Thank you for this Anna, such a timely and serendipitous post for my study of John. I wonder if you could say a bit more about the difference between polarity vs poles? That metaphor is less familiar to me in theological discourse. You also prompted me to pick up a book on my shelf I haven’t gotten to yet, The Trinity in Asian Perspective by Jung Young Lee. He writes that Jesus “was, like all other creatures, subject to the interplay of polarity known as yin and yang.” I’ll have to dig in to this further, but seems at first glance like a helpful perspective coming from an Eastern / non-Aristotelian tradition. Given your research focus and missionary history you might be interested in that book :-).
Because a theological approach to gender has been neglected, we see one another as male and female in very truncated ways. In the church, our natural theology of maleness and femaleness often focuses on what we don't share in common. It often happens that we speak only of opposition to the neglect of all that we share in common. Take two marathon runners, a man and woman, side by side. Speaking of what we can observe, what do they share in common? All the body parts that will enable them to run, souls that give them a desire, and hopefully delight, to run, trained minds that know how to maximize their natural abilities and discipline themselves to endure pain and push themselves toward the finish line. What sets them apart? Well, the record for the fastest man is 2:00:35, and the fastest record for the woman is 2:16:16. About 15 minutes. The fastest man can run a race a little faster than a woman, and yet many who claim a "natural theology" narrow in on that 15 minutes to make a case for a sort of absolute antithesis.
But how does the Bible speak about our differences? Is there a case for polarity? Well, I think our differences are bound up in the representation of two poles. What is essentially different doesn't point to those 15 minutes, but the heaven-earth axis, and as you put so eloquently in your Substack, Jesus the ladder. The man's glory is bound up in representing earth in its strength and beauty pressing onward and upward toward his Lord and Sabbath rest. The woman's glory is bound up in representing heaven in her strength and beauty inclined toward her Lord and heaven's final embrace of earth. Perhaps these are the things that Paul wants visible in worship. Women making way for the strength of men representing earth, pressing heavenward; men making way for the strength of women representing the veiled realm of angels, praying and prophesying according to their unique representation of Sabbath rest, pointing us to the Shepherd of the Song, to whom we belong in life, in death, and in resurrection.
This is a BIG thing to God. Homosexual acts distort this picture given to us for our hope and endurance. We await the confluence of two *distinct* realms, heaven and earth, an ultimate diversity. It's not two heavens and it's not two earths. Illicit heterosexual acts also distort this picture. There is an unfolding. Heaven and earth are betrothed, awaiting a time and place when Christ will consummate his covenant with his people. When that time comes, we will come to more fully know the measure of God's love for us. With Mary Magdalene of John 20, we will be given the promised clinging of the ages. God puts this picture before our eyes every day through representation. It is no small thing to him to distort the things freely given to us by the one who loves us and calls us to the future he has planned for us. What do you think?
This is very helpful, thanks so much. The running analogy is great. Frankly my confusion over “polarity” was really mundane; I should have used a dictionary before asking, now I realize a “pole” is simply the end of an axis. I’m just beginning to chew on the representation distinction vis a vis John and at first glance think that lines up with how the 5 key female characters are portrayed. If male characters represent earth in John, it might be in the more negative sense of earthly/worldly, for the men often and frequently miss the point! But the blind man is a first obvious example that fits your paradigm: Jesus spitting (breath) to make mud (dirt into clay) and applying that to his eyes echoes God’s formation of Adam in Gen 2:7.
Yes, I see now that my understanding of polarity is undeveloped and that the definition I am using is not its formal, philosophical, or theological (Aquinas) definition. Thank you for pointing that out. It looks like I have more reading and thinking to do. I was not thinking clearly about relational opposition, which of course must be a category, given that all distinctions involve polarity, as you pointed out. I was thinking more of a comprehensive opposition that does not acknowledge anything but opposition. I was also working with Prudence Allen's critique of Aristotle's "sex polarity" theory. Thanks Aaron. I have more work to do!
Language is so tricky! Your post made perfect sense, I was just curious about your take on technical concept of relational opposition. I’ll have to check out Allen, thanks for that reference.
Glad that you are writing again, Anna!
Thank you for this Anna, such a timely and serendipitous post for my study of John. I wonder if you could say a bit more about the difference between polarity vs poles? That metaphor is less familiar to me in theological discourse. You also prompted me to pick up a book on my shelf I haven’t gotten to yet, The Trinity in Asian Perspective by Jung Young Lee. He writes that Jesus “was, like all other creatures, subject to the interplay of polarity known as yin and yang.” I’ll have to dig in to this further, but seems at first glance like a helpful perspective coming from an Eastern / non-Aristotelian tradition. Given your research focus and missionary history you might be interested in that book :-).
Because a theological approach to gender has been neglected, we see one another as male and female in very truncated ways. In the church, our natural theology of maleness and femaleness often focuses on what we don't share in common. It often happens that we speak only of opposition to the neglect of all that we share in common. Take two marathon runners, a man and woman, side by side. Speaking of what we can observe, what do they share in common? All the body parts that will enable them to run, souls that give them a desire, and hopefully delight, to run, trained minds that know how to maximize their natural abilities and discipline themselves to endure pain and push themselves toward the finish line. What sets them apart? Well, the record for the fastest man is 2:00:35, and the fastest record for the woman is 2:16:16. About 15 minutes. The fastest man can run a race a little faster than a woman, and yet many who claim a "natural theology" narrow in on that 15 minutes to make a case for a sort of absolute antithesis.
But how does the Bible speak about our differences? Is there a case for polarity? Well, I think our differences are bound up in the representation of two poles. What is essentially different doesn't point to those 15 minutes, but the heaven-earth axis, and as you put so eloquently in your Substack, Jesus the ladder. The man's glory is bound up in representing earth in its strength and beauty pressing onward and upward toward his Lord and Sabbath rest. The woman's glory is bound up in representing heaven in her strength and beauty inclined toward her Lord and heaven's final embrace of earth. Perhaps these are the things that Paul wants visible in worship. Women making way for the strength of men representing earth, pressing heavenward; men making way for the strength of women representing the veiled realm of angels, praying and prophesying according to their unique representation of Sabbath rest, pointing us to the Shepherd of the Song, to whom we belong in life, in death, and in resurrection.
This is a BIG thing to God. Homosexual acts distort this picture given to us for our hope and endurance. We await the confluence of two *distinct* realms, heaven and earth, an ultimate diversity. It's not two heavens and it's not two earths. Illicit heterosexual acts also distort this picture. There is an unfolding. Heaven and earth are betrothed, awaiting a time and place when Christ will consummate his covenant with his people. When that time comes, we will come to more fully know the measure of God's love for us. With Mary Magdalene of John 20, we will be given the promised clinging of the ages. God puts this picture before our eyes every day through representation. It is no small thing to him to distort the things freely given to us by the one who loves us and calls us to the future he has planned for us. What do you think?
This is very helpful, thanks so much. The running analogy is great. Frankly my confusion over “polarity” was really mundane; I should have used a dictionary before asking, now I realize a “pole” is simply the end of an axis. I’m just beginning to chew on the representation distinction vis a vis John and at first glance think that lines up with how the 5 key female characters are portrayed. If male characters represent earth in John, it might be in the more negative sense of earthly/worldly, for the men often and frequently miss the point! But the blind man is a first obvious example that fits your paradigm: Jesus spitting (breath) to make mud (dirt into clay) and applying that to his eyes echoes God’s formation of Adam in Gen 2:7.
Yes, I see now that my understanding of polarity is undeveloped and that the definition I am using is not its formal, philosophical, or theological (Aquinas) definition. Thank you for pointing that out. It looks like I have more reading and thinking to do. I was not thinking clearly about relational opposition, which of course must be a category, given that all distinctions involve polarity, as you pointed out. I was thinking more of a comprehensive opposition that does not acknowledge anything but opposition. I was also working with Prudence Allen's critique of Aristotle's "sex polarity" theory. Thanks Aaron. I have more work to do!
Language is so tricky! Your post made perfect sense, I was just curious about your take on technical concept of relational opposition. I’ll have to check out Allen, thanks for that reference.