Christa is an idol; she is the invention of feminist theologians who smuggle her in on the back of Jesus' humanity. The thoroughly secular ideological assumption behind such feminist theologising is that Jesus' humanity, if it is to be truly inclusive, must acknowledge a feminine side. This feminine side to Jesus can be explored through 'theology' (in this case of the speculative kind) and through the creative arts.
Holy Scripture acknowledges no such person as Christa, but proclaims Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Reflecting the teaching of the Bible, the Nicene Creed, included in the service of Holy Communion according to the Book of Common Prayer, expresses the belief of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in 'Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made’. The Creed is clear that it was God the Son who ‘became incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man’ for our salvation.
For Nicene Christians the fact that Jesus was a man and not a woman is hugely significant. As man he was able to save both men and women. If he had been a woman, then he would have been able to save nobody.
That is because of the biblical significance of the first man Adam, whose effect on the whole of humanity Jesus has reversed. As the Apostle Paul argues in Romans 5:
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift of grace in that one man Jesus Christ abounded to many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ (Romans 5v15-17 - RSV).
As the first man, Adam was the federal head of the human race and brought it down with him. As the federal head of the new humanity, the man Jesus Christ brings all male and female believers in him the saving grace of God. The salvation the second Adam achieved for lost humanity is expressed beautifully by Cardinal Newman in his celebrated hymn:
Praise to the holiest in the height,
and in the depth be praise;
in all His words most wonderful;
most sure in all His ways.
O loving wisdom of our God!
when all was sin and shame,
a second Adam to the fight,
and to the rescue came.
The biblical logic is thus this: if Jesus Christ had not shared Adam's maleness, then the salvation he brings would not be inclusive. So thank the good Lord Jesus was a man and not 'Christa'.
Dear CC,
ReplyDeleteYour argument turns in these words, "For Nicene Christians the fact that Jesus was a man and not a woman is hugely significant. As man he was able to save both men and women. If he had been a woman, then he would have been able to save nobody.
That is because of the biblical significance of the first man Adam, whose effect on the whole of humanity Jesus has reversed."
Your hidden presupposition is that only a man (aner) could save the human race from the sinful effect of the original man (anthropos). I can think of no biblical ground for supposing this to be the case.
Also difficult for your argument is that although the biblical argument re Adam/Christ specifies responsibility for sin as belonging to Adam, this is summary for the first couple, Adam and Eve who together connive the Fall. Indeed - well known - is 1 Timothy 2:13-15 which highlights Eve's role in humankind's downfall.
I suggest there are various reasons why Christ was a male and not a female, mostly to do with straightforwardness of being a wandering rabbi in his world, but no ontological necessity for him to have been so.
Nevertheless that does not justify some of the strange "Christa" theology around. But one can see how it might spring to life when arguments such as proposed here are made which implicitly downgrade the status of women in the eyes of God who made us male and female in his image. We are not equal if one sex can include the other in certain works but not the reverse.
Your argument, Mr. Carrell, turns in these words,"We are not equal if one sex can include the other in certain works but not the reverse." Your attack on Mr. Mann at http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.com/2010/03/christa-in-holy-week.html is not backed by any Biblican evidence sufficient to undo the Biblical perspective that the male is representative, not the female. Clearly contrary to your point - a woman can do "certain works" that a male cannot. Hence, according to your argument, men and women are not equal. The Bible teaches equality and difference.
ReplyDeleteOne of our female youth spoke the part of Jesus today in the Passion narrative during the Sunday service. A small number of us saw this as a Christa incursion. Were we wrong?
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI have no desire to attack Mr Mann, and, in any case, no one to pay the airfare-and-train fare to Oughtibridge. However as Cranmer's Curate has put forward an idea I disagree with I have put forward my disagreement in response. Because CC is running a youth group and not a cult I presume it is ok to disagree with CC without that disagreement being deemed to be an "attack".
I appreciate that if we are dealing strictly with how the biblical narrative runs then Christ as male has an inclusive representative function (though even CC might disagree with how that representative function drives forward certain understandings of sacerdotal priesthood!!).
My point is slightly different. It is whether what CC has expressed veers towards an ontological necessity that only the male can represent both sexes and not vice versa so God had no choice in whether his anointed would be male rather than female.
If male and female are equal then, potentially, either could be representative of both.
The problem with divorcing Christian soteriology from the biblical foundation of creation & its doctrine of male headship (& thus regarding Christ's maleness as dispensable) is that the door is left wide open for 'Christa'.
ReplyDeleteHi Julian
ReplyDeleteIn the abstract thought world of ontology I may be guilty as charged; but in respect of the biblical narrative of how God has guided history, the plain fact is that Jesus Christ was a male and this is an indispensable reality of the incarnation. Thus I do not think any door is open to 'Christa' if this means proposing in an a-historical manner that Jesus Christ was and is a gender neutral figure.
Mr Carrell, you misunderstand the Christa concept and, hence, argue for it unusually. Your argument runs akin to, "God could have created a cube planet rather than a globe..." In New Zealand there are representations of Christ as a Maori - no one takes offence. There are representations of Christ as a white man - no one takes offence. The Christa concept is that Christ can be represented as a woman. Mr. Mann's position, if I understand it correctly, is that such a representation is not possible. Yours is - it is.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWell you might just be arguing unusually too :)
The 'Maori Christ' is, presumably, an attempt to say through art that Christ died and was raised for Maori as well as for others. As you say, no one takes offence.
The 'Christa' if it means Christ being represented as a woman through art is, presumably, saying that Christ died and was raised for women as well as for men.
It would be strange if that gave offence when Christ depicted as Maori did not.
I want to make a suggestion that the reality is actually the other way round to what Julian (and others) have stated. I suggest that Adam was a man because of Christ, not that Christ became a man because of Adam.
ReplyDeleteCreation was created, we are told, for Christ. Thus the pattern of creation corresponds to Christ and are determined by his nature.
We are told in Genesis 1 that man 'images' God, therefore it is the nature of God that determines our nature, not our nature that determines the incarnation.