throughout the earth...") as implying he has literal eyes. All of these are examples of anthropomorphisms, metaphors that help us understand aspects of God's being by comparing him to a person.
What this leaves us with is a God who does not have a biological sex, but who in fact chooses to identify with a particular gender (in this case, masculine). Why he would so choose is an interesting question, but the fact that he makes a choice is far more relevant, I think, to the issues confronting transgendered people.
(I apologize if I've rambled a bit here! Blessings to all...)
Allyson-
I'm not sure what the point of the first comment was. I don't really feel like I am suffering through anything.
I didn't mean to imply that God has a physical sex, but we are somehow made in his image. I take this to mean that who we are is a reflection of who God is. Reflection is a funny word for what I mean. It might make more sense to say our physical selves are something of an analogy. I don't take the fact that we have hands and feet to be just meaningless details. Of course, if you were to ask me to explain the whole analogy, I'd be hopelessly lost to try.
I guess the point I would make is that God gives us an identity which reflects something about "Him". We need to live in that identity, whatever it is. Making sharp distinctions between masculine and feminine behaviors and enforcing them as dogma instead of allowing people to express their true identities limits our "reflection" of God. If God is neither male nor female, restricting our expression of our identity based on our physical sex hides something about who God is. I believe people, and Christians in particular, are called to reflect God, and we do that best by being true to who he made us.
I know you weren't implying that God has a physical sex, Josh. I was just trying to make the point that whatever the "image of God" is in us, it is absolutely independent of our own physical sex. I think the parallelism in the verse you referred to speaks directly to that issue.
The speculation over what aspect of humanity is "in God's image" is all over the map, historically speaking. Christians have been debating it since the beginning, and Jews for centuries before that. As for me, I like to imagine that the part of humanity that is "like God" is our moral freedom, perhaps. Given the immediate context, I might also speculate that it has something to do with community. The God who creates them male and female speaks of his intentions to an unseen celestial community (the Trinity?): "Let us make humanity in our image, according to our likeness." God exists as plurality in unity; humanity therefore will exist not as a single individual, but as a diverse community. (This possibility has obvious implications for one's theology of gender.)
A question regarding your idea... You wrote, "God gives us an identity which reflects something about "Him". We need to live in that identity, whatever it is." How does one know which parts of one's identity reflect the deity and which parts don't?
I agree that being made in the image of God applies to more than just the individual. I don't think a single theology can "capture" God, and I don't think a single individual could dare to reflect even a piece of all that God is. He's just to big.
The question you ask is a difficult one. We inherit not only the image of God, but a sin nature as well. The question is difficult because it is hard to not answer without sounding trite. The part that reflects God? Everything good. The part that doesn't reflect God? Everything else.
The Holy Spirit will guide us with respect to our own lives. In others, it may be hard to judge what is good or not. Perhaps that is why the Bible frequently cautions against making such judgements.
Josh, you wrote, "The Holy Spirit will guide us with respect to our own lives. In others, it may be hard to judge what is good or not." That seems to be a very subjective and perhaps overly personal understanding of imago Dei. To say that the image of God in me is something for me to discover, something based upon my personal judgment of good versus evil, and something that may be different in me than in you seems to be so undefined as to be practically (i.e. theologically and pastorally) useless.
I agree, though, with you that a theologically and biblically consistent understanding of the imago Dei is central to the theological defense of trans-ness as a God-honoring way of life.
Ally-
I think you took my quote out of context (or just misunderstood what I was trying to say). I don't mean to say that there is no such thing as good and evil. The Bible is clear on many things that are either good or evil. Some issues though, are defined as acceptable for some, and sinful for others. On these things, we can only go on the guidance we get from the Holy Spirit.
I wasn't trying to take your words out of context, Josh...just trying to stretch them to see how far they'd go. =)
Some issues though, are defined as acceptable for some, and sinful for others. I agree! I think this might be a major stumbling block for many evangelicals, who are committed to propositional truth and a hermeneutic that is more literal than contextual. The accusation I hear often when I get to this point in the conversation is, "So, what's wrong for me is right for you?"
Post a Comment