Genderless God?

In one of his responses to my article “Towards a theology ofgay marriage”, John Richardson made the following comment…

Far from being ‘genderless’ however, this mystical union undergirds the very notion of gender – including the basis on which we call God ‘he’.   As CS Lewis once put it, “What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relationship to it.”

While I do not have sufficient expertise in relation to CS Lewis to know what point he was trying to make, John Richardson’s comment did make me reflect about God as solely male - so ‘male’ that we can only call him ‘He’.

Many women have, of course found this difficult to accept, particularly since the rise of feminism.  The Christian faith has come under attack from some feminists for our male only hierarchy and male God, while others have sought to redress the balance with prayers addressed to ‘Mother God’ or ‘Our Mother who art in heaven’.

It reminds me of a joke I once heard about someone who had died and gone to heaven. 

He was met by St Peter at the Pearly Gates and given a tour of paradise.  After being shown rooms for different Christian Traditions each with their own appropriate decoration, trappings and ornaments, the new arrival finally asked if he could meet God now.  St Peter hesitated, and looked unsure.  Finally he said, “Well I suppose so, but you will have to be prepared for a shock”.

The new arrival tried to assure St Peter that he was ready - that he had read his Bible and knew that he would almost certainly be overcome by awe, wonder, and godly fear at the sight of the omnipotent, great “I am” whose presence has struck fear and trembling into people throughout  human history.

St Peter eventually agreed, but as they came to the door into God’s presence, he whispered to the new arrival, “It’s not those things that will shock you – you see, She is Black!”

The biggest problem with those who would want to keep God as solely masculine however, is that it simply isn’t Biblical.

Alongside the feminine pictures of God which appear in the Bible, (like that of a mother comforting her child  or a hen gathering her chicks ) there is the clearest indication in Genesis 1 that we cannot restrict God in this way.

At the creation of human beings in Genesis 1:27, we read that

So God created humankind in his image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

For me the Word of God here is very clear – both women and men, in all their fullness, are made in the image of God.  Anything less would be to subtract from the Scriptures - and in a way which then affects our view of everything which follows, from Genesis 1 all the way to Revelation 22.  For God to create male and female in his image, God must be both male and female in a way which transcends our limited human understanding. 

But that does not imply a ‘genderless’ God anymore than same-sex marriage implies ‘genderless’ marriage.  What it actually implies is a 'genderful’ God who is able to relate to both men and women fully, and with whom both women and men can relate fully without having to set aside part of their gender or sexuality in the process.

For me personally as a man, I have always been comfortable in calling God Father (while recognising that others find this difficult) but I have felt equally comfortable relating to the Holy Spirit as female and allowing Her to enrich my Christian life and faith.

She has filled my life with the presence of God, and She has made the reality of God more real in my life.  She has led me in the Truth of Christ, given me Her gifts, and enabled me to grow in Her fruit.  In all of these things, I am indebted to God, who is both male and female - Father Son and Holy Spirit.

I believe in a Genderful God.

(You might also like to see the response to this post on Significant Truths which expands and develops the idea of a Genderful God in a very helpful and creative way)

Gays, Damned Gays, and Pro-Gays!

Ok , it doesn't have the same ring as 'Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics'  which came to mind as I thought about a title for this blog, but it does exhibit the same progression that is found in parts of  the Christian church.  In fact, it is fascinating to see how more conservative church attitudes to homosexuality are developing the same kind of hierarchy in levels of distrust.

On the first layer are gay people themselves (I use the word gay - by the way - as shorthand for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered - which I always find a bit of a mouthful).

This is the layer of openly gay people who are not currently in a same-sex relationship.  On the whole they are tolerated by the Church.  They are conditionally welcomed into most churches - conditional that they don't get into a relationship, of course.  They are permitted to contribute to most areas of church life - join a home-group, read the Bible and lead intercessions.   They are sometimes supported pastorally - mostly to keep  them from getting into a relationship. 

They are a slight cause of anxiety or concern,  but are often used as an example in saying "We have gay people in our church", so our church is not homophobic.   Dig down a little, however, and they are often viewed as a ticking  time-bomb, which one day might explode with damaging consequences.

The next layer up are 'Damned Gays' who are the ones who are 'practising' homosexuals - whatever that means! 

They are the ones who have  the audacity to turn up to church with their partner.  They are made to feel much less comfortable.  They are often welcomed with that tense, surprised and nervous look by clergy and church officers who live in fear of what their presence might mean for their well-ordered church and congregation.  They  are often not allowed to join home-groups, not allowed to stand up and speak at the front of church, not allowed to be involved in lay ministry, but nevertheless are told that their presence is welcome as long as they don't rock the boat too much or talk to anybody.  They are reminded from time to time however, that according to 1 Corinthians 6:9 they will not be inheriting the Kingdom of God - hence the title, "Damned Gays".

But there is another layer of mistrust which is gaining ascendency among conservative churches.  And this layer is causing much more concern for those from a more conservative theology of sexuality.  The name of this last category...  Pro-gays!

They are being feared more and more, because of the damage they are doing to the Gospel.  On the one hand there is less to attack.  They are straight, often happily married, with families.  They are amongst us as clergy, church wardens, deacons, or even Bishops.  They are respectable people, not like those gays!  They might be evangelicals, anglo-catholics, or just good old broad church CofE. England'.

But beneath this layer of respectability, they are more dangerous than Gays or Damned Gays because they have the audacity to be Pro-Gay.  They are the real threat because they have no vested interest in seeing the church become more inclusive,  and their presence is increasingly finding its way into the cross-hairs of conservative focus.

The appointment this week of Rev Nicholas Holtam as the new Bishop of Salisbury is just such a case.  He is straight,  married with children, and the vicar of a hugely successful church in central London.  Surely such an appointment could not upset anyone?

But there is a darker side to Nicholas Holtam - he is Pro-Gay!  And worse still - he has said so publically, is a member of Inclusive Church, and has welcomed such people as Bishop Gene Robinson to speak at the church!  He has had the audacity to challenge the homophobic statements of the global south, and to genuinely welcome gay people in ministry and worship.  Worst of all he has had the nerve to suggest that the biblical scriptures against homosexual practise simply do not apply to "baptised people in loving and faithful same-sex relationships".

And indeed the reaction from those who react to these things has been predictable.

The Church Society says...

"The appointment of the Revd Nicholas Holtam as the next Bishop of Salisbury is a regrettable and retrograde step.  In his public ministry Mr Holtam has actively promoted erroneous teaching on the issue of human sexuality, which puts him at odds with the declared mind of the House of Bishops, the General Synod of the Church of England and the 1998 Lambeth Conference, makes him unfit for ministry in the Church of England let alone as a Bishop.

While Rev John Richardson, writing in the Telegraph says that,

"If I were a minister in the Diocese of Salisbury today, therefore, I would be faced with a real crisis of conscience."

You do not need to be a church dignitary of course to attract such questioning.  In a comment to one of my recent blogs on same-sex marriage, the same Rev John Richardson wrote:

"When it comes to an issue as contentious as changing our entire theology of marriage and sexuality, the tradition should be our starting point, from which departure should only be made after careful, serious and collective deliberation. Importantly, this is one of those cases where private judgement must not be allowed free rein.

And that brings me to my question. You acknowledge standing outside the tradition (laid out in the BCP). But you are required to take the Declaration of Assent and stand under Canon A5, and I just want to know how you can do this. If you have changed your mind, fair enough, but should you not therefore change your allegiance?"

These are the kind of views which make many of us deeply suspicious of the Anglican Covenant - not for its intentions, but for the way in which it might be applied.  Under the Covenant, Anglican Provinces which  are perceived by some to have stepped out of line in their theology, practice, or indeed appointments could be similarly asked to consider 'changing their allegiance' but in a much more official way.

Such reactions do not, of course reflect the views of the majority of Anglicans in the UK who, despite wide diversity in their views on sexuality, treat each other with the acceptance and respect that Christ encouraged.  They know that to have 'serious and collective deliberation' in the way John Richardson describes, requires people to be there to deliberate - not ejected or asked to change their allegiance.

As a member of the Clergy in Salisbury Diocese, I am happy to say that I am facing no crisis of conscience following the nomination of our new Bishop - just a sense of rejoicing that the Church of England has listened to the diocese and God in this appointment, despite what others might try to say.

Church, Tradition and the Bride of Christ

As the debate continues in the Church of England Newspaper about same-sex marriage, I am grateful to Rev John Richardson for responding to my article - 'Towards a Theology of Gay- Marriage?'  

In his article 'Changing views of marriage' in last week's CEN, he has clearly sought to engage with some of the issues and questions I raised, and he makes a number of points which merit a response.

He begins by noting that same-sex marriage would mean breaking with church tradition and the theology of marriage as outlined in the BCP (Book of Common Prayer). He then makes the argument that rather than looking at Genesis 2 as our paradigm for marriage, we should look to the marriage between Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5 as the ultimate paradigm.  This, he argues, places a clear limit on our theology of marriage within the context of men and women with the ideal of procreation.  (You can read the full article by following this link)

First of all, it is interesting to see a fellow evangelical beginning with an appeal to tradition.  He rightly points out that the theology I am suggesting departs from the BCP emphasis on procreation and a 'traditional understanding of marriage'.  This is indeed the case, and I readily accept it, but in the course of human history there have been many issues where we have changed our minds in spite of clear arguments made from both Scripture and tradition for maintaining the status quo - the abolition of slavery, and the church's insistence that the sun revolves around the earth are just two such issues that immediately spring to mind.

More importantly however, is the alternative (and indeed superior) paradigm he offers for marriage in the Bible - that of Christ and His Church.

While I am not convinced that Ephesians 5 supersedes Jesus use of Genesis 2 as the ultimate paradigm for marriage, the framework he puts forward does more to suggest a 'genderless notion of marriage' than to deny it.  Why?  Because the Church as the 'Bride of Christ' contains both women and men.

As the inspirational evangelical preacher FB Meyer puts it, in his devotional commentary on Ephesians - 'Redeemed men compose that bride'.  Here is the context to that quote:

Here is a mystery indeed. That scene in Eden is also a parable. It was not good for Christ to be alone. He needed one to love and to give love. But there was none among unfallen angels that could answer to Him.  And therefore God the Father sought a bride for his Son from among the children of men; yea, He took the Second Eve from the wounded side of the Second Man, as He lay asleep in the garden-grave.

Redeemed men compose that bride...  Then the Church shall cleave to Him forever, and He shall cleave to her. And they twain shall be one spirit.

The fact that the Church comprises both men and women and that this (according to John Richardson) is the ultimate paradigm for marriage, suggests that marriage is indeed 'genderless' - it has just taken the church a long time to realise it (like the abolition of slavery and the movement of the sun).

No-one, of course would suggest that there is a literal 'sexual' component to the marriage of Christ and his Church, but that further calls into question relying on this paradigm for our full understanding of marriage.  Indeed Paul says in Ephesians 5 that "this is a profound mystery".  It is a mystery which we are still unravelling, and perhaps we haven't quite got there yet.