Thanks for your reply. I went back and read your previous post. I have no objection to what reads to me as an egalitarian observation. If you are only asserting Jesus’s value of women, I agree. But it sounds like you are reaching for more in this second post that mingles with the new and very prominent idea of sex difference connected to the imago Dei. Also, I’m not sure that the fact that the writer of John refers to someone as a man or woman is an attempt to make a point about gender, as much as it may be a writing style of that particular writer. But in your other post, I did find this statement intriguing:
“John 12-13 provides an easy example: placing the foot-washing in ch. 13 after Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet in ch. 12 invites a comparison between the two acts. Both prefigure Jesus’ death, and while it is common to associate Jesus as doing something a servant would do, coming right after ch. 12 it seems that John portrays Jesus as doing something a woman did just do”
I have noticed this parallel but did not make the comparison with regards to Jesus doing something a woman is doing. But I like your interpretation here.
Thanks Karen! I love Sanders’ work. Unfortunately the CT article is paywalled but I have some of his books and will see if he discusses those topics elsewhere.
The use of gender when speaking of the biblical texts is anachronistic, as the distinction between sex and gender is a recent notion. Also associating masculinity and femininity with the imago Dei is a recent development particularly popularized by Karl Barth and Pope John Paul II. Throughout Christian tradition to associate the imago Dei with man/woman was viewed as anthropomorphic. The hyper-spiritualization of gender particularly in debates on sexuality and gender reminds me of the way apartheid advocates spiritualized texts in Genesis to assert separation of Black and White people. I wrote about the imago Dei as it relates to the new spiritualization of gender here: https://karenkeen.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Keen_Hermeneutical-Frameworks_Same-Sex-Relationships.pdf
Thank you for engaging Karen and for sharing your article, you’ve given me much to think about and I appreciate that. I read some of your article and see there’s much more to learn from the historical theology, a discipline I value highly but haven’t studied in any breadth or depth re: sexuality. I’m curious to note your article doesn’t cite the Gospel of John. This is not a criticism, but perhaps illustrates why I’m currently studying and writing about gender/sexuality (terms which I should define btw, thank you for noting that confusion) vis a vis John. In my experience (certainly not everywhere) it’s been a much neglected book with respect to sexuality. As I said in part 1, I’m convinced John is doing *something* with gender/sexuality/male/female. Thanks for contributing feedback as I try and discern what that something is!
Thanks for your reply. I went back and read your previous post. I have no objection to what reads to me as an egalitarian observation. If you are only asserting Jesus’s value of women, I agree. But it sounds like you are reaching for more in this second post that mingles with the new and very prominent idea of sex difference connected to the imago Dei. Also, I’m not sure that the fact that the writer of John refers to someone as a man or woman is an attempt to make a point about gender, as much as it may be a writing style of that particular writer. But in your other post, I did find this statement intriguing:
“John 12-13 provides an easy example: placing the foot-washing in ch. 13 after Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet in ch. 12 invites a comparison between the two acts. Both prefigure Jesus’ death, and while it is common to associate Jesus as doing something a servant would do, coming right after ch. 12 it seems that John portrays Jesus as doing something a woman did just do”
I have noticed this parallel but did not make the comparison with regards to Jesus doing something a woman is doing. But I like your interpretation here.
Also, given your interest in the Trinity, this article by Fred Sanders in Christianity Today succinctly discusses the problem of mixing gender with the Trinity: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/august-web-only/why-trinity-cant-tell-us-about-gender.html
Thanks Karen! I love Sanders’ work. Unfortunately the CT article is paywalled but I have some of his books and will see if he discusses those topics elsewhere.
The use of gender when speaking of the biblical texts is anachronistic, as the distinction between sex and gender is a recent notion. Also associating masculinity and femininity with the imago Dei is a recent development particularly popularized by Karl Barth and Pope John Paul II. Throughout Christian tradition to associate the imago Dei with man/woman was viewed as anthropomorphic. The hyper-spiritualization of gender particularly in debates on sexuality and gender reminds me of the way apartheid advocates spiritualized texts in Genesis to assert separation of Black and White people. I wrote about the imago Dei as it relates to the new spiritualization of gender here: https://karenkeen.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Keen_Hermeneutical-Frameworks_Same-Sex-Relationships.pdf
Thank you for engaging Karen and for sharing your article, you’ve given me much to think about and I appreciate that. I read some of your article and see there’s much more to learn from the historical theology, a discipline I value highly but haven’t studied in any breadth or depth re: sexuality. I’m curious to note your article doesn’t cite the Gospel of John. This is not a criticism, but perhaps illustrates why I’m currently studying and writing about gender/sexuality (terms which I should define btw, thank you for noting that confusion) vis a vis John. In my experience (certainly not everywhere) it’s been a much neglected book with respect to sexuality. As I said in part 1, I’m convinced John is doing *something* with gender/sexuality/male/female. Thanks for contributing feedback as I try and discern what that something is!