{"id":30512,"date":"2023-01-26T19:31:20","date_gmt":"2023-01-27T03:31:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/?p=30512"},"modified":"2023-01-26T19:31:20","modified_gmt":"2023-01-27T03:31:20","slug":"god-is-a-big-god-who-fits-into-orthodoxy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/god-is-a-big-god-who-fits-into-orthodoxy\/","title":{"rendered":"God is a Big God Who Fits into Orthodoxy?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory<\/em> written by Dr. Abigail Favale engages the subject of gender theory and its impact on one\u2019s identity from a historical, biological, and philosophical perspective while applying a narrow theological construction. Her agenda is, \u201canalyzing the genealogy of gender, providing an account of how the gender paradigm emerged and how it compares to the paradigm of Catholic Christianity.\u201d[1]<\/a> She unpacks her perspective on the benefits and constraints of the feminist movement with intention. I appreciate her point that people of Christian faith must wrestle with the tension our postmodern world presents in holding the truth we know and believe with the \u201creality\u201d of our experience.<\/p>\n

But I need to be honest here. Though I understand Dr. Favales subtitle communicates that she is only offering one Christian theory amongst many, I found myself deeply concerned regarding the impact her application of Biblical concepts has on those wrestling theologically with faith, gender, identity, justice, and community. Her either\/or black or white interpretation reveals her lack of critical thinking. \u00a0What follows are quotes that struck me and my reflections on how I find Dr. Favale\u2019s understanding of orthodoxy in Biblical interpretation troubling.<\/p>\n

The task for women is to create a distinctively feminine understanding of God, one that can facilitate\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0our \u201cbecoming\u201d as women. Irigaray doesn\u2019t think that women need to be free from religion; rather, they\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0need to belong to a religion of their own making.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Her orthodoxy leads to black and white, either\/or thinking that leads to rigidity leaving no room for the Spirit to transform our human constructions. If God is such a big God why can’t my experience and someone else’s experience still belong within the same understanding of God?<\/p>\n

Feminism rightly recognizes that something is amiss, that the relationship between men and women has\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0been too often characterized by domination. However, blind to the dimension of grace, the solutions\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0offered by its theories are themselves caught in the fallen forces of conflict, in the continual grasping for\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0power over others.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

I do agree with this.\u00a0 To think any group has the exclusive lock on truth is surely grasping for power.\u00a0 But I do not agree the argument for gender binary is the purpose of Genesis.\u00a0 I think power is the heart of this, but scripture does not claim Adam and Eve were thinking in \u201cgender power\u201d terms.\u00a0 When we apply where we are now in history by projecting it onto biblical stories, we push the boundaries of what God intends.\u00a0 The Fall speaks to power hunger in basic straight forward terms; humans\u2019 greed for power to be like God.<\/p>\n

That is how God enters into our world and reveals himself, through the incarnational reality of Christ,\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0who became a body that we might know and love the invisible God. The Incarnation is both a historical\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0moment, a plot on the timeline of the world story, and an eternal moment.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Yes, but God is always transforming how humans understand and experience life.\u00a0 Jesus always pushed people to let go of what we know so that we can receive what better life God offers.\u00a0 Didn’t Jesus tell Mary not to hold onto his body?\u00a0 The dynamic of the \u201chere\/not yet\u201d of kingdom life is missing in Favale\u2019s theology.\u00a0 She seems to miss the theological psychology of how humans fear of death drives what we do with our bodies.<\/p>\n

Despite its so-called progressivism, the current portrayal of intersex people as neither men nor women is\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0simply the latest version of this othering\u2014the updated, politically permissible way of saying \u201cfreak\u201d and\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u201cIt\u201d.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

I agree with her that it is dehumanizing but it also impacts a sense of acceptance. This seems like a blatant hypocrisy on her part; one way of being in body is ok but the needs of others that manifest in another way is not?<\/p>\n

We are living in the Age of Pygmalion\u2026In the original myth, Pygmalion [after sculpting the perfect\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0woman] wants to marry her, to bring her to his bed; in our time, Pygmalion wants to be her. Instead of a\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0sculptor\u2019s tools, he works with scalpel and syringe. Instead of stone, he carves his fantasy into his own\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0flesh.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

JUST WOW!\u00a0 This statement is profoundly inflammatory and judgmental for she projects her truth of her God onto others and essentially dehumanizes, the thing she says postmodernism has done.\u00a0 It is here where I realize that my heart is not really impassioned around this issue of feminism and gender identity.\u00a0 As Henry David Thoreau says, \u201cThere are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.\u201d\u00a0 We expend hours and energy on a plethora of issues while avoiding the root, human greed for power.\u00a0 This greed fuels retributive justice, \u201clove the sinner, hate the sin\u201d, and functional atheism festering within churches.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For centuries the church universal that has given men a sense of authority over a woman’s body.\u00a0 The church has communicated that to enjoy one\u2019s sexuality and sex is improper. The church has created a culture where sex is bad.\u00a0 And the church has taught women they don’t get a say.<\/p>\n

The idea that women exist primarily for the pleasure of men has never been more explicit, more\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 omnipresent, than in our ostensibly feminist age.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

I disagree. Only when the church starts owning the misuse of power, opens a space to own the pain and suffering it has done to the sexuality of women, will there be a shift in healing. A shift in healing for women means a shift in healing for men.<\/p>\n

Dr. Favale seems driven by the desire that humans can embrace the gift of our physical bodies as sacramental revelation to celebrate and embody the love of God and our love for God. I deeply appreciate the heart of her hope. The journey there will require leaders to be courageous enough to stop blindly whacking at limbs and confront the root of humanity\u2019s brokenness, our deep hunger for being powerful.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Favale, Abigail. The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory<\/em>. San Francisco California: Ignatius Press, 2022.\u00a0Page 27. Kindle.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Ibid. Page 19. Kindle.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Ibid. Page 45. Kindle.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a>Ibid. \u00a0Page 120. Kindle.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Ibid. Page 122. Kindle.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Ibid. Page 141. Kindle.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Ibid. \u00a0Page151. Kindle.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory written by Dr. Abigail Favale engages the subject of gender theory and its impact on one\u2019s identity from a historical, biological, and philosophical perspective while applying a narrow theological construction. Her agenda is, \u201canalyzing the genealogy of gender, providing an account of how the gender paradigm emerged and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":148,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[2557,2556,2555,2543,95],"class_list":["post-30512","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-binary","tag-greed","tag-orthodoxy","tag-favale","tag-power","cohort-lgp11"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30512","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/148"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30512"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30512\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30513,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30512\/revisions\/30513"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}