Wednesday, May 22, 2019

A Biblical Speculation on Gender

So what DOES the Bible have to say about Gender?
-Alex

------------

Ahhh, the first question of the new regime! Thanks for writing in, Alex.

My answer is (say it along with me, those of you playing at home) complicated, but before I begin, there is something I should make clear. The Bible has very little to say about the concept of gender at all. It acknowledges that genders exist, uses the concept of gender to differentiate people from each other, and uses words like man, woman, boy and girl, but never shows a great deal of interest in defining those states.

Now normally, in such a situation, I would simply tell someone to stop looking at the Bible for answers to the question. However, there are people bound and determined to either name the Bible as the reason to target people on the basis of gender (never mind those outside of the cisgender paradigm) or to use it for wild speculation on the subject, and frankly, it's far past time progressive Christians stopped abdicating our Holy Book to the opposition, so by golly, I'm gonna speculate as well.

The Bible is a supremely odd document, made all the more so by the nature of its creation, even if you hold it is as holy: It is a Divine Work produced through Sinful Instruments. Discernment of God's will through the use of the scriptures requires just that: discernment. It takes work, and it is something you can get wrong. You have to learn to differentiate between an Act of God and the opinion on that act given by a flawed person.

For instance, while it is possible to find passages that insinuate that women should not be in positions of leadership, the mere fact that women repeatedly are shown to be placed in positions of leadership by ordination of the Holy Spirit, we can conclude that those saying such a thing is impossible were in the wrong: If the Almighty chooses a Woman to lead all of Israel, the opinion of the Author of Timothy will have to take a back seat.

So lets see what clues we can put together.

The oft quoted "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" refers to the creation story in Genesis 2, and tries to depict that dichotomy shown as a prescriptive model for human relationships. That's flawed in several respects. First, the catastrophic end result of the Adam and Eve story hardly serves as an endorsement of the cis-het relationship, secondly, the existence of two distinct genders does not rule out the possibility of others, but maybe most important is the simple fact that Genesis 1 exists, as well.

In the first chapter of Genesis, the creation of humanity is shown to be wildly different from the presented dichotomy of chapter 2. Whereas in chapter 2, male is created, then followed by the distinct female, in chapter 1 creation is simultaneous. Individuals are not named and followed, but rather the entire species is formed, not male OR female, but Male AND Female, as part of the Imago Dei, or the image of God.

(For those who wonder, I quote latin only to attempt to appear intellectually impressive.)

So to be in the image of God is to be male AND female.

Now, that's quite a claim. Let's see if we can find more than one passage (translated from the notoriously grammatically wobbly Ancient Hebrew) to give us such an idea.

Well, if we're looking at the idea of Image of God as something to base our understanding of gender on, how is God described. Plenty of male and father language, to be sure, but also more than a little female language as well. For instance, take Sophia, or Mother Wisdom, who is often associated with the second person of the Trinity before the Incarnation of Jesus. Take references to God breast-feeding God's people, and even giving birth to them and having labor pains!

At the end of the day, it becomes fairly clear that if we are to base our assumptions on gender from the clues to be found in the text, one must conclude that to bear the Image of God is to be gender-fluid, at least for us as a species. Sure, instances of definite males and females exist, but you could raise a real rabbinical argument over whether such a person can bear the entirety of the image, or just their own, smaller part.

Beyond that, things get even weirder. Take Eunuchs. A lot of people like to use reproduction as the final indicator of gender and identity but the Bible firmly denies such a stance, with people who either castrated themselves or were castrated by others still being seen to fully bear the image of God. This is also the closest the scriptures come to commentary on the idea of transgender... alterations to ones physical gender identity are expressly NOT condemned.

So... all that said, what do we know about the Bible and Gender? As I said at the beginning, not much. None of this is actual commentary on the idea. At no point did a prophet sit up in bed and feel the spirit compelling her to define the nature and roles of gender in society, and so any attempt to USE the Bible to do as much is based, at best, on speculation, and honestly, you're better off using other sources (such as, say, Science, or the actual experience of people outside of the cis-het paradigm) to inform yourself on the subject.

But if you are going to use the Bible to speculate, one can only land at the conclusion that the Bible (and by extension, God's) concept of gender is far bigger and more complex than a species easily divided into man OR woman. And of course, we must never forget that whatever the Divine view of gender is, the Divine view of the oppressed, downtrodden, and outsider is clear... they are to be loved, welcomed, and treated as we would like to be treated.

So maybe DON'T throw them into the street for being who they are because of the Bible. Because I don't know who taught YOU Sunday School, but thats definitely NOT what the Bible says.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Sabbatical... what?

So, the Blog has been basically dead for more than a year. I've intended to kick it off again multiple times over that time but never really felt I had the motivation... a lot of my posting that normally would have gone here happened elsewhere, like on my Facebook page or elsewhere. But today I find myself in a situation I never really believed I'd get to...

I'm on Sabbatical. For the next three months, I won't be attending church meetings, planning services, or writing sermons.

This isn't a vacation, or at least, it isn't meant to be. While rest and recreation ARE on the menu, it is meant as a time of rejuvenation, of stirring up the old brain cells and seeing what I have to share, with the hopes that the reading and writing I do during that time will give me new inspiration for when I return to my more regular work in August.




Getting a Sabbatical is an incredible act of generosity from the Church. A lot of pastors don't get them, and the burnout rate shows the repercussions of that. Even so, this is the first time that my specific church has offered one, and I know that some people are uneasy about the practice.

So, this seemed an excellent time to return to blogging, partially as a way to show people what I am doing and what I am thinking about (as for the next three months I am literally being paid to think and accountability is always a good thing), but also to give myself an outlet for the kind of expression that I am used to having as a pastor.

All that to say, I'm looking to get Ask Pastor Dan up and running again! As always, if you have questions for me about faith, life, or the church, feel free to ask them, and watch this spot as I try to dust off the ol' wheels and get the blog going again.

God Bless... and here's to a good sabbatical!