RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Contemplating Feminine Incarnation

by Julie Clawson 12-15-2009

091215-its-a-girlAt church on a recent Sunday we were encouraged to find ways to see the world differently this week. Change our routine and change our perspective to help us get out of the rut of going through life without actually seeing the world. To that end we were asked to draw a slip of paper out of a basket on which was written some sort of paradigm destabilizer. These were just suggestions to help us shake things up a bit, and force us to do life a little differently. These included everything from “take a new route to work” to “put your fork down between bites.” The one I drew was “imagine that Jesus had been born a girl.” I was amused at first that I had randomly chosen that particular option, since I doubted that task would destabilize my perspective as much as it might someone else’s. But the idea has stuck with me for a few days as I keep asking, “well, what if?”

The first thought that came to mind was, “would Jesus have even been born if he had been a girl?” In a culture that valued sons, I wonder what Joseph’s response would have been if the angel hadn’t told him “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” The birth of sons was celebrated. But if Joseph had known the child in Mary’s womb was a girl, would he have gone ahead and divorced her, quietly condemning her and the child to a life of abject poverty and ridicule? Or would he have exposed her as an adulterer to have her stoned? Throughout history we have seen women valued solely for their ability to bear male heirs. Henry VIII chopped the heads off of a couple of wives for only bearing him daughters. Even today one hears of women apologizing in the delivery room for the baby not being a boy. So I have to wonder if even a divine announcement would have been enough to save the life of an illegitimate girl.

But if she had been born, I wonder what the response would have been. Would the shepherds have scoffed at a baby girl in swaddling clothes and grumbled at having to leave their flocks in the night for that? Would the magi have questioned the stars, or understood the mystery at play? Would Herod have felt threatened by a girl and have ordered the slaughter of the innocents? And would her parents, some years later, marry her off at age 12 to be perpetually pregnant and too busy save the world? Or would they have remembered their angelic visitation and the prophetic destiny spoken about this child?

But let’s just assume that this girl reached a point where she could choose to begin her ministry. Would the truth of her words and the divinity within her be enough to attract followers despite her gender? In other words, would something as minor as gender be enough for people to reject God’s invitation to “come follow me”? Would her mother, who prophetically sung the Magnificat, have hushed her up and told her “girls don’t discuss theology”? If she sat on the mountainside and spoke the Beatitudes to the crowds, would her words be affirmed as a beautiful new way forward or dismissed as the rantings of a crazy woman who was probably PMSing? Would men have seen an independent woman as vulnerable, and used that as an excuse to rape her? To avoid that would she have had to (like Joan of Arc) chop off her hair and dress in a man’s’ clothing — in essence deny that she is a women in order to be respected as a person? Would the authorities have even allowed her three years to spread her message, or would silencing a woman for subversion and heresy have happened much sooner?

On one hand these questions might just seem to affirm why Jesus had to be born male. But making that assumption from either an essentialist or cultural viewpoint simply helps one avoid examining our own perspectives toward women. Even as I reflected on the particular struggles Jesus would have faced if he had been born a girl, I couldn’t help but also think about the positive outcomes it would have engendered. If the person we commit our lives to follow and who sacrificed herself on our behalf was a woman, I can’t help but think that would have significantly impacted how we have perceived and treated women for the last 2,000 years. If the founder of the church was a woman, then perhaps a patriarchy wouldn’t have developed that effectively shut out and silenced the spiritual voice of women. If the body of a woman savior was treasured as sacrament, then perhaps the bodies of women would not have been so degraded, abused, and despised over the years. If for 2,000 years, women hadn’t lived in oppression, silence, and fear, I wonder how much our collective input would have changed history. Would we have allowed the posturing and pissing contests of men to nearly destroy the world in wars? Would we have allowed nature to be oppressed and raped instead of cultivated and cared for? And would the kingdom of God be that much more vibrant and alive today if during that time it had been impossible to forget the feminine side of God or to muzzle the spiritual insight of half the church?

These are all hypothetical questions of course. But just the asking can be the first step in destabilizing paradigms. The historical truth of Jesus being born a girl matters less than how asking the question can move us toward living like it was.

Julie Clawson is the author of Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices (IVP 2009). She blogs at julieclawson.com and emergingwomen.us.

Categories: Gender, Theology
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Kushta
    I love it Shiphrah! There are a growing number of scholars who believe that Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple spoken of in the Gospel of John. Also, given the Greco-Roman church's notoriety for its hatred of women ("you are the devil's gateway" -Tertullian) it is highly likely that the Church Fathers removed her elevated status amongst the disciples from the scriptures. I mean what were they to do with a lowly sinful woman who succeeded the savior as head of the religion after his departure? Write her out of the scriptures, replace her with male disciples in those instances, and lower her to the status of a repentant prostitute that's what!

    The Gnostic scriptures give us a different picture of Magdalene, a picture that depicts her as being senior in both authority and spiritual wisdom to Peter. In fact, through my own studies I have found that she bares all of the characteristics of the paraclete promised by Jesus in the Gospel of John, the very same Gospel that the scholar Esther De Boer believes was penned by one of Magdalene's own disciples.

    In the Gnostic Nazorean writings Magdalene says, "A King for the Nazoreans became I. I became a King for the Nazoreans, who through my name find praise and assurance." - (Drasha d-Malkia)
    Her usage of the word 'King' in this form of Nazorean nomenclature is her identifying herself as the leader of the Nazorean sect where like all kings she is second to none.

    Magdalene's story has yet to be told and is rising like a phoenix from millennia of ecclisastical ashes to set the record straight.

    - Kushta
  • Shiphrah
    I often wonder what if Christ did come first as a girl? What if she preached and healed and taught, but no one (and by "one" I mean "man") of any status noticed or listened because she was a woman. Or maybe many people listened and believed and were made disciples but then denied her after the fact.

    What if she had an incredible life and incarnation as God's love on earth but it never was recorded in writing. Or if it was, it never made it into "Holy Scripture". Or if it did make it into the literature that became the Bible, it was redacted by a male with enough privilege to erase the inconvenient parts of the story. Or maybe her story made it in but only in half truths and missing details (like her NAME). Or maybe she was a disciple of Jesus and the first apostle but hundreds of years later a (male) religious leader was so threatened by women that he falsely accused her of being a prostitute and the reputation stuck for hundreds of years and counting (Mary Magdalene).

    Maybe instead of crucifixion this She-Christ was stoned to death - the death of an accused adulteress or general rabblerouser. Or maybe she died during childbirth - her body a sacrifice so another might live.

    What if?

    How's that for a little theological imagination?
  • Kushta
    "The whole notion that a female Jesus would have made things different for women down through the ages is ridiculous."

    You're ignoring that a very male Jesus tried to make things different for the women in his own culture. He went head on against the Jewish Patriarchy and said "Let those of you who are without sin cast the first stone". To consider the idea of a female Jesus ridiculous is to eliminate the value of the other half of both God and humanity. The exclusive worship of an all male Godhead is nothing short of idolatry.
  • ShazamMan
    Mormonism is a cult which worships a different Jesus. It teaches unbiblical doctrines, such as that God was once a man and that men may become gods. It is also one of the most chauvinistic of systems, which is why I'm surprised that it was cited. Hinduism is a pagan religion, offering no salvation. Only Jesus saves. Episcopalianism has departed from historic Christian orthodoxy through its ordaining of gays. The whole notion that a female Jesus would have made things different for women down through the ages is ridiculous. Either one believes the plain meaning of the Bible, or one does not. Obviously the author and many of the posters here do not. At least Common Loon gets it right!
  • WaveTossed
    "What utter nonsense, approaching heresy. And VasuMurti's response is totally heretical. Quoting from apostate Episopalians and the pseudo-Christian Book of Mormon"

    My friend, if you don't believe in Mormonism or Episcopalianism: this doesn't make these two beliefs "heresy." Look at the what is in your own eyes before judging those of others.
  • Since gender discrimination is clearly unbiblical in light of Gal 3:28 and numerous other passages, I believe there is value in “shaking up” sexist paradigms by asking provocative questions.

    But I also wonder if such a thing exists as baby-bathwater confusion between a male Jesus and historic/cultural sexism in Christendom. My inclination is that sexism is the bathwater but Christ’s human maleness is not. He was (quite literally) the Baby.

    Which only leads to more questions such as:

    1) Was it sexist for God to become flesh as a man and not as a woman?

    2) To what extent can historic/cultural sexism in Christendom be attributed to Christ’s maleness?

    3) Were the Jews sexist in expecting a male Messiah or was his gender one of the prophesied details they actually interpreted correctly?

    4) Was God “caving in” to a patriarchal society by becoming a male Rabbi or did Jesus’ non-traditional maleness actually threaten the powers of his day more than he could have otherwise as a woman?

    5) Is the world today more sexist or less sexist because God chose to reveal himself in male form?

    6) Who has greater cultural power to shift sexist paradigms: feminist women or feminist men?

    Scripture indicates that Joseph himself was not your stereotypical chauvinist womanizing male, so it’s highly doubtful he would have had Mary stoned if her baby had not been a boy.

    The pain of knowing he wasn’t the father was already enough to bear. By all accounts, he deeply loved Mary and Jesus and sacrificed a great deal for their protection.

    But despite his radical faith and obedience to God in the face of cultural pressure and stigma, Joseph is often overlooked as one of the Bible’s more counter-cultural (dare we say feminist) characters.
  • Kushta
    "The scriptures speak of God in male terms, and Jesus was clearly male."

    The scriptures were written by men with clear androcentric bias (both Jewish and Greco-Roman), and while God is spoken of in masculine terms it's also evident that through the creation of Eve his image also holds female potencies as well. To hold God as exclusively male is to hold onto an incomplete conception of God.

    Though Jesus was male, his ministry, when contrasted aganist the patriarchal theocracy of his time, reflects him to be deeply concerned about the plight of women. in Judaic culture. In this way he was a feminist, and a radical one at that.

    "Democacrcy did not exist in Israel."

    Has it ever existed I say? Indeed Israel was a theocracy. yet Jesus clearly believed that all people were equal in the Kingdom of God reflecting the spiritual essence of the Democratic ideal.

    "Jesus was certainly no Gnostic."

    Christianity in its most primitive, and sunsequently it most pristine form was thoroughly Gnostic, thus its founder (Jesus) was Gnostic!

    "She (author) is in essence claiming that God did not know what he was doing, that his plan was not perfect, and that sounds pretty heretical to me."

    It's heretical only from within the severely limted context of Christian fundamentalism. On the other hand, she (author) is opening our eyes to what what potentially could have saved humanity,and more specifically women, from millennia of violence and suffering at the hands of men within the Western Religious Tradition (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). In essence our world suffers from male domination which has become manifest as the social phenomenon of patriarchy, which according to the late feminist philosopher Marilyn French, "...has brought humanity to its present calamitous pass." - (War Aganist Women)

    A female Jesus suggests a female saviour and we should not shrink away from this divinely inspired idea because if we are to rise above the degradition of our present circumstances surely women are going to have to take a more active and dominant role in determining our fate. Indeed, a female saviour is exactly what we need and lo I say that she exists, and that she has been closer to us than our own skin. Blessed are those who have become a companionship to the Holy Spirit - Spirit of Truth, Wisdom of God, Holy Life! She who labors over humanity as a mother hen over her chicks!!

    - Kushta
  • squeaky
    No, that's not what she is doing at all. She is trying to get you to think about all the abuse women have had thrust upon them throughout human history, and still are going through even today in our supposedly enlightened age. One out of every three women in the US has been abused in one way or another. One out of every three. Think about that. Please don't let what you perceive as heresy keep you from thinking about that fact and about the abuse and oppression women have lived with for centuries and continue to live with.
  • ShazamMan
    The Scriptures speak of God in male terms, and Jesus was clearly a male. Mary Magdalene was saved by Jesus, but is not a savior herself. That's more heresy. Democracy did not exist in Israel. & Jesus was certainly no Gnostic. He freely shared His knowledge with His followers.
    The blogger suggested that things might have been better for women had Jesus been one. She is, in essence, claiming that God did not quite know what He was doing, that His plan was not perfect. & that sounds pretty heretical to me.
  • AS2
    very cool.
  • AS2
    wow
  • Kushta
    The true Apoastates are both the Western Roman Catholic and Eastern Greek Orthodox Churches as all Christianity draws its teachings from their turbid wellspring. Let us purge oursleves of the mysogynism, legalism, and religious fanaticism that they have stained history's pages blood red with. Such reflects their blasphemous opposition to God's Divine Dominion!

    Politically speaking Jesus upheld the noble idea of Democracy, socially he was a radical feminist, economically he was a communist (not to be confused with Marxist), and spiritually he was a Gnostic!
  • Kushta
    Jesus is but one half of the soul of the savior, the other is his female counterpart - Mary Magdalene. She is the second coming for where Magdalene is there Jesus will be also!

    "Behold I come a second time as a woman" - (Gnostic Trimorphic Protenoia)

    Blessed are those who've become a companionship to the Spirit of Wisdom....
  • sabne754
    I am surprised by your comment, suggesting her article is "utter nonsense" and "approaching heresy" -- I guess I would perceive "utter nonsense" to be quite insulting... which violates the comment code of conduct. Perhaps you could work on being beyond reproach before judging others?
  • ShazamMan
    What utter nonsense, approaching heresy. And VasuMurti's response
    is totally heretical. Quoting from apostate Episopalians and the
    pseudo-Christian Book of Mormon, and trying to find the truth in Hinduism place this person's comments quite beyond the pale of orthodox Christianity.
  • In his 1992 book, The Universal Path to Enlightenment, Sri Nandanandana dasa (Stephen Knapp) writes that ancient Egyptian civilization, like the ancient Hindu civilization, was a priest-state, recognizing many gods, with the worship of the sun god being especially prominent. In the temple of Edfu the texts explain how the earth emerges from a lotus flower which rises from the primeval waters, a story with similarities to the Hindu account of creation.

    The Egyptians worshipped their gods in a similar fashion as that found in India. The priests practiced cleanliness, shaved their heads, and wore white cloth. They would take a bath early in the morning to purify themselves and at dawn they would enter the temple. Opening the sanctuary where the deities were, the priest would prostrate before the images and then sit and chant prayers and burn incense. Then he would bathe the deities and dress them in fresh clothes and offer them food and drink, and then clean the altar and temple.

    Other similarities are in the names. The name of the Egyptian sun-god Ra is derived from Ravi, the Sanskrit name for the sun. The name Heru is derived from Hari, which is another name for Vishnu.

    Sri Nandanandana dasa notes that the early Greek sculptures seem to have been carved by the priests for the temples. Many of the early forms were almost always carved as a boy of 15 to 17 years of age and with long hair like Krishna. Furthermore, Zeus, Jupiter, and Amon were all blue bodied, not because they were sky-gods like some say, but because they are related to the image of Krishna who is blue, which signifies His spiritual nature.

    Similarly, although it is an agnostic moral philosophy a few centuries older than Christianity, Buddhism teaches a consistent ethic of reverence for all life. No wars have ever been waged in the name of Buddhism. The act of abortion is also explicitly condemned in the Buddhist canonical scriptures. Sir Edwin Arnold’s poetic biography on Siddhartha Gautama, The Light of Asia, caused quite a controversy in Victorian England: centuries before Jesus, an earlier teacher lived "the Christ life."

    The ethical teachings of the Buddha are quite similar to those found in the Gospel of Jesus: One must never be proud nor harbor anger against anyone. He who humbles himself shall be exalted, while the one who exalts himself shall be degraded. Harsh language must never be used against anyone.

    Avoid lust, anger and greed. One should not scrutinize the mote in a neighbor’s eye without first noticing the beam in one’s own. One must "turn the other cheek" if attacked or abused. One’s own possessions must be shared with the less fortunate. If a man obtained the whole world and its riches, he still would not be satisfied, nor would this save him.

    In 261 B.C., the Indian emperor Ashoka witnessed firsthand the innumerable casualties he caused during one of his many military campaigns. His heart was filled with grief. He converted to Buddhism. 19th century scholar and writer H.G. Wells considered Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism one of the most significant events in world history.

    Ashoka, formerly a bloody and ruthless emperor, became a remarkably kind and gentle leader. Ashoka established some of the first animal rights laws. He stopped the royal hunt, the sacrifice of animals in his capital city, the killing of animals for food in the royal kitchens, and gave up the eating of meat. Ashoka made it illegal to kill many species of animals, such as parrots, ducks, geese, bats, turtles, squirrels, monkeys and rhinos. He forbade the killing of pregnant animals, or animals that were nursing their young. He declared certain days to be "non-killing days," on which fish could not be caught, nor any other animals killed. He established wells and watering holes, places of rest and hospitals for humans and animals alike.

    Ashoka educated his people to have compassion for animals, and to refrain from killing or harming them. He sent missionaries to all the neighboring kingdoms to teach mercy, compassion and nonviolence. Through Ashoka’s patronage, Buddhism was spread all over the Indian subcontinent. Buddhism would eventually reach the rest of Asia; today there are an estimated 300 to 600 million Buddhists worldwide.

    Sri Nandanandana dasa writes that there are many similarities between the Hindu literature and the Buddhist religion of the Far East. For example, the word Ch’an of the Ch’an school of Chinese Buddhism is Chinese for the Sanskrit word dhyana, which means meditation, as does the word zen in Japanese. Shinto is essentially pantheistic, based upon the worship of the forces of nature. In the early days of Shinto, no animal food was offered in sacrifice because of the taboo against shedding blood in the sacred area of the shrine.

    With the advent of Buddhism, Japan became a predominately vegetarian society. A temple was erected in memory of the first cow slaughtered in Japan when they opened their doors to the West in the 19th century. Even as late as the 1890s, according to Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the Emperor commissioned a study as to whether or not it was necessary to add meat into the nation’s diet. The commission concluded that the Japanese people didn’t need meat, and that Japan’s diet "stands on a foundation of rice."

    In Thailand, there is a temple honoring Brahma, the Hindu creator-god of this universe, and the kings of Thailand still use the title "Rama," referring to this specific incarnation of God and ideal monarch. The name "Singapore" means "City of Lions" in Sanskrit. As far east as Kampuchea, we can find temples built by the kings of ancient Cambodia, such as Angkor Wat, a large and well known temple complex originally devoted to Lord Vishnu and the different demigods. It is now a Buddhist shrine.

    Similarly, in his 1983 essay "A Jewish Encounter with the Bhagavad-gita," Harold Kasimow discusses ideas "which seem totally incompatible with the Jewish tradition. The most striking example is the doctrine of incarnation, a concept which is as central to the Gita as it is to Christianity. According to the Gita, Krishna is an incarnation (avatara), or appearance of God in human form.

    "A study of the Jewish response to the Christian doctrine of incarnation shows that Jews, and I may add, Muslims have not been able to reconcile this idea with their own scriptural notion of God."

    "It is within the heart that I embrace both religions (Hinduism and Christianity) in a personal synthesis, which intellectually may be more or less perfect... Religions meet in the heart rather than in the mind."

    ---Father Raymundo Pannikar
  • There is a feminine aspect to the divine, and there have been other incarnations of God in other parts of the world besides Palestine, and there have been feminine incarnations of God.

    The existence of other sons of God—other messiahs and other incarnations of God—has been dealt with by one of the 20th century’s leading Protestant theologian. Paul Tillich wrote in a 1978 essay, "Redemption of Other Worlds":

    "...a question arises which has been carefully avoided by many traditional theologians...It is the problem of how to understand the meaning of the symbol ‘Christ’ in light of the immensity of the universe...the infinitely small part of the universe which man and his history constitute, and the possibility of other ‘worlds’ in which divine self-manifestations may appear and be received.

    "Such developments become especially important if one considers that biblical and related expectations envisaged the coming of the Messiah within a cosmic frame. The universe will be reborn into a new eon. The function of the bearer of the New Being is not only to save individuals and to transform man’s historical existence but to renew the universe. And the assumption is that mankind and individual men are so dependent on the powers of the universe, that salvation of the one without the other is unthinkable."

    In other words, given the vastness of the universe and the possibility of other worlds, how can the divine incarnation on this small speck of dust be understood on a cosmic scale?

    Tillich sees the basic answer to such questions "in the concept of essential man appearing in a personal life under the conditions of existential estrangement (from God)... The man...represents human history...he creates the meaning of human history. It is the eternal relation of God to man which is manifest in the Christ. At the same time, our basic answer leaves the universe open for possible divine manifestations in other areas or periods of being.

    "Such possibilities cannot be denied. But they cannot be proved or disproved. Incarnation is unique for the special group in which it happens, but it is not unique in the sense that other singular incarnations for other unique worlds are excluded.

    "Man cannot claim that the infinite has entered the finite to overcome its existential estrangement in mankind alone. Man cannot claim to occupy the only possible place for Incarnation. Although statements about other worlds and God’s relation to them cannot be verified experientially, they are important because they help to interpret the meaning of terms like ‘mediator,’ ‘savior,’ ‘Incarnation,’ ‘the Messiah,’ and ‘the new eon.’

    "Perhaps one can go a step further. The interdependence of everything with everything else in the totality of being includes a participation of nature in history and demands a participation of the universe in salvation.

    "Therefore, if there are non-human ‘worlds’ in which existential estrangement is not only real—as it is in the whole universe—but in which there is also a type of awareness of this estrangement, such worlds cannot be without the operation of saving power within them. Otherwise self-destruction would be the inescapable consequence.

    "The manifestation of saving power in one place implies that saving power is operating in all places. The expectation of the Messiah as the bearer of the New Being presupposes that ‘God loves the universe,’ even though in the appearance of the Christ He actualizes this love for historical man alone."

    Within the framework of Christian theology, then, Tillich sees the possibility of other incarnations of God on other worlds, as well as the salvation of nonhumans. This theology is almost Hindu in thought, recognizing that God has indeed incarnated many times, and on many different worlds, in many different universes. According to Hindu thought, there are billions of worlds and universes, endlessly being created and destroyed in time cycles lasting billions of years.

    Today, our world is one. Nations are globally connected, as never before in human history. This was not the case two thousand years ago, where Palestine, China and South America were—for all intents and purposes—separate worlds. Tillich’s theology also opens up the possibility of nonhuman—even animal—spirituality.

    Some Christians see Jesus as the only way to God. However, the Reverend Alvin Hart, an Episcopal priest in New York, says that John 14:6 is often mistranslated. The original Greek—ego emi ha hodos kai ha alatheia kai ha zoa; oudeis erkatai pros ton patera ei ma di emou—should read "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and none of you are coming to the Father except through me."

    According to Reverend Hart, "...the key word here is erketai. This is an extremely present-tense form of the verb...You see? In Palestine, two thousand years ago, Jesus was the guru. If he wanted to say that he would be the teacher for all time, he would have used a word other than erkatai, but he didn’t."

    Dr. Boyd Daniels of the American Bible Society concurs: "Oh, yes. The word erketai is definitely the present tense form of the verb. Jesus was speaking to his contemporaries."

    According to the Book of Mormon, God Himself specifically refutes the misconception that He can only make Himself known to one particular people at one point in human history, and leave only one set of written scriptures:

    "Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and i bring forth My word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? Wherefore, murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of My word?

    "Know ye that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together, the testimony of the two nations shall run together also...And because I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for My work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man...

    "Neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. For I command all men, both in the East and in the West, and in the North and in the South, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them. For out of the books that will be written I will judge the world..."
  • Joe_Allen_Doty
    Christ is NOT the Name of the Son of God (it's a position title); but, the Son of Man was given the same name as Joshua when properly translated.

    Israel was a patriarchal society and it was also believed that women were merely "garden beds" for the men's "seed."

    But, while I have never heard it as doctrine, I believe that Jesus' human DNA was that from Mary and the Levite tribe.

    While it hasn't been done that way since the arrival of the Europeans, my tribe, the Cherokees, was a matriarchal society. The men ran the government; BUT, the members of the all-male tribal council were actually chosen by the women. And when the tribal councils met, women were in attendance to make sure things were done the right way, too.
  • WaveTossed
    I remember many, many years ago, at an Episcopal church, a "Christa" statue was displayed. This was a portrayal of Christ as a woman, upon the Cross. I remember that some people were outraged at the Christ being portrayed as a woman.

    My own thoughts are that this statue was not intended to be a historical representation of Jesus Christ. Instead, it was a symbolic representation of how women are oppressed within a patriarchal society. As a woman, I found it quite powerful.
  • christopher49
    I realize that your speculations are purely "human-based". However, even if our Saviour had been female, the important thing to acknowledge is that it would have been done God's way, regardless.
    The rest is interjection of our own human thoughts and presumptions into something beyond our own understanding.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008