One of the distinctive aspects of the Theology of the Body is its beautiful expression of the mutual relations of men and women, a mutuality that originates in and is best expressed by a sexual act which is constituted by self-giving.
It’s a position that I am sympathetic to. But Francis Watson’s takes dead aim in Agape, Eros, Gender at attempts to establish the sexual act as the grounds for the differences between men and women. He writes:
The belonging together of woman and man is not confined to the sexual relationship, nor is that even its primary expression. The veil is interposed in order to confine eros to his limits, excluding him from the ekklesia, the place in which the belonging-together of man and woman is disclosed, and differentiating him from the agape which is the mode of that belonging together.
As he puts it later, “On what authority is it asserted that man and woman become two and one primarily, or even exclusively, in the sexual act?” The “two and one” refers to their differences, male and female, within the structure of the ‘one flesh’ union.
We might answer, “On the authority of the created order, which seems to locate the differences between male and female specifically within the marital covenant. “Bone of my bone” is both an assertion of identity and an expression of solidarity.
But Watson anticipates the move, pointing out that inasmuch Jesus is a male, he is so not by virtue of his sexual relations with women (revisionist theories of Mary Magdalene notwithstanding), but by virtue of his relationship with his mother. Writes Watson:
It is true of [Jesus] as of all other males that ‘man is now born of woman’ (1 Cor. 11.12) and that the belonging-together of man and woman must initially take the form of mother and son. ‘Did it ever occur to him to say “yes” to her?’ His birth was his ‘yes’ to Mary, who became his mother as he became her son. His ‘yes’ to his mother is constitutive of his human existence. To reject this form of the belonging-together of man and woman, to wish to replace it with a relationship centered on sexual union, is indeed to go ‘beyond Christianity’. Eros demands the movement ‘beyond Christianity’ because he cannot endure the limit imposed on him by the divine-human agape.
Which is to say, if you wish to be fully human, men, be nice to your mothers.
March 12th, 2010 | 1:21 pm
“But Francis Watson’s takes dead aim in Agape, Eros, Gender at attempts to establish the sexual act as the grounds for the differences between men and women.”
So what grounds does he offer instead?
March 12th, 2010 | 4:44 pm
I agree with the first comment…what makes Watson’s claim authoritative? In a snippet this small it is hard to evaluate the whole argument; but Jesus’ “yes” as being born? His “yes” to the Father is becoming incarnate, but once He takes on humanity can a non-volitional act (being born) be a “yes”? I don’t see how. Finally, one need not reject mother-son unity to recognize that husband-wife unity is different in kind, intention, end and order.
March 12th, 2010 | 8:02 pm
God’s created order consists of more than just Man and Woman, and I’ll just one example to prove my point.
Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) affects the development of males (those with XY sex chromosome) from fetus to adulthood. As a result, the body is “insensitive” to male hormones, and thus develops the secondary sexual characteristics of a female. Outwardly the person appears to be a woman – they even have a vagina. Inwardly the person appears male – they have internalized testes, and no uterus, fallopian tubes or ovaries.
Consequently many “women” with CAIS do not learn of their condition until they seek help in trying to conceive with their husbands. Though shocked to learn that they are sterile, the greater shock is the discovery that they are genetically male.
Nor is CAIS the only gender disorder; Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Swyer Syndrome, Hermaphroditism, 5-Alpha-Reductase Deficiency, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, Progestin-Induced Virilization, etc. can all cause indistinct or contradictory (to the sex chromosome) genitalia, and thus undetermined or “incorrect” gender identity.
Now if protecting and promoting gender integrity were truly important to Christianity, then all betrothed couples should be required undergo genetic testing — for it would be a grievous sin to knowingly marry same sex chromosome couples. But most Churches (even your, I bet) operate under a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — their only concern is that the appearance of the husband is male and the wife is female.
The reality is that many CAIS women were wedded – with the full blessings of the Christian church – to other men; begging the question, “what do you mean when you say gender?”
March 13th, 2010 | 3:35 pm
Guys,
Note: I didn’t say that Watson’s claim was authoritative. And I didn’t say the mother-son relationship was the only type of relationship. I didn’t even really say that I agree with it. I posted it because, well, it’s interesting.
I think Watson’s proposals have their own troubles, though his book is a provocative read. He significantly downplays the order of creation in Genesis as a grounds for understanding gender (as both Jesus and Paul point backward to it).
And R. Hampton, I am well aware of the problems of gender and its relationship to medicine and biology. I’ll simply point out your language of “gender disorders” is even unacceptable to some people who view those not as disorders, but as “the way God made ‘em” (colloquially, so as not to necessarily imply a belief in God for the phrase to work).
So there’s lots more to be said on this topic, for sure. I’d encourage all of you–shameless, I know–to subscribe to MereOrthodoxy.com, as I’m currently researching for a book on the body in evangelicalism and will doubtlessly be hitting these themes over the next few months. I’d appreciate you all commenting and fine-tuning my thoughts on the matter (heh).
Best,
Matt
March 13th, 2010 | 6:32 pm
Thankfully, in Genesis, God made us made human beings male *and* female, not male *or* female….
March 14th, 2010 | 11:34 pm
In every area of life if one wants to master any subject, profession, skill or art one naturally goes to someone who has mastered the particular skill or whatever. And who is therefore qualified to teach and instruct others in an up close and personal way the necessary skills, and all of their subtleties, or mastering the whatever.
Then we come to the all important matter of sexuality and the body altogether, and the fact that the misunderstanding of sexuality and the body altogether is easily the PRIMARY cause of all our suffering.
Where very strangely we are referred to a supposedly “Pauline” understanding of the these all important matters. An “understanding” which is entirely abstract because it can never ever be taught up close and personal.
Plus equally odd, the supposed authorities on sexuality are celibate Popes, Cardinals and Priests. Who have never actually done it, or mastered all the ins and outs, and challenges, of what it really takes to understand and master (not suppress) their own sexuality, and therefore really know how to love a woman with both feeling-sensitivity, and great sexual passion too.
March 16th, 2010 | 4:51 pm
John, have you actually read Karol Wojtyla on the sexual act?
March 17th, 2010 | 9:23 am
I’m not sure that I understand the point of all of this.I seem to remember a time when most studies in these areas were for the purpose of defining the norm.In keeping with the spirit of the age this posts purpose seems an attempt to restructure cultures understanding of the significance of gender. Since much of cultures understanding under pinned its moral sense regarding the bifurcation of the sexes and the cultural constructs that ensued from that understanding.There maybe was or could be a time when this all could be studied/discussed but doing so at this time when our culture/society is in such a turmoil on these very topics seems to further the confusion that is on display every where one turns. I don’t see consensus I see divisiveness propelled by a lack of a common definition which is finding its expression more and more in the default position that these differences don’t matter. These attitudes are never contained within the niceities of academic studies they eventually burst out into the larger culture producing effects far removed from their initial purposes. As I said in the beginning, perhaps I missed your point. If so well then, never mind.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact