In a previous posting I explained why a genderless heaven doesn’t make sense. As I had noted there, the usual argument for that false supposition fails to take into account the distinction between individuals and the Church as an aggregate body. But lurking behind that argument also is a bit of discomfort with the notion that heaven might be polluted with sexuality, which is a carryover from another false notion that’s been around for a long time – the idea that purity equates to chastity. That’s why, when a Christian who is afflicted with that notion is confronted with the probability of a gendered heaven, he will attempt to keep the Godhead pure of any implication of passion, romance or sexuality by taking the other extreme of applying both genders to each of the Members – the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

The idea that God lacks passion is at odds with Scripture and will be addressed in another posting. The focus for now will be the absurd notion that each of the Members of the Godhead is dual-gendered, possessing features of masculinity and femininity.

One can see how such an idea came about. It doesn’t take an in-depth understanding of Scripture to perceive that within the Godhead are both masculine and feminine attributes. Given that understanding, the only possible gender arrangement that maintains a lack of sexuality would be dual-gendered Godhood, applied equally to each Member of the Godhead.

Perhaps it is this kind of mistaken understanding riding on the back of shallow thought that led respected Catholic theologian Father Macquarrie and a host of other would-be expositors of Scripture throughout the centuries, in recognizing gender-based traits within the Godhead, to attribute facets of both genders to each of its Divine Members.

There are at least two logical reasons for rejecting dual-genderhood in God, both based on Scripture. The first is God’s detestation of gender ambiguity and its contradiction of the Scriptural portrayal of strong masculinity of both The Father and Jesus, as well as the proscriptions in both the Old and New Testaments against weak masculinity and sexual impotence. Among these are the following clearly-stated passages in both the Old and New Testaments:

“He who is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”

  • Deuteronomy 23:1

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

  • 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 10

The second issue with dual genderhood is its blatant contradiction of the principal of complementary otherhood with which God had so thoroughly imbued His creation and infused within Scripture. The essence of maleness and femaleness is that together they form a complementary pair wherein each offers the partnership that which is lacking in the other and which is necessary to make a complete whole. That this complementary otherhood is representative of the Godhead itself is manifestly clear in Genesis 1:26 and 27:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

If God indeed was dual-gendered, He most easily could have created mankind with both genders, as would be appropriate to creating them in His own image. Then each person would be self-sufficient unto himself.

Why didn’t God do just that? Probably the most important reason why he didn’t can be found in the general sense of God’s nature as presented in Scripture. When one looks at the Bible in its entirety, one surmises that the attribute that stands out above all others is His selfless nobility, a quality that demands otherhood, something outside oneself upon which one can confer love and adoration. Any alternative to otherhood would promote narcissism, or self-love.

The quality of complementary otherhood also explains the necessity for a Trinitarian Godhead. The Trinity in this context would consist of a fully masculine Father, a fully feminine Mother, and a fully masculine Son Jesus. Only in such a Family setting can one intuitively perceive the presence of selfless nobility and a bond of love among its Members so strong as to support the notion of monotheism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: