Fr. Dale Matson
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him,
Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought
thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, how is it that ye sought me? wist ye not
that I must be about my Father's business? (Luke 2: 48-40)
Much is rightfully said
about the divinity of Jesus and also the humanity of Jesus but it is also
important to see Jesus as a man. He is both Son of man and only begotten Son of
God. A son is male.
Feminists, especially
liberationist feminists find the patriarchal focus of Scripture to be
misogynist. They have introduced gender neutral terms in reference to God (the
Father) and even (God) the Son. Now they are calling for feminine terms for the
Three Persons of the Trinity. In fact
many Christian feminists including individuals who would refer to themselves as
transgendered Christians see Jesus as androgynous. The problem with a Jesus
that is not male is that it is an attack on an orthodox Christology of the one
holy catholic and apostolic church. It is also a denial of the statements in
the Council of Chalcedon (451) accepted by the Roman, Orthodox and Anglican
churches.
The problem with an
orthodox Christology of Jesus, who is male, for feminists, is that He can’t
save women. As feminists see it, it is also a Christology that has been used by
the patriarchal church to diminish women and keep them in subjugation. “Jesus, who
was indisputably a male human being, is interpreted as the incarnation of the
Logos, an ontological symbol connected with rationality and thus, according to
Greek philosophy, with maleness. The Word made flesh is then related to human
beings defined according to an androcentric anthropology that sees men as
normative and women as derivative. (Elizabeth A. Johnson, “Redeeming the Name
of Christ,” in Freeing Theology (ed. Catherine Mowry LaCugna; San
Francisco: Harper-San Francisco, 1993), p.118)
Professor Johnson has
stated the truth in her complaint. “…men as normative and women as derivative.”
That is what the creation account tells us to be the case. Additionally, the
redemption of humans was a logical reflection of the order of creation of
humans. There is an excellent piece on this by Father Dale Brown. http://thefatherbrown.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/women-in-sacerdotal-ministry-could-jesus-have-been-female/#comment-113
The feminist concerns
about salvation by a male are misandry at best and agnostic revisionism at
worst. Are they saying His work was not finished unless they can make Him into
someone who better reflects both genders? What about ethnicity too? In
attempting to make Christ less male, they have made Him less human also. Isn’t
it really the symbolism that matters to the feminists?
This is not even the end
point in feminist theology. Others like Rita Nakashima Brock state, “The
feminist Christian commitment is not to a savior who redeems us by bringing God
to us. Our commitment is to love ourselves and others into wholeness. Our
commitment is to a divine presence with us here and now, a presence that works
through the mystery of our deepest selves and our relationships, constantly
healing us and nudging us toward a wholeness of existence we only fitfully
know. That healed wholeness is not
Christ; it is ourselves.” [my bolding]
Rita Nakashima Brock, “The Feminist Redemption of Christ,” in Christian
Feminism: Visions of a New Humanity (ed. Judith Weidman; New York: Harper
& Row, 1984), 69.
And so we come full
circle. Feminists have determined that Jesus cannot save them so they have to
save Him. The attempt to make Jesus a symbol or a metaphor detracts from His
humanity. In detracting from His humanity they are also diminishing our
humanity; male and female. The feminist spirit is not new. It began with Eve doubting
what God had instructed and trying to become more than she was created to be;
wanting to be equal to God. There is
an element of symbolism here. Feminism is giving birth to a new Christ and with
this new Christ, a new gospel is needed also. In order to make their new narrative
work, they must change the Christology of the church. This is the spirit of
this age and it has infected the true church however, Jesus has not changed. “Jesus
is the same yesterday, today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)
“Whoever has seen Me has
seen the Father.” (John 14:9) Jesus came
to reveal the Father. It is a major work of the church to reveal the Son. To
obfuscate the person and work of Jesus Christ is to confuse His revelation of
the Father, confound soteriology and grieve the Holy Spirit.
Note: There is a more
extensive treatment of this topic by Micah
Daniel Carter “Reconsidering The Maleness Of Jesus” available here: https://www.cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/jbmw_pdf/13_1/maleness_jesus.pdf
.
There is also an
excellent book on “Feminism In Christianity” by Deborah Malacky Belonick.
(1983)