I was just thinking about this today and wanted to throw it out there for discussion.
Buying into the whole “Jesus was God” thing for the sake of argument, I wonder why God chose to appear as male instead of female. Given the generally lousy treatment of women throughout the ages, a revered female messiah might have brought equality much earlier. Females are traditionally seen as more of the nurturing type than the warmongering type, and I wonder if a female Christ would’ve avoided a few of the wars we eventually saw.
On the other hand, buying into the whole “the New Testament did not happen as written” thing, I wonder if Christianity would’ve prospered with a female figurehead. Conversion often happened by the sword and I’m not sure a nurturing approach would have converted as many people.
So what do you think? Would Christianity have flourished via Jessica Christ? How would Christianity - and history - have been different if Christ was female?
I remember a Catholic theologian answering this question by saying that Jesus had to be male, as a message of peace and generosity would have been much less noteworthy coming from a woman.
It certainly hasn’t escaped the notice of many throughout the centuries, both pro- and anti-Christian, that the religion is much more amenable to female modes of thought than any of the major competitors. That can certainly explain why women have always played a much larger role in shaping Christian thought than that of Judaism or Islam, for instance. Hence, I’m not sure how the hypothetical female Jesus could have made Christianity all that much more female.
Given this, if I wanted to persuade people who were inclined to be warlike to instead be peaceful and nurturing, the spokesperson I would choose would be a man, not a woman.
In general, the opportunities to do and say the things Jesus did simply would not have been available for a woman living in that time and place.
The Old Testament prophecies cast the Messiah as a warrior who would defeat not just the devil, but also the enemies of Israel, unite the people and rule over a kingdom. That image took root for more than 1,000 years before the birth of Jesus.
A female Jesus would have no chance of even being considered as the savior.
All of this presupposes that the personality of “God” in the three Abrahamic religions–Christianity, Judaism, and Islam–is amenable to equality. How people choose to view God has changed over the years based on contemporary culture. All of these religions’ sacred texts clearly put women below men in the temporal pecking order (see, e.g., Paul’s letters to the apostles in the NT). The notion of female equality with men, while eminently sensible to thoughtful, modern citizens, is a relatively new concept. A female Jesus would never have been accepted by people–and let us remember that religions are, ultimately, driven by people–who sought validation for their beliefs about the roles of women in society.
Simply put, Jesus wasn’t a female because we couldn’t allow him to be. It would turn things topsy-turvy. Heaven forbid.
Catholics venerate Mary more than other Christian sects. Are there differences between Catholicism and other branches of Christianity that can be specifically attributed to this feminine influence?
Well, if there are, you have a chicken-and-egg problem, don’t you? Does Catholicism display more “feminine” characteristics because it venerates Mary, or is Catholicism open to veneration of Mary because of its “feminine” characteristics.
I think one of the basic distinctions between Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) on the one hand and Protestantism on the other is the stereotypically Catholic/Orthodox emphasis on the church community, the importance of following Christ in communion with one another, versus the stereotypically Protestant emphasis on the direct unmediated relationship between the individual and Christ. I suppose you could argue that this emphasis on the central role of interpersonal and communal relationships reflects a more stereotypically feminine understanding/experience of how life should be lived. I struggle, though, to make any connection between that and the veneration of Mary.
Well my guess would be that since religion is essentially an outcropping of social power/structure, and that human civilization in the Mediterranean around 50BC was predominantly male-oriented, the chances of a female religious leader coming up through the ranks in Judea to lead large swaths of the population would be virtually nil.
Biblical writing refer to god as a man, but does anyone imagine God with testicles ?
Similarly, given Jesus was ghostly sired by the Holy Ghost, is it not possible he lacks the genetic heritage that would ascribe testicles to Him.
Has Jesus ever proved his manhood by fathering a child ?
Simply put, anyone who does not possess the obvious characteristics that define their reason for existence being the production of offspring will be labelled a male.
