In Our Image (or, Why I Don’t Click on Spam about Penis Size)
Essays, Featured — By John Wofford on October 26, 2009 at 12:00 am
“women don’t like it when the friend in your pants is sleepy”
“don’t you just want to run away when you can’t satisfy your girl?”
There’s a reason spam comes in certain types; these hackers want us to click on something and hand over our personal information, which means each ad has to appeal to some internal cue—to make us want to click. We’ve all been privy to those ads that try to capitalize on the hidden recesses of our psyche, particularly what we consider to be our shortcomings: penis extensions to the guy who wants to please his gal just a bit more, free footage of naked women who wouldn’t possibly talk to the insecure types in reality, and even muscle enhancement for those of us still traumatized from high school, when we got our heads crammed into a toilet bowl by that one girl with a mustache. This “marketing” trend stems from one truth: somewhere, in some bedroom, on somebody’s laptop, there’s an Internet user whose insecurities are getting the best of him. So he clicks. And the guy down the street does too. And the guy a couple houses down. And so on—an endless supply of spam.
Society has a ton of expectations about gender roles, body types, and social acceptance, which is not exactly news to anyone. We keep our fear of rejection hidden, but statistics show nothing but rising trends of teenage women with unrealistic standards of “beauty” and boys with nothing but myths about how to be truly potent, shed social awkwardness, and feel personally affirmed through sheer force of machismo. What’s worse, our places of worship and spiritual structures often confirm these feelings of inadequacy by painting pictures of the divine that are, quite frankly, scary as hell itself.
You know there’s a problem when a religious system assigns God—infinite creative being beyond human definition or understanding, so on and so forth, world without end, amen—a gender. As in, they have an official theological position on whether or not the maker of all things has a penis. They scour the Tanakh, ravage the New Testament, and at the end of the day, the nature of God’s genitalia takes precedent to any other outstanding information about His (ahh!) character. Granted, the English language doesn’t exactly have a gender-neutral designation for infinite divine beings, which makes use of the pronoun “Him” a convenience. The sad part is, for many people, it’s more than a convenience: it’s an important aspect of His nature.
Even worse is when we take so much of the exclusivity inherent in the original manuscripts (all the masculine categorizers—“brothers,” “men,” “mankind,” etc.) and run with it. So not only is God exclusively male, but His divine revelations speak to men, and through men, to women. The Apostle Paul urges silence from women during the actual temple proceedings each Sabbath, a passage that has been interpreted and re-interpreted in a number of ways, but very often to the detriment of women and girls just as eager to take part in the communication and commentary of these philosophies during worship. Furthermore, 1 Timothy holds a reminder that Eve, a woman, was the first to sin.
The problem this causes is not simply with women, who have in years past been left out in the cold by the church, but also with men who now bear this intense burden to be masculine: “all man,” as it were. It’s one thing to teach men and women their unique contributions to the world, it’s another to paint this picture of a God totally defined by testosterone, which in turn is conducive to well meaning but misled parent figures placing unneeded pressure on their children or charges to meet predetermined social standards on what it looks like to be a “real man” or “real woman.”
For instance, I know this guy. Growing up, his dad (a local Protestant minister) wanted him to go out for sports. Did this guy like sports? Of course not. But his dad thought sports were a natural outlet for a decent young man. So when the time came for tryouts, he was forced to suffer through endless lectures about how he should stop reading those damned books and actually go try something new. The problem is, this guy was always trying something new. Each new book led to new questions, which in turn led to new conversations, which in turn brought new change not only for this guy, but as many people as he could impact—pursuit of social justice, sensitivity to minorities, and a conviction to treat each woman like she has genuine worth. Sadly, he was accused of being gay more than once. Because, as we all know, the typical Christian male shouldn’t spend reasonable amounts of time finding ways to improve the world. Nope, he should tackle as many other men (and the occasional woman) as possible.
That’s what Jesus wants.
No pansies.
No weaklings.
No fluffy, squishy liberal types.
Big, strapping boys.
Seriously, what are we trying to prove?
For some reason, this is really bugging me lately. I’ve talked to at least three people recently who’ve expressed some kind of sadness over their gender identity. Not in terms of their sexual role, but simply because of who they are. Not pretty enough. Not smart enough. Not athletic enough. Not cool enough. Not enough man or woman to satisfy the demands of an insatiable, unattainable image of perfection.
Even sadder? Each one of those people is a faithful member of a religious community.
Christianity, more than either of the other two Abrahamic faiths, run the risk of being caught up in the cult of appearance and celebrity, reducing our pastors and youth ministers to icons to be admired not simply for their beliefs and convictions, but the entire aesthetic they command: the cool hair, the stylish clothes, great taste in all the most popular bands, etc. With this shift toward a more populist edge, Christianity as a philosophical discipline becomes sacrificed on the altar of unattainable celebrity.
Seen any promotional photos of bands lately? These images are becoming more and more subject to the “benefits” of photoshop, creating marketable images out of average joes, reducing flesh and blood to avatars of unreal perfection and putting them further and further out of reach of the average awkward teenager with zits, unzipped blue jeans, and a knack for tripping over his or her own feet. So now, even in the realm of our faith, we’re sending ourselves internal messages of inadequacy and unsatisfactory performance.
This has to be said.
To each awkward teenage guy who has ever sat in the back of church looking at the youth pastor with the cool blonde highlights and Abercrombie jeans thinking “That’ll never be me”, I ask you to stare in the mirror tonight and admire yourself for the genuine, divinely-crafted piece of Elohim that you are. To each woman or teenage girl who has ever felt like she was anything short of stunningly beautiful because of her self-professed “inadequate body”, I plead with you to resist the noise of cultural expectations and fall in love with yourself and the Maker who crafted you with precision and care—and only share yourself with a man who holds that same sense of awe and love. To each and every guy with feelings of lacking masculinity, who fights the urge to succumb to those spam links, who thinks that you’re less of a man because of an inner gentle streak that others have frowned on or times when you’ve felt lacking: you are exactly the reflection of the divine you were destined to be. To every middle-aged woman, single parent, and elderly lady who has ever met her later years with a feeling of being less desirable—you are a queen.
It’s just one step against the tide of toxic identity crisis. Let’s take it together.
28 Comments
I’ve never considered the possibility of claiming God as male as the ultimate male enhancer. You might be on to something.
It should be noted, though, that orthodox Christianity doesn’t claim that God is a male. It claims that God choses to reveal himself male, primarily for the purpose of using the Father metaphor for us to understand our relationship with…uhm… him. There are verses in the Bible that describe God as a loving, maternal hen who nurtures her children.
two thumbs up on this post. I think I myself have been caught up in the thought that “masculine” fits into a certain box. Thought provoking.
Thumbs down. God made us male and female, in His image. He made males different, not better, not worse, from females. We should embrace our gender, for it’s who God made us to be. PC or not, I won’t pretend gender differences don’t exist.
As for the God as male thing: Jesus repeatedly referred to God as Father, and told us to pray like this: “Our Father. who art in heaven…” Should we ignore Jesus’ own words?
I didn’t see anything in this essay that denied the fact that there are differences between genders, it simply said that we should not be so caught up in unattainable images of gender “perfection”.
As for the “God is male” part of this, how could be one that is utterly formless and transcendant, that reveals Itself through every manifested creation that is, was, and ever will be inherently possess any physical quality such as gender? Jesus worshipped God the Father, the masculine aspect of the Divine, at no point did he ever disqualify the reality of the Divine Feminine.
I don’t know of any way that God could have a gender, but for some reason, His word refers to Him constantly in that way. There is one verse, pointed out by Larry, where He is compared to a mother hen. It’s not specifically addressing Him as a mother, but demonstrating that He has the same qualities as a loving mother. Everywhere else, we see the consistent references. Not just Jesus’ words (although that would be enough), but Paul’s words, and other writers, and in both testaments.
Romans 8:15 “…you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”
As has been pointed out before, the modern equivalent of “abba” would be “daddy”. I am convinced that (a) we should never try to PC our way around this stuff, and (b) there isn’t any harm in it.
I’m sorry that men have been controlling, abusive, etc., throughout history. There is no excuse for that. But there’s also no excuse for whitewashing those parts of the bible which keep God from fitting into some box we have tried to fit Him into.
Bear in mind that your quote is from Romans and is therefor the not the words of Jesus or even one of the 12 principle disciples. The only “harm” I see in trying to assign a gender to the Supreme Creator are the facts that:
a) In physical creation it requires a Feminine and a Masculine quality working together to manifest anything.
b) It inherently attributes a quality (and therefor a “box”) to the ineffable and
c) It diniminshes the role of the female in creation if there is only the masculine aspect of the Divine.
I have been taught that the supreme has a Masculine quality (which radiates divine illumination throughout Creation) and a Feminine quality (which receptively draws consciousness into loft states of transcendence and ultimately manifests the divine emanations of the Divine Masculine). In fact the Holy Spirit is regards as some to be the Divine Feminine whereas the Father is regarded as the Divine Masculine. It is also important to note the culture which recorded “His word” which was patriarchal. In many of the more matriarchal cultures the Godhead is often thought of as feminine. That might have little relevance to those who regard the Bible as having a monopoly on spiritual truth and understanding, but to those who are willing to look beyond the “box” of modern biblical interpretation might see a larger picture forming here.
Ryan, I first mentioned Jesus multiple uses of the term Father for God, not just from Jesus’ perspective but also urging us to refer to Him as Father. Not sure how you missed that.
And as for Paul’s words, well, they did originate with the Holy Spirit, so I am inclined to give them their due.
This is a very thought provoking article. I think that some may get sidetracked from the message of it by trying to make it fit into their “theology.” As a woman raised in a christian home, in church my whole life, I have felt the pressure of fulfilling my “gender role.” Actually, I tend to be a bit rebellious toward that role, not my femininity. I like what the writer said about women wanting to participate in the communication and commentary of the philosophies during worship. I still see that as a problem in the Church as a whole. The voice of women is barely a whisper, and only really listened to if it is regarding marriage or children. Eve was created in the image of God as well.
All of that aside, I think that the author was saying that we shouldn’t fall into the traps of the world. Trying to tell us who we should be, or what is attractive. Jesus loved the outcast. What does it say about the Church if we only put the “cool kids” on stage? The world plays to our insecurities, shouldn’t the Church be a place to feel loved and accepted?
Annie, I have felt the same. And even well-meaning men in the church have reinforced gender expectations that I honestly don’t believe I was created to fulfill. It’s nice to know I’m not alone in that.
And to John: thank you for this article. I’m afraid this is a message that needs to be repeated many, many times in many different venues to get to all the hearts who need it.
I took a class in college called, “Women in the Hebrew Scriptures”. I was hoping to talk women’s roles, culture, maybe a little Esther…but my professor spent the entire semester proving to us that God was a woman.
I wrote my term paper on how God is not a gender because He is above it. However, we cannot deny that He chooses to show us Himself in Scripture as “male.” My conclusion was basically, “How dare you make God in your own image, professor.”
I got a D but passed the class.
My point is that we spent so long hacking at the Bible and shredding any traditional concept of it. And ironically, it only strengthened my faith in a God that is so much more than social gender roles throughout herstory.
Very well said, Betsy.
I’m inclined to agree with the author. I do not believe that God, the creator of all existence, is restricted to a single gender. Our language is limited, and it feels wrong to call God, “it” so “He” makes sense since we 1) have a patriarchal society and 2) Jesus refers to God as father. I don’t think that just because Jesus called God “father” means that God necessarily IS male, but that God has the attributes, qualities, and nature of a father. And a mother. and everything else good, because He’s God. Jesus was fully man, and fully bound by our limitations as man in regards to language, so calling God father was the best way to express (His) nature.
The verses I think kind of back me up in this are John 4:24 which refers to God as a Spirit, and Luke 20:35-36 which explicitly says there will be no gender in heaven. If there will be no gender in heaven then that makes me believe the reason for this is God knows how restrictive and binding gender is, and did not design us to live that way for eternity. If he doesn’t want US, who were created in HIS (ahem) image to be restricted in heaven by gender, why would he confine himself in that way?
Methinks our little brains just can’t wrap around the idea that God is God, not male, not female, not an old guy with a white beard that looks like Gandolf, but God, the Ultimate Creator.
Emily, I agree that He isn’t confined to one gender. No doubt. I’d go further in saying with confidence that God put qualities in both males and females that are like His own qualities. Genesis 1:27 makes this clear.
What I disagree with in this article, and maybe I’m reading this author wrong, but he seems to be saying that we should remove all references to God as Father or He in Scripture. My point is that every word of the bible was chosen carefully by the author (The Holy Spirit, not the men who wrote it), and we are not to go changing stuff around because it doesn’t fit our PC concepts, or even because many men have abused their status.
When God wrote the bible, He knew what life was going to be like in the 21st century. None of our societal changes have taken Him by surprise. Yet He still wrote it the way He did, and I strongly caution anyone against trying to “improve” His choice of words.
James:
I would not go so far as to say that I’d remove references to God as “father” in the text itself (although I could see why some modern translators might feel so inclined to move into that direction), but I do believe in gender-inclusive language when referring to the collective group of followers in the faith tradition. All the “brothers” and “mankind” and so forth should definitely be approached with caution, even more so when we get to 1 Timothy and Paul reminds his charges that through women sin entered the world. That bit of social misogyny wheedled its way into the text, and it should be identified as such, particularly in congregations that understand our creation epic (Genesis 1-3) to be philosophically and morally symbolic, rather than an accurate account of the earth’s formation.
The issue that you, James, seem to be taking to task is the eagerness with which we re-define the texts themselves, which tends to grant them a sense of “whichever way the cultural wind blows” rather than the “infallible, divinely inspired WORD OF G-D.” While I find that an admirable stance, I’ve always been more inclined to understand the sacred documents of Christianity as a set of philosophical disciplines, a grounding place for solid worldview-crafting, but not a book of eternally-relevant divine commentary on the workings of humanity, although that seeps in from time to time.
Taking the stance that I currently hold (while currently practicing Reform Judaism and engaging in interfaith dialogue — I was raised in Christianity), it’s far easier to navigate the waters of changing cultural expectations while interpreting any passages, whether in the Tanakh or the New Testament, rather than doggedly defend the use of head coverings, the silence of women in worship and commentary (which, frankly, appears to be forbidden by Paul, no matter what the modern scholars might say), etc.
John, while I respect your right to a point of view, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of what Scripture is, and how we are to deal with it. God is so powerful, so wise, so amazing, that He knew exactly what he was doing when He wrote each word, and make no mistake: the words are His. Not Moses’, not Paul’s, not Isaiah’s. The idea that His perfect Word “should definitely be approached with caution” is antithetical to everything I believe. If He is wiser than me, who am I to decide what parts of His words are worthy of my attention?
They all came from one perfect source, and He knew all that would transpire in the future, including all the changes in how we view men and women. Yet He chose the words He chose. Rather than re-write His text, I am going with the idea that I should trust Him, and use that trust as the foundation to everything I do, read, think, and believe.
And for the record, I don’t think Adam and Eve were symbolic. I think they were real humans, in a real garden, who were spoken to by a serpent, just as the words say they were.
I have a question for you. You said:
“even more so when we get to 1 Timothy and Paul reminds his charges that through women sin entered the world.”
Will you show me this verse? I only know of this one, which says just the opposite:
Romans 5:12 “for just as through one man sin entered the world…”
I wholeheartedly agree with John on this one. The Bible may be divinely inspired and I do believe that at least the majority of it is, however it was still written by fallible mortals. To say that any sacred text was litrally written by God and to be taken completely literally at face value is to worship printed words on a page rather than a living God. Be wary of turning a translation of a translation of divine inspiration into a golden calf (that being a metaphor for an idol not a literal golden calf).
Ryan said:
“To say that any sacred text was litrally written by God and to be taken completely literally at face value is to worship printed words on a page rather than a living God.”
Ridiculous leap. It’s because I worship God that I am convinced He kept His written word intact. (a) He’s certainly capable; and (b) it’s in our best interest for Him to do so.
James,
You’re right that God is capable. I am uneasy, however, making claims for God about what is or is not in our best interest.
John
Fine, then. Set aside the “our best interest” point. His being capable is enough. Because the arguments given to support the idea that we shouldn’t regard Scripture as inerrant have to do with the ability of man to cause it to deteriorate. Which would be worth considering, had it not been for the overwhelming number of mentions within Scripture of just how important and true and indestructible His word is.
Also, let me say that as this discussion continues, I am very proud to engage each one of you in the pursuit of understanding this Divine Lover we so deeply crave.
John,
Great article, but at the end, you lost me. You said that men were created in the image of God, with no similar statement for women. If God has no genitalia, then we are both created in hir image. Furthermore, so much of what we think of gender is socially constructed and peculiar to this time, place, and culture, especially considering that there are naturally many variants on the gender binary! Just food for thought.
For the dude who was going on about the Scriptures, a little reminder: the Scripture isn’t the fourth person in the Holy Trinity.
Jessica:
If it was unclear as to my stance on whether or not women are created in God’s image, then let me frankly state — THEY ARE MOST DEFINITELY CREATED IN HIS IMAGE.
Now, let the apostate in me state that I’m rather more interested in the feminine (read: not often discussed) attributes of the Creator than I am God’s machismo.
Also, to the “dude” going on about the Scriptures — the Holy Trinity concept wasn’t introduced until much later in Christian thought. Hence, we understand that our structuring of the Divine into various intellectual constructs grows tiresome in its inherent silliness. God is experienced, not analyzed under microscopes, be those microscopes literal or figurative.
John Wofford
Also, I’m a bit embarrassed that I hyphenate the middle letter in G-d’s name half of the time, and don’t the other half. But, that’s a splitting of silly theological hairs I imagine.
James,
I do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. However, a lot of the NT is about the culture of the time. I mean Corinthians is basically a letter from Paul dealing with the issues the church in Corinth were facing. How can we take it literally? Do you take literally the passage about women being silent? Im just wondering where you draw the line in your interpretation.
John,
Thank you for starting the discussion. I really appreciate your perspective, even though I feel like the conversation has gotten away from what your essay was about.
Thanks Annie!
As far as the Bible being the literal word of God… well, let’s just say that I’m not a literalist/fundamentalist/evangelical. In the last few months, I’ve made the transition from Christianity to Reform Judaism. That says worlds in and of itself, even if I find valid principles and theological concepts in Christianity. Which is why I typically argue on the basis of other foundations, rather than particular passages in the scriptures. Finding common ground is hard if we all cling to our holy books and only use their rhetoric to solidify our opinions in the court of public understanding. Bridges should be built, rather than walls. Considering that I was raised in and practiced Christianity for 20 years, I understand the concepts with a deal of confidence. I’m always learning, though I’ve focused pretty heavily on gender roles in the faith of late.
Again, I hope civil discussion progresses amongst us all. God bless!
Annie, there is no doubt that context must be considered, especially regarding the Epistles. When we read them, we are, after all, reading someone else’s mail. But what I took from the original post, and some replies, was that the written word is something we can add to or take from as it fits our personal opinion and comfort level.
There is a huge difference between striving to understand which Scripture applies to us and putting ourselves above Scripture, deciding which parts are true.
For those who accuse inerrancy advocates of idolizing Scripture above God, my response is that one will never contradict the other. The Holy Spirit wrote the bible. And that includes the parts that we are uncomfortable with.
The true definition of idolatry can be seen in those who would put their desire to keep a certain lifestyle in direct contradiction to the words of God. We see this with the rich young ruler, who Jesus told to sell all his possessions, but he couldn’t make himself do it. Likewise, if anyone is so attached to the idea of gender equality that they would be disappointed in God if He really did (and still does) intend for men to be the heads of families, then I would say that is no different from the rich young ruler.
James:
You’re beating a dead horse, man. No offense at all, but I can’t see the difference between “finding which scriptures apply to us” and “putting ourselves above scripture,” particularly when you argued earlier that the Divine was actually responsible for the crafting of said scriptures, and did so in conjunction with all forethought as to how human culture would develop. In short, you can’t argue at one turn that the Creator anticipated human development and still wrote the scriptures in a certain fashion, perfectly, without error, then turn around and say “It’s not really placing myself above scripture, it’s finding out how much of it applies to me.”
I can’t comprehend the argument that makes the New Testament the “infallible, perfect, whole word of G-d” while ignoring many of its commandments (such as silence from women, the blame of original sin on Eve, and the command for head coverings, etc). Since I ignore many of those commandments, put them their cultural context, and leave them there, I don’t purport that the texts themselves are perfect. If I thought they were, I’d be doing all of it.
John,
I completely agree with the idea of building bridges instead of walls. Being raised mainly in the South (i.e. Bible belt) there are a million churches with a thousand different ideas. All of them thinking they are “right.” I have seen people pick and choose what parts of scripture are “infallible” and the parts they would like to ignore. We should focus on the things we agree on, instead of our differences. Wether or not someone believes women should be silent, or wear head coverings etc. isn’t going to make or break their salvation. I enjoy discussing these differences and like hearing other people perspectives, even if I disagree. I think that sometimes differences make people feel threatened. I don’t know why people think that God wants us all to be cookie cutter images of each other. But, I will admit that it fires me up quite a bit for people to tell me “my place” in the Church.
Bringing the discussion of gender roles to the table is very commendable. I think I am blessed to have parents that aren’t insecure in their roles. I was raised by a feminist, even if she thinks that is a four letter word!