And then I look back at it and said to myself, "Wait. I'm not sure. Did I say that right?"
We shared these papers among our reading group and I had some kind of reaction from Brett's paper. This was a surprise, since Brett is one of my closest friends in Seattle and we share a lot of the same views and tastes. (We spent a lot of Christmas break sitting on the couch, pondering the mysteries of God, self, and the universe whilst listening to music.)
Friends, I believe I'm frustrated. The Creation story has been used as a prescription for Christian living. The role of "helper" has been demeaned by our English language. Allender said that "helper" means a kind of warrior, one who saves.
On another level, the "curse" is probably a description, not a prescription... at least, that is what my old boss Greg Smith states. I prefer this explanation, so I hope he is right.
Allender said that this story shows the men are more likely to be proactive, "go out there" and make order out of chaos. Women are more likely to be relational, receive, and make beauty out of the world.
It was this that set me off. I just feel that I don't necessarily fit in completely to that definition. Also, I know many men who are amazing beauty makers. Does this make it wrong for one gender to cross over into the other territory? What about those who don't fit? Should we try to fit? Wouldn't reflecting God not be so dichotomous?
I also have problems with the word "beauty", but thats my problem...I'm working on it.
Fortunately, a wise man recently told me: You are a woman. Therefore, what you do is what a woman would do. You don't have to try to fit into something else because you are a woman.
After finishing the paper, I was speaking with another M.Div. student and we both were slightly weirded out that we had only two pages for something that takes a lot of work. It doesn't sit right with theologians (in training) to spend 2 pages on something huge, profound, and requires a lot of work. Perhaps I will be able to spend more time in my time at Mars Hill addressing the gender issues put forth in the Bible.
Below is the paper. Like I said, I now wish I could rephrase it and change it.
Who can know the mind of God? If one were to say that one knows God’s detailed, exhaustive blueprint for marriage, one would seem rather pompous and ridiculous. Does God have a detailed, exhaustive blueprint? It is possible. Yet if that were all there was to this institution, it would be missing the side of the mystery, the intangible wonder. Yet if the institution lacks order, it would be non-existent, a phantom. A woman and a man reflect the paradox, the depth of the glory of God.
When encountering the creation of humans in the Genesis account, the reader has quite the task before her. How can the reader interpret this in respect of history and the ancient Middle Eastern culture that it came out of? Does it prescribe God’s intention for the institution of marriage? How do we in the 21st century west apply the concept of marriage when currently the institution centers around romantic ideals? Marriage in their society was to set an alliance between families. There are great difficulties in applying the story of Adam and Eve literally to modern marriage structure, but what the story shows does have great implications of gender relations.
Dr. Rikk Watts, an Australian theologian currently teaching at Regent College, emphasizes the importance of the genesis creation story (at least on one level) as symbolic. As the peoples of the ancient near east tried to appease their gods out of fear, most creation accounts showed that humans were created to be slaves to the bloodthirsty gods. Kings and idols represented the gods. In the Genesis account, God made the temple (the good Earth) and made God’s “idols”, or as the greek would say “ikon” and placed them in his temple as the finishing touch of creation. God made humans as the pinnacle of his creation.
When God created Adam, God remarked that it was very good. Yet God, in all of God’s perfection and Holiness, admitted to something: “It is not good for man to be alone”. It took strength in the vulnerability of the Almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth, to admit in humility: it’s not good. Perhaps God is saying: “ah, we could’ve done better”. What could God do better at? Something (or someone) was lacking. God chose to create another kind of human, a companion, so that both genders can reflect the depth, the complexity of the glory of God to all of his creation.
This account shows a loving, creative God that bestows honor and responsibility on humans. Humans are a creature unlike any other that reflect the image, the ikon, the idol of God. The fact that there are two human creatures made, different yet the same, show the complexity of God. It shows God’s emphasis on relation. Women show a side of God more often (and perhaps better) then men, and vice versa. Therefore there is a need to be in relation with each other to play out this acting out of God here on earth. The depth of humanity is a reflection of the depth of God who transcends, yet has characteristics of, gender.
The dark side of gender relation is communicated in the curse of the fall, which I believe is a description of “what’s to come” for men and women, not a prescription. Because sin and depravity was given permission to enter, men are doomed to the frustration of working with the futility of the land. Women have become disempowered, forever in agony of childbirth, both physically and symbolically. Children are birthed and reared in a world full of pain. Yet we women also bleed from the violence that we have received.
I have yet to work out a stronger understanding of this text specifically in relation to gender differences. I believe that men and women are still image bearers of God and still have the task of taking care of the earth. However, the teamwork now has the added complexity of death and depravity entering the picture. Suffering occurs with the land, with the offspring, and with each other. This still reflects God in that God suffers too. Perhaps the Mother side of God is in agony of labor to continue creating people that have potential for great betrayal and atrocity. God took a great risk in creating these creatures with our capacities and responsibilities. God’s love and choice to let humanity continue is a mystery.
2 comments:
Being married for almost a year now has taught me one thing, in the past men and the "perfection" of men dominates the historical record because males have had physical power over their enviroments. In ancient times we developed codependancy as a survival tool. They used their physical power to rewrite the historical records to serve their own means at a basic biological level.
Patriarchy (and a male biased cultural system) supports the ability of males to chose their desired mate with and control the female population. Control creates roles of submissive and dominant. And mainly it serves to maintain an illusion of control over our lives. And it serves to make the less socially skilled and insecure male feel better about his inability to create life.
If humans move away from our biological need to control each other you can transcend gender roles. The male I choose to live with a pure compliation of all the lies men have been told. He is with me because I allow him to be free from those chains. And I am free from those chains that the world bound me with; saying I was fat and unloveable to men because he allows me to be the person I am.
Vangie in the end the divine marridge is the relinquishment of the illusions modern society has put upon us and to let go of expectations of romance. Love is not about the tingley feeling and smouldering looks of passion. Love it about him sitting through your migranes and bringing you ginger ale. It's about running out of gas and having a fight. It's when you both are grumpy and wonder why you ever shacked up with this person to start. It's mostly like a really best friend with some sex thrown in to keep things interesting. And you have to work hard at that too; letting go of shame, embarassment, and so forth. Finding equality between a man and woman is the ultimate surrender of self and power.
Perhaps that is were the bible comes in. The orignal sin was pride and selfishness even in changing the basic creation story to say that man was created first and woman to be his helper? Since when did God who created the heaven and earth EVER not create a matched set? It does'nt mention he only created male animals and then suddenly was like "Ah-HA! I knew I forgot something!" Procreation and the duality of male and female are built into people to the point that mere shift of hormones and chromosones can change a girl to a boy.
Being quoted on a famous blog is almost as intoxicating as writing my own blog. Another thought on gender and marriage is that God created woman from man which is a demonstration and statement of our interdependence. I see it as the theological foundation of heterosexual relations.
Post a Comment