Contemplating Feminine Incarnation
At church this past Sunday we were encouraged to find ways to see the world differently this week. Change our routine and change our perspective to help us get out of the rut of going through life without actually seeing the world. To that end we were asked to draw a slip of paper out of a basket on which was written some sort of paradigm destabilizer. These were just suggestion to help us shake things up a bit – and force us to just do life a little differently. These included everything from “take a new route to work” to “put your fork down between bites.” The one I drew was “imagine that Jesus had been born a girl.” I was amused at first that I had randomly chosen that particular option since I doubted that task would destabilize my perspective as much as it might someone else’s. But the idea has stuck with me over the last few days as I keep asking, “well, what if?”
The first thought that came to mind was, “would Jesus have even of been born if he had been a girl?” In a culture that valued sons, I wonder what Joseph’s response would have been if the angel hadn’t told him “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” The birth of sons was celebrated. But if Joseph had known the child in Mary’s womb was a girl would he have gone ahead and divorced her quietly condemning her and the child to a life of abject poverty and ridicule? Or would he have exposed her as an adulterer to have her stoned? Throughout history we have seen women valued solely for their ability to bear male heirs. Henry VIII chopped the heads off a couple of wives for only bearing him daughters. Even today one hears of women apologizing in the delivery room for the baby not being a boy. So I have to wonder if even a divine announcement would have been enough to save the life of an illegitimate girl.
But if she had been born, I wonder what the response would have been. Would the shepherds have scoffed at a baby girl in swaddling clothes and grumbled at having to leave their flocks in the night for that? Would the magi have questioned the stars, or understood the mystery at play? Would Herod have felt threatened by a girl and have ordered the slaughter of the innocents? And would her parents, some years later, marry her off at age 12 to be perpetually pregnant and too busy save the world? Or would they have remembered their angelic visitation and the prophetic destiny spoken about this child?
But let’s just assume that this girl reached a point where she could chose to begin her ministry. Would the truth of her words and the divinity within her be enough to attract followers despite her gender? In other words would something as minor as gender be enough for people to reject God’s invitation to “come follow me”? Would her mother, who prophetically sung the Magnificat, have hushed her up and told her “girls don’t discuss theology?” If she sat on the mountainside and spoke the Beatitudes to the crowds would her words be affirmed as a beautiful new way forward or dismissed as the rantings of a crazy woman who was probably pmsing? Would men have seen an independent woman as vulnerable and used that as an excuse to rape her? To avoid that would she have had to (like Joan of Arc) chop off her hair and dress in men’s clothing – in essence deny that she is a women in order to be respected as a person? Would the authorities have even allowed her three years to spread her message, or would silencing a woman for subversion and heresy have happened much sooner?
On one hand these questions might just seem to affirm why Jesus had to be born male. But making that assumption from either an essentialist or cultural viewpoint simply helps one avoid examining our own perspectives towards women. Even as I reflected on the particular struggles Jesus would have faced if he had been born a girl, I couldn’t help but also think about the positive outcomes it would have engendered. If the person we commit our lives to follow and who sacrificed herself on our behalf was a woman I can’t help but think that would have significantly impacted how we have perceived and treated women for the last 2000 years. If the founder of the church was a woman, then perhaps a patriarchy wouldn’t have developed that effectively shut out and silenced the spiritual voice of women. If the body of a woman savior was treasured as sacrament, then perhaps the bodies of women would not have been so degraded, abused, and despised over the years. If for 2000 years women hadn’t lived in oppression, silence, and fear I wonder how much our collective input would have changed history. Would we have allowed the posturing and pissing contests of men to nearly destroy the world in wars? Would we have allowed nature to be oppressed and raped instead of cultivated and cared for? And would the Kingdom of God be that much more vibrant and alive today if during that time it had been impossible to forget the feminine side of God or to muzzle the spiritual insight of half the church?
These are all hypothetical questions of course. But just the asking can be the first step in destabilizing paradigms. The historical truth of Jesus being born a girl matters less than how asking the question can move us towards living like it was.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
A great post which asks really great questions. It is SUCH a paradigm shift, that I cannot really even imagine what would it would be if Jesus has been a woman.
I do think, though, that too much can be made of such a “what if” thought experiment. I don’t want to read things into your comments that are not there, so please don’t think I am putting words in your mouth. But I have found it common for discussions of gender and the historic treatment of women to fall into the error of falsely canonizing women, or making them out to be the only objects of abuse. Because when you say “if the body of a woman savior was treasured as sacrament, then perhaps the bodies of women would not have been so degraded, abused, and despised over the years” I think it fails to appreciate that even though Jesus had a male body, men have also been degraded and abused and despised by fellow human beings regularly. And when you say “would we have allowed the posturing and pissing contests of men to nearly destroy the world in wars?” it makes me wonder what sort of problems the the catty, back-biting, gossipy, competitive tendencies in women would have brought about instead. When you wonder “would we have allowed nature to be oppressed and raped instead of cultivated and cared for?” it seems to me that I know just as many consumptive, selfish, polluting, environmentally oblivious women as I do men.
I am NOT minimizing the issues you bring up, or the very real institutional and personal sinfulness that women have been subjected to for most of history. Nevertheless, women are sinners too, and sharers in the fallen human nature. So I think we should be careful not to assume that everything would be better if women just had more power. Please don’t misunderstand me, women SHOULD ABSOLUTELY be treated with equal dignity and respect as full human persons. Their voices should be equally heard. And that this hasn’t been the case is in itself a sin that needs correcting/redeeming. My only point is that if and when that comes to pass, there will still be oppression and suffering and corruption and sin because women are capable of such things too. That is, until the Lord comes again and all things are made new.
I am looking forward to any other thoughts you readers have on this topic, it does intrigue me!
Amy – I hear what you are saying. And I’m not saying that women are perfect or that a matriarchy would be any better than a patriarchy. I just think that men and women need to have their voices heard equally in order for us to live in balance. There have been numerous studies done and books written on how in situations of violence perpetrated by men, it took them allowing and listening to the voice of women for peace to ensue. If equal respect were given to the voices of both men and women, perhaps some of the conflicts and power plays in this world could have been tempered or balanced out. Not that there still wouldn’t be sin or oppression, just that history has shown that if the voice of women hadn’t been scoff at in many occasions, there would have been a lot less pain and suffering in the world.
And of course Jesus had a male body. I was referring to the historical trend of men seeing women as objects to be possessed. Women are seen as the property of their fathers or husbands, and are forced into submission through the abuse of their bodies. A basic survey of Western literature reveals that women are presented as either Madonnas or whores – sexless entities or wanton corrupt bodies. We even are still made to feel shamed by even having bodies through all the heavy handed modesty talk that blames any male sin on women. If you read feminist or ecological theologians, they relate this twisted approach to women’s bodies to a general disrespect for the earth. It is a denial of physicality (which women can’t escape with our monthly cycles and mess of pregnancies) in favor of rationality or head sprituality. Male dominated theology has promoted their gnostic view of themselves as the superior view which has done harm to both women and the earth. Balancing that view by respecting the physicality and the perspective of women would lead to a more holistic and healthy theology and approach to both women and the planet.
I do think things would be better if women were equally respected. Not perfect, but different with its own issues, but better nonetheless.
You wrote: If for 2000 years women hadn’t lived in oppression, silence, and fear …
Which can be construed to mean that women began to be oppressed, silenced and to live in fear with the birth of a male savior. I do not see any support for that type of statement, nor do I think that is what you intended.
The gospels record Jesus taking steps to raise the status of women. Your points about male dominated theology are valid and the questions you ask are intriguing – but move your starting point back a bit.
Paradigm destabilizer indeed. Even though it’s a long line of “what if’s” I think your church is on to something in trying to shake the assumptions and acceptance we take for granted on a daily basis. As a teacher I am constantly trying to ask enough questions to “shake up” the assumptions of my students in order to get them to step back and reevaluate their persepectives on life. Thank you for doing the same.
Arthur – I am not assuming the oppression started just 2000 years ago. Jesus was radically inclusive of women which is something the church largely ignores. My point was that if we started following a female savior 2000 years ago perhaps from that point on the oppression of women wouldn’t have continued like it did – we would have had a very different past 2000 years.
We discussed this question in a church history class just a week or two ago. Mostly, we men listened, unsure whether our voices would really be all that helpful. One of the women in the class pointed out something that stuck: If Jesus had been born a girl, would the words of Jesus have been so radical coming from the mouth of a woman?
Julie,
fantastic wonderings. i like that church put those out there.
I blogged on the topic in a slightly different angle, ie, what if Jesus was born into a matriarchal society? Would Jesus have been born woman then?
It was interesting to see the responses…
http://eliseanne.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/open-discussion-gods-gender/
I’ll link to yours too so my readers can see this perspective.
thanks!
A very interesting approach. And I like your suggestions how this would affect our approach to women.
What’s interesting to me is that there’s even a place for this in Jewish tradition. The story of Esther immediately came to mind, followed by Deborah. There are certainly other women who helped save Israel. So, there’s imagery to work with.
Though, I wonder a bit about Jesus as a man. Seems like that’s in keeping with the Philippians 2 passage. It’s precisely as the dominant member of society that Jesus modeled letting go his dominance and offering acceptance–a model far, far, far too many in the church have almost entirely ignored as they assert power to dominate others and force certain theological perspectives. The letting go of power/authority that society feels is one’s right is a key part of the story.
Yet, I really am caught on the idea of thinking the what if? of Jesus born as a woman. It’s going to give a new twist to my thinking on the season.
Thanks for asking the question. I honestly have never wondered about how things would be different if God incarnated as a female. I look forward to musing about it…
I recently had my daughter ask why the Bible was all about men. “Didn’t these guys have any sisters?” Maybe she and I can talk about this question together.
I LOVE this image! Like you say, just asking the question is eye-eopening. Thanks.
Since gender discrimination is clearly unbiblical in light of Gal 3:28 and numerous other passages, I believe there is value in “shaking up” sexist paradigms by asking provocative questions.
But I also wonder if such a thing exists as baby-bathwater confusion between a male Jesus and historic/cultural sexism in Christendom. My inclination is that sexism is the bathwater but Christ’s human maleness is not. He was (quite literally) the Baby.
Which only leads to more questions such as:
1) Was it sexist for God to become flesh as a man and not as a woman?
2) To what extent can historic/cultural sexism in Christendom be attributed to Christ’s maleness?
3) Were the Jews sexist in expecting a male Messiah or was his gender one of the prophesied details they actually interpreted correctly?
4) Was God “caving in” to a patriarchal society by becoming a male Rabbi or did Jesus’ non-traditional maleness actually threaten the powers of his day more than he could have otherwise as a woman?
5) Is the world today more sexist or less sexist because God chose to reveal himself in male form?
6) Who has greater cultural power to shift sexist paradigms: feminist women or feminist men?
Also, Scripture indicates that Joseph himself was not your stereotypical chauvinist womanizing male, so it’s highly doubtful he would have had Mary stoned if her baby had not been a boy.
The pain of knowing he wasn’t the father was already enough to bear. By all accounts, he deeply loved Mary and Jesus and sacrificed a great deal for their protection.
But despite his radical faith and obedience to God in the face of cultural pressure and stigma, Joseph is often overlooked as one of the Bible’s more counter-cultural (dare we say feminist) characters.