Unraveling the Gender Paradigm Ball of Yarn
One of the theology students recently visiting Lebanon shared this concept from one of her professors: “read and listen with critical generosity.” What I took from her explanation is the invitation to listen and read with a critical posture rooted in scholarship and a generous application of the famous prayer of St. Francis—one line of which is, “O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek…to be understood as to understand.”[1] Such is the posture I sought for this week’s reading.
I also looked for a written conversation partner to be in dialogue with Abigail Favale’s “The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory.”[2] I found that partner in the thoughtful review written by fellow Catholic Chris Damian.[3] In this post I will share some of what I found most thought-provoking as I read the written conversation between these two authors, and what I am now taking with me into my various ministry and leadership contexts.
Favale is Dean of Humanities and Professor of English at George Fox University. In her opening chapter she vulnerably and powerfully describes her entry into Catholic Christian faith and its collision with the progressive feminist/gender worldview she had previously held: “I found myself both giving birth and being born—my body turned inside out to bring forth a daughter; my soul turned inside out to make room for Christ. Each of these births, like every birth, was an engulfing paradox of beauty and agony.”[4] Throughout her book she vulnerably weaves her personal journey and questions with her theological, philosophical, and feminist/post modernists understandings and research. Overall she writes with a posture of humbly held conviction. Her book is structured with nine chapters and an index. Her work is footnoted, though I missed her not including a reference list at the end and a basic introduction outlining her book’s aim and roadmap.
I found Favale’s approach to “…analyzing the genealogy of gender, providing an account of how the gender paradigm emerged and how it compares to the paradigm of Catholic Christianity,”[5] more accessible and nuanced than Carl Trueman’s similar attempt in “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.”[6] They analyze some of the same philosophers who have impacted how sex and gender are currently discussed in many global contexts today (Michel Foucault and Simone de Beauvoir for example), and raise some similar points (the movement toward separating the concept/understanding of sex and gender for example), however Favale discusses both the four waves of feminism and the history/influence of post-modern philosophy in a manner that allows for the reader to see both the important and needed contributions both have made to our collective wisdom and the potential challenges and/or harms that, from her perspective and journey, have also emerged.[7]
She writes, “We must engage the vital questions of personhood, sex, identity, and freedom at the level of worldview.”[8] Favale also utilizes Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm” concept in this worldview work. Paradigm is a term used “…to describe a model or framework for interpreting the world and the phenomena we experience.”[9] She does this with skill and care. She has helped me to better understand how especially the fourth wave of feminism and what she calls “trickle-down gender theory”[10] are impacting the atmosphere, culture, conversations, expectations, and direction of my organization. Part of our 2023-24 workplan is to address gender justice/heteropatriarchy as one leg of three intersectional dynamics.[11] But we have yet to deeply discuss the complex and not always internally coherent worldview underlying this commitment and how it interacts with our Reformed, Presbyterian worldview with its own blind spots. The thorny issue of how power is understood and utilized, alongside of expectations for developing a commonly held vocabulary where we “…speak with one voice”[12] are also dynamics I have increasingly experienced in my organization since 2017.[13]
What I especially appreciated was Favale describing her understanding of a Catholic Christian worldview and where it supports aspects of feminism and postmodern thought and where it critiques the same. Her theological emphasis is on the Garden/Cosmos texts of Genesis and on Incarnation and how both frames a Catholic Christian worldview that reveals both our ontology and our telos. Of Genesis she writes:
“This means taking Genesis seriously, regarding it as ‘true myth’, as a divinely revealed cosmology that describes our origin so as to give an enduring account of our identity and purpose as human beings, as woman and man. Within this redemptive order, we can recover our wonder. We can recognize anew the abundance of the gift—the gift of our bodies, the gift of our shared humanity, and the gift of our sexual difference.”[14]
Of incarnation and sacrament she writes,
“The sacramental principal is always at work: the visible reveals the invisible. The body reveals to us the eternal and divine reality of the person—a reality that can only break into the tangible, sensible world through embodiment. That is how God enters into our world and reveals himself, through the incarnational reality of Christ, who became a body that we might know and love the invisible God.”[15]
I mentioned above Chris Damian, also, like Favale, a person of Catholic Christian faith. He is a writer, speaker, and lawyer committed to creating spaces where everyday people can engage with scholarly work and reflect together. He is also a gay man. From his thoughtful review of Favale’s book, I found his theological engagement worthy of additional reflection. He writes:
“Many of Favale’s arguments hinge upon an approach to bodily wholeness, integrity, and perfection grounded in Aristotelian natural law [essentialism]…. She argues that human beings have a God-given nature that is revealed through the body, and that our sexed nature is revealed entirely through the goodies which we are given. Gamete production[16] helps us identify the ways in which our bodies are organized as male or female, and care for the body involved cooperation and alignment with this organization…. From the perspective of Aristotelian natural law, this makes a lot of sense…. To remove or alter fully functioning organs would be to harm the integrity and wholeness of the body.…Christianity, however, pushes against this vision. Part of what the Resurrection of Christ provides is a view of the glorified and perfected body as one which has holes in it. The world of the Garden of Eden would have housed bodies in…their perfection…But the Fall, Incarnation, Passion of Christ, and Resurrection establish a reality where brokenness can paradoxically present a greater goodness than an Edenic ideal.”[17]
He then goes on to discuss Matthew 5:28-29 where Jesus teaches it is better to gouge out one’s eye to avoid lust than go to hell whole. Damian contends that in this teaching Jesus is blurring the line between the psyche and the body. And from this point raises the question of what then is the meaning and experience of bodily and psychological integrity? He concludes, “None of this necessarily conflicts with Christian views regarding the goodness of the body and the creation of man and woman. Rather, it adds complexity to how exactly some will live out these realities…Christian integrity, wholeness, and perfection is not the same thing as Aristotelian integrity, wholeness, and perfection.”[18]
I find myself further pondering that within our Christian body, there are nuances to worldview that are grounded in our sacred texts. Jordan Peterson, in “Maps of Meaning,”[19] posits that the
“…world of value is made up of three metaphorical dimensions—unexplored territory (identified as the Great Mother), explored territory (identified as the Great Father), and the process that mediates between the two (the Divine Son). But there is also a fourth dimension—the dragon of chaos—which is the most fundamental reality and is made up of what we do not understand at all and only come into contact within bits and pieces. These metaphors are more fully developed in Chapter 2[20].”[21]
The gender paradigm, its history and present-day ramifications/implications for contemporary worldviews, and how these worldviews relate to or are critiqued by Christian worldviews is perhaps both chaos according to Peterson’s model and unexplored territory (or at least not fully explored territory). But after reading Favale’s work, I have a more nuanced understanding of at least some of that history and its implications, and still so much more to reflect on and consider. My next step is to give further explicit[22] consideration to my Reformed, Presbyterian Christian worldview and how it can serve as a mediating framework.
[1] “Peace Prayer of Saint Francis | Loyola Press.” n.d. Accessed January 25, 2023. https://www.loyolapress.com/catholic-resources/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/saints-prayers/peace-prayer-of-saint-francis/.
[2] Favale, Abigail Rine. 2022. The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory. San Francisco [California]: Ignatius Press.
[3] Damian, Chris. 2022. “The Genesis of Gender: A Review.” Substack newsletter. Chris Damian Writes (blog). July 21, 2022. https://chrisdamian.substack.com/p/the-genesis-of-gender-a-review. Accessed January 24, 2023.
[4] Favale, 11.
[5] Ibid., 31
[6] Trueman, Carl R. 2020. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway.
[7] Favale, 53ff.
[8] Ibid., 30.
[9] Ibid., 31.
[10] Ibid., 71.
[11] “Proposed Mission Work Plan for 2023–24 Embraces Transformation.” 2022. Presbyterian Mission Agency. February 18, 2022. https://www.presbyterianmission.org/story/proposed-mission-work-plan-for-2023-24-embraces-transformation/.
[12] The language used by the Executive Director of our organization during an all-staff DEI training held 01-26-23.
[13] Favale, 76 and 81.
[14] Ibid., 52.
[15] Ibid., 136.
[16] Ibid., 123ff.
[17] Damian, Chris. 2022. “The Genesis of Gender: A Review.” Substack newsletter. Chris Damian Writes (blog). July 21, 2022. https://chrisdamian.substack.com/p/the-genesis-of-gender-a-review. Accessed January 24, 2023, 6-7.
[18] Ibid., 8.
[19] Peterson, Jordan B. 1999. Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. New York: Routledge.
[20] Ibid., 89ff. and
[21] Parker, Elmarie. 2022. Belief Systems, Known Territory, and the Impact of Chaos, https://blogs.georgefox.edu/dlgp/belief-systems-known-territory-and-the-impact-of-chaos/comment-page-1/.
[22] Polanyi, Michael, and Amartya Sen. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
About the Author
Elmarie Parker
14 responses to “Unraveling the Gender Paradigm Ball of Yarn”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Elmarie, wow, what a thorough and insightful post. I read the same review by Chris Damian and found it a helpful contrast to Favale’s work. What I appreciate about him and Dr. Favale is a gracious tone, something very evident in your post as well. You reference the “true myth” statement in Favale’s engagement with Gensis 1 and 2. IDo you agree with her interpretation of those chapters? In what sense do you find the BIble’s creation account “true?” In what ways do you find it to be myth?
Hi Roy…thank you so very much for your thoughtful engagement with my post. I resonate with your thoughts on both Damian and Favale’s postures…very gracious. So you asked if I agree with her interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2. There is a lot that I agree with–especially her reflections on this cosmology being ‘true myth’…it is about communicating who God is and who we are and what creation is about. Given that it was written during the Exile, I can only image what it meant to the people of the day to have a narrative of meaning that challenged the narrative of meaning held to be true myth by the people in power around them (Babylonians). It is a profound example as well of winsome evangelistic story telling. Imagine the possible interactions of the day…”Let me tell you a different story of creation…imagine with me if you will…In the beginning…”
I think where I am still grappling is with her particular application of some of her interpretation. For example, she writes: “The full spousal meaning of the body, outwardly declared by our visible sex characteristics, is the power to express love, to give oneself fully in love to another. This is the true ‘telos’ or purpose of the human being… (p. 42).” The same interpretation of ‘power to express love’ is what has been utilized by my community of faith to support the LGBTQI+ community. The difference is regarding emphasis on purpose of visible sex characteristics and Favale’s later exploration of large and small gamete production. This is a simplistic explanation of the differences. Post-modern linguistic/social constructionism also plays a role in how my church family has worked with these texts.
My other question for Favale has to do with her conclusion in this ‘Comos’ chapter as she talks about redemption and what Jesus set in motion through his incarnation. Her emphasis is how this redemption brings us back to the beginning (the Garden)…”the original justice of creation through the engine of grace (p. 51).” This is beautiful phrasing. But I wonder how she interacts with the scriptures of the Revelation taking us to a city, not a garden, as the word picture of our restored life with God and one another? And does the word picture of city invite us to a different consideration of our ‘telos’ and its implications for how we now live in the midst of our “…inner conflict [that] erupts outward” (p. 51)?
Her discussion of outer and inner rupture (p. 47) is also fascinating to me. It invites me to consider the issue of integrity in our personhood. I had a fascinating conversation with a trans seminary student recently. She shared how for the first time in her life she feels at peace with herself and with God…something she never felt as a man. So for me this raises yet other questions–how, this side of heaven, do we journey with this reality of outer and inner rupture–especially regarding our sexuality/gender? How can we best accompany one another? How can we best communicate and participate in the healing and restorative grace of God? What is my role in this? What is the Spirit’s role this side of heaven? What is ultimately up to God to restore and/or judge as God sees fit in the heavenlies all around us? Will sexuality even be an issue in the age to come where we are not, according to the witness of the Gospels relaying the words of Jesus, given in marriage? Still so much to ponder and learn.
How would you respond to the questions you asked me?
Elmarie, I, like you, see Genesis 1 and 2 communicating the Who and the why of creation, not the when and the how that people often want to know. I see the account true mainly through Jesus use of the creation account in His earthly ministry. In Matthew 19, Jesus is asked about divorce and He directs the Pharisees to Genesis 2. At the very least, Jesus appeals to the story as containing truth that applies to the current dynamics in real-life marriages. Personally, I believe one’s interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is not an essential issue. I do believe to hold a high view of the Bible, engagement with the text is needed. I see that in your post here and your response to my question.
Elmaire, I agree with Roy…WOW! Well done! As I ponder what you wrote, I am challenged by the thought, as Christians are we to adjust to the current worldview(s) or should our world be more reflective of the perfected/redeemed worldview? Especially, in terms of Christ’s prayer for us in John 17. And what might that look like, while walking in grace?
Hi Denise. Thank you for your thoughts on my post and for your question. I’m wondering when you reference John 17…are you thinking specifically about vs. 14-19…being in the world but not of the world? And to your related question…adapting to current worldviews vs. perfected/redeemed worldview…I’ve always leaned into the missional text of Acts as a guide. I love how Paul took seriously understanding the culture around him (especially notable in Acts 17:16ff) and how this guided him in his conversations with those who were not followers of Jesus. Peter also gets at this in his pastoral letters. So, I think we need to know and understand the worldviews around us. We need to pay attention to how they influence subtly or overtly our own interpretive lens of scripture and our particular Christian tradition. We need to pay attention to how worldviews of early generations impacted the development of the doctrines that now guide our communal faith life within our particular traditions. We need to ask of God the wisdom to know what insights from current worldviews we need to pay attention to as God’s corrective to distorted past understandings that have emerged in our doctrines and practices based on past worldviews. That’s part of what I really appreciate about how Favale approaches her work…in her book she shares the ‘gold’ she has mined from the 4 waves of feminism and from post-modern philosophical and literary constructionism. She cautions against throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. All of this takes effort and time. I’m still learning, reflecting, praying–asking for the needed humility and wisdom to navigate this tension you raise through your question.
How would you respond to the question(s) you’ve raised?
Elmarie: I appreciate this reflection and processing of Favale very much. I especially enjoyed your pairings to other previous readings – those are not ones I had connected.
As you state at the end of your post wanting to give further consideration to your Reformed/Presbyterian Christian worldview, are there also cultural considerations that your organization wants to focus on as they address this issue in the 23-24 workplan?
Hi Kayli. Thank you for your time in reading and responding to my post. I am in a process of deeply relooking at my Presbyterian Christian theology and its resultant influence on praxis in large part because of the foci that have emerged in my organization over the past few years and the way in which scripture has been used to support that work. All of our foci directly engage cultural considerations, challenges, issues (tell me more what you mean by cultural considerations please…I may be addressing that differently than you mean). We started with these three in 2018 or so:
* Building congregational vitality
* Dismantling structural racism
* Eradicating systemic poverty.
We’ve now added to this:
* climate change
* militarism
* gender justice/heteropatriarchy
The specific cultural issues my organization (national offices of the PCUSA) want to address regarding gender justice/heteropatriarchy is, in the language of our leadership, “centering the voices of people from the LGBTQI+ community” (with this has come a thorough shift in who holds leadership/decision-making positions in our organization) and addressing the “intersections especially of gender justice, structural racism, and systemic poverty.” Transphobia is a significant focus in our DEI trainings. Use of language and the harm caused by micro-aggressions has been another focus. White supremacy/culture and especially the privilege held by white heterosexual men and women has been another focus. I’ve learned a lot, that is for sure.
But Favale’s book has helped me to understand much better why I’ve had some of the questions I’ve had and it has helped me to understand better a number of my colleagues whose approach to these topics comes much more out of the fourth-wave of feminism and the post-modern constructionist perspective. It has filled in some of my gaps due to being out of a USA context these past nearly 10 years.
Did I get at what you were asking, Kayli? Let me know what I missed in understanding your question.
Ms. Elmarie: Dr. Favale’s book is full of insights to think deeply upon. The issues she tackles are so important in this cultural moment, and she brings a much-needed Christian view that is thoughtful and articulate.
Hi Troy. Thank you for your comment. I’m wondering if there is anything in my post that specifically caught your attention?
Also, what is one key take-away you have from the perspective and insights offered by Dr. Favale?
Wow, this was an excellent post! Very good job tying to previous read works. It is complicated. As I was reading your blog, the question that came to my mind based on Genesis was, is it possible that as a part of the fall one who is born one physical sex is in fact, the wrong sex? And that their glorified body will be the opposite sex?
Hi Eric. Thank you for your time reading and interacting with my post. You ask a great question. I was wondering a similar thing as I read Favale’s work in the chapter named “cosmos.” She talks about inner and outer ruptures resulting from the fall (p. 47). So yes, I do think what you describe is possible this side of heaven. This may be one of the internal inconsistencies in Favale’s work…later in her book she is really emphasizing the outer rupture. Part of what I appreciated about Damian’s interaction with her book is his emphasis on restoring the inner rupture…at least this side of heaven…and of course this then has impact on the body. As to your question about the glorified body…great question…if we’re not given in marriage in the heavenlies I wonder to what degree sexuality will be part of our awareness…perhaps all of our physical desires are directed to worship? But then Jesus had a physical body as he ascended…but do we know how he experiences this physical body in the heavenlies at the Father’s side? I don’t know…your thoughts?
Hi Elmarie,
Ty for your insightful and powerful thoughts. I appreciated your introduction of Chris Damian’s perspective. I never thought that his reflection on this passage can be applied in that way…
“He then goes on to discuss Matthew 5:28-29 where Jesus teaches it is better to gouge out one’s eye to avoid lust than go to hell whole. Damian contends that in this teaching Jesus is blurring the line between the psyche and the body. And from this point raises the question of what then is the meaning and experience of bodily and psychological integrity?”
Being a reformed presbyterian pastor myself, I was curious…
How would you present your Reformed Prebyterian perspective in answering Damian’s question?
Hi Jonathan…thank you for your time reading my post and for your thought-provoking question! I’m realizing that I really need to take a step back and look again at my Reformed Presbyterian worldview and the other streams of thought and practice that are also woven into my worldview. But, I think at least one significant Reformed/Presbyterian principal that speaks to the outworking of this passage is that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and each person must thus discern what this internal/external integrity means, prayerfully guided by the whole of scripture.
What is your Reformed Presbyterian take on this?
Elmarie, I really do not have anything interesting to add to what our peers have asked and how you have responded. There has been a great deal of “ink” put down here on your blog.
I would like to say I do like your response to Jonathan.
Thank you for your continued generous engagement with the book!