The Image of God

Genesis 1:26-28

January 21, 2018 • Mount Pleasant UMC

In the last few months, we have again been reminded of how pervasive sexism is in our culture. From the first accusations of sexual harassment that were leveled at media mogul Harvey Weinstein, through the toppling of several other careers including entertainers and high-profile personalities, through the #MeToo movement on social media, and down to Oprah Winfrey’s now-famous speech at the Golden Globes a couple of weeks ago, the message is loud and clear: sexism is still a huge issue that we, as a culture, wrestle with. Despite all of our sophistication and no matter how highly we think of ourselves, we still struggle with creating a society in which men and women are valued equally, and that’s even true in the church. The Church (big C Church), sadly, has not been exempt from this latest round of accusations, proofs and challenges. Just a couple of weeks ago, a prominent megachurch pastor was forced to announce to his current congregation that, when he was a 22-year-old youth pastor, he had been involved in an (to use his words) “sexual incident” with a 17-year-old female member of his youth group. After he said he believed the “incident” (again, his words) had been cleared up and he had found forgiveness, the congregation gave him a standing ovation. The problem is, as Ed Stetzer commented in Christianity Today, “It’s not an incident. It’s abuse” (https://goo.gl/Wd6M94). After the backlash, the pastor stepped down temporarily while the church launched a third-party investigation, but the point is this: the gender power politics that arise out of sexist attitudes continue to haunt and infiltrate our culture and the church, and there are folks who yet today blame God for all of it. God is sexist, they say, so why should we be surprised when his people are sexist, too?

This morning, we’re continuing our series “God Behaving Badly.” We’re looking at some of the ideas that are prevalent in our culture about God, particularly the God people say they find in the Old Testament. Last week, we talked about the God who is angry, and we discovered that God is, in fact, angry at times: angry about the injustice and the brokenness is our world and in our relationships. But that anger is closely tied to his love; he’s angry because he loves us so much and wants the very best for us. In the next couple of weeks, we’re going to look at whether or not God is racist and violent, but this morning, we’re going to tackle this question: is God sexist? Does God prefer one gender over another? And the roots of this issue go back all the way to very beginning, to creation itself.

For a lot of folks, especially if they aren’t terribly familiar with the Biblical narrative, God is overwhelmingly favorable toward males—or, to use the fancy theological word, patriarchal. In fact, God is portrayed, most would say, as a man throughout the Bible. (We’ll get to that issue in a little bit.) Let’s try this: when you think of the first woman and the book of Genesis, what comes to mind (cf. Lamb, God Behaving Badly, pg. 49)? (apple, sin, Eve, serpent, etc.) Most of the images we have come from Genesis 3, and most of the ways we’ve told that story portray women very unfavorably. We focus on Eve’s failure. Most of the paintings of that event focus on her eating the apple (though it probably wasn’t an apple, but I’m not going to go down that particular rabbit trail today). We forget the earlier introduction we are given of the first woman, back in Genesis 1 and so this morning, we’re going to start at the very beginning, in Genesis 1, in the creation of man and woman, and I want to ask two interrelated questions as we address the matter of God being sexist. The first question is this: what does it mean to be made “in the image of God”? And the second question follows from it: are both men and women made in that image? And if so, what does that mean for us today? So let’s get to it, shall we? Let’s see what the very first book of the Bible has to say about the charge that God is sexist.

So, you may remember that Genesis actually gives us two accounts of creation. They are not two conflicting stories, but they do come from different perspectives, even different genres. The first one, which is all of Genesis 1 and the first three verses of chapter 2 (remember that the chapter and verse numberings were added much later) is an epic poem, a lyrical way of telling the story, while the second one (which is the rest of chapter 2) is more of a story you might tell around a campfire. It’s a “folk tale” sort of story. So in chapter one, God speaks nearly everything into being—God speaks and it is so. Everything is created this way—except humankind. When God creates humankind, different language is used, and because of that we can assume that a different method of creation is used. In chapter 2, we learn that’s true; God creates Adam not out of spoken word but out of the dirt and then Eve is made out of Adam’s rib. And while the details are fascinating, the details are not the point. The key to this creation is really found in verse 27: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” So what does it mean to be created “in the image of God”?

Well, first off, it does not mean that we look like God. God is not just a bigger version of you or me; God is not a big human being. Part of what “image” does mean, though, is tied to our purpose. Genesis says God creates humanity so that we may “rule” or, as other translations say, “have dominion over” the rest of creation. Specifically, God says humanity is to rule the fish, the birds, the livestock, the wild animals and all the creatures that move along the ground (1:26). God has created a world that needs supervision, and he creates humanity to fulfill that role, to provide supervision and stewardship of God’s beloved, “good” creation (cf. Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone: Part One, pg. 17). Being created in the image of God means we are given authority over creation, the kind of authority God himself would exercise. That doesn’t mean we have exploitive power. The creation is not ours to use up and destroy. We’re meant to be stewards, caregivers, shepherds of creation. By being made in the image of God, we are called to creation care.

But “image” means more than that. For the first Hebrews who read this epic poem, “image” was tied to governance (Goldingay 18). In ancient times, and especially in Egypt where these first readers most likely were slaves until very recently, a king would build a statue, a huge statue, of himself and put it in various territories, conquered territories, to remind the people who lived there who was in charge, even if the king or ruler wasn’t physically present. When we were in Egypt in 2012, we saw such statues everywhere; the pharaohs were famous for doing this. They built huge images of themselves, not just because they were vain but to remind anyone who saw it that this person was in charge, and you aren’t. The image of the king asserted his authority over that land or nation (Goldingay 19; Ross, “Genesis,” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol. 1, pg. 40). As beings made “in the image of God,” we are meant to reflect his authority over the world. Not our own authority, because we don’t really have any, no matter how important we think we are. Our very presence, though, should remind others and the world that there is a God who created the world and who rules over it. In later Hebrew religion, of course, statues of God were forbidden. This rule was enshrined as one of the “top ten” laws, the Ten Commandments. You probably remember it: “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth below or in the waters below” (Exodus 20:4). The reason the prophets rail against idolatry, the reason the little statues of the gods upset them so much is because God forbade such images. We were meant to be the image of God in the world; when someone looks at you, they’re meant to see God reflected back. Don’t make any statues or images of me, God says, because you already are the image of God in the world. You reflect and represent me.

But how, exactly, are we to reflect God? We’ve already said we don’t physically look like God. “God is spirit,” we’re told, and not a physical person (cf. John 4:24). Being made in God’s image means we share in the nature of God. We have “intelligence, knowledge, spiritual understanding, creativity, wisdom, love, compassion, holiness, justice, and the like” (Ross 39). More than that, we are given the ability to commune and communicate with the creating and living God, and all of this was given to us, as Genesis 2:7 will tell us, because God breathed into us the breath of life. He gave us of his spirit, his very essence, so that we can reflect him to the world, so that we can steward the world he has made (cf. Ross 40).

This stewardship, that image, is given to both men and women. Genesis 1 is very clear about that. Some take the account of woman’s creation in Genesis 2, that she is created out of a rib of the man, as some indication that woman is inferior to man, but that’s not the clear message we find in Genesis 1. Remember, as I said last week, we have to take the whole of Scripture and its message together. Genesis 1 is clear that man and woman both are created in the image of God; what Genesis 2 seems to indicate is that man and woman were created to be dependent on each other. Neither is complete without the other. We were created to steward God’s world together, not one over the other, not apart from one another. Together, because both are made in the image of God.

Unfortunately, as soon as we get to Genesis 3, that image of God that was lovingly and purposefully breathed into both Adam and Eve is broken and marred. It’s not lost, but it does become somewhat hidden, harder to see, when Eve and Adam choose to disobey God, to sin, so that sometimes today it’s hard to make out God’s image in other people, even in ourselves. Because sin enters the picture, relationships become broken and even our stewardship of creation—our one job—becomes harder. The “battle of the sexes” even begins right here in Genesis 3, because when God comes looking for his people, neither Adam nor Eve will take responsibility for their actions, their sin. They both point fingers at someone else (Adam at Eve and Eve at the snake) and the harmony that was supposed to exist between men and women is broken. It’s a brokenness we’re still trying to overcome today, thousands of years later.

So men and women were both created in the image of God. From the beginning, men and women are called to be co-creators and co-stewards with God. So why, then, does it seem that much of the Old Testament and the Biblical world in general is so anti-women? Let’s remember something I mentioned last week, that the books of the Bible reflect their culture and their time; they really couldn’t do anything else. Our faith is an historical faith—real people in real time and space who lived in a particular time and place. And yet, when we compare the overall Bible to the literature of the time in which it was written, what we find is that it is surprisingly progressive. There is a trajectory in the Bible that is away from the culture and toward a more equality-driven and egalitarian understanding. Let’s take just one example of an Old Testament law that, from a twenty-first century vantage point, certainly seems sexist and that’s the law in Deuteronomy 22 that commands a woman to marry her rapist.

I see I have your attention! Let’s hear the original command from Moses’ law. In the midst of a lot of laws concerning the protection of marriage, we find this statement: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Now, to our ears, that sounds positively barbaric, doesn’t it? The last thing you would want for a woman who was raped is to be forced to marry her rapist, right? But let’s set this in the culture and remember that there were no jobs for women in those days. There was no way for a woman to guarantee a secure future except through marriage. If a woman was raped and lost her virginity, she would not only experience the trauma that went with that horrendous act, she would also be shamed and be unable to marry. Basically, in this honor-shame culture, no one would want her, including her family. This law is not about marriage so much as it is about protecting the woman and making sure she has a future—a future the man stole from her. She would not be killed or thrown out of the community. She would be given a home, a life, and a guarantee of future security that most other women in that culture would not have had. The money the man would have to pay was the bridal dowry, thus making this a “normal” marriage in the eyes of everyone around. If the man was going to rob the woman of her future, he would then in turn have to be the one to make sure she had a future (cf. Lamb 62-63). In the surrounding cultures, often men would get away with the crime while women would be blamed and punished; again, the Old Testament is much more progressive than we usually believe. Now obviously, this is not a law we would take word for word and enforce today; not even the most literal among us would do that, I don’t think. But, as with many of the Old Testament laws, we need to study them and understand why they were given. What’s the principle here? (Making sure all have a future.) And how do we live that same principle out in our time and place?

It doesn’t take much work to do a quick survey of the Old Testament and see that, contrary to popular belief, there are times where God uses women in leadership. Sometimes, like in the case of Deborah, it’s because the men are too afraid or have failed to do what they are supposed to, but other times, it’s because women are uniquely suited for the task. Queen Esther, for instance, finds herself in royal position when a threat is issued against her people. Mordecai, her relative, has no problem asking her to intervene, even putting her on the spot when she is hesitant to approach the king. You might remember his pointed words to her: “If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14). God had placed Esther where she was so that she could lead, so that she could save her people. And, as we talked about a few weeks ago, there are women who make it into the genealogy of Jesus, four of them to be exact: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (cf. Matthew 1:3-6). Three of these were of questionable moral character, and yet they are included in the Bible as significant ancestors of Jesus. Why are they included? Because they, as much as the men, are made in the image of God and are part of God’s plan for saving the world.

So why, then, comes the question, is God described as a “father” or described in masculine terms throughout the Bible? Well, it’s not because God is a man; in fact, in several places, God is clearly described as a mother. Isaiah, for one, puts it this way: “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem” (66:13). He also describes God as a nursing mother (49:15) and a woman in labor (42:15). Hosea, another prophet, ascribes to God what are normally female roles such as teaching children to walk and feeding them (cf. Hosea 11:3-4). In some of Jesus’ parables, he uses feminine imagery to describe God—God as a widow, a woman sweeping her house and so on. As he enters Jerusalem for the last time, Jesus uses the imagery of a hen with her chicks: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing” (Matthew 23:37). Yet, overall, the imagery for God in the Bible is masculine and God is never directly called “mother.” It’s always “Father” and there is a very good reason for this choice, again rooted in the culture of the time. Israel was surrounded by many cultures with many gods, male and female gods, and the female gods were always associate with fertility, with sexual pleasure, and often depicted in vulgar ways. To use “mother” or female imagery for the one true God would have been, in their minds, associated with such false images. For that culture and time, the image of “father” was less associated with paganism and also gave the right message of protection, care, devotion and creation. God is not a male nor a female; he created both in his image and he longs for us to get beyond our narrow ideas and embrace the gifts that both maleness and femaleness can bring. After all, it was God who inspired Paul to write, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

So what difference does all this make? Well, for one, the church should be at the forefront of championing equal rights for men and women. We both have different God-given gifts that are needed for the kingdom of God to grow and we can learn from each other. In general, men have natural gifts of leadership and strength while women have natural gifts of compassion and nurture. We need both. We need all. We are both made in the image of God, and we both reflect the nature and character of God into the world he made. The church should be leading the way in proclaiming that sexism is wrong. It’s a result of sin and needs to be done away with, especially in the community that claims to follow the Jesus who welcomed women alongside men (cf. Luke 8:1-3).

Following from that, more specifically, we need to be trumpeting the truth that all are made in the image of God and so any form of sexual harassment or sexual abuse are sinful, wrong, and not to be tolerated. Friends, there is not one person on the face of planet Earth who does not bear the image of God. It may be hard to see, but it’s there because that’s how God created the human race, as a reflection of his presence in the world. This requires us to take every single person infinitely seriously (cf. Kidner, Genesis (Tyndale OT), pg. 51). That woman whom we so casually dismiss as a “victim” is not only someone’s daughter, she is also a child of God, made in the image of God. Can you honestly affirm any sort of abuse or harassment of an image bearer? The church needs to be firm in speaking out against such practices that have become all too common and far too accepted in our world today. Let it not be said of us that we were silent when the Scriptures speak of the sacredness of all of humanity, men and women alike.

Third, whether we’re talking about church life or home life, ministry or marriage, or life in general, the key to ending the so-called “battle of the sexes” is to remember it’s about finding proper roles. It’s not about one having power over the other. It’s about the ways God has wired us and asking how he can use the gifts, talents and abilities he has placed in us for the furthering of his kingdom. Maybe one day we’ll talk about Paul’s views of women and the way those fit into the culture of his day, but for today I want to point out that Paul had women in roles of leadership. He called Phoebe a “deacon” of the church (Romans 16:1) and he often worked alongside a couple named Priscilla and Aquila. That’s not an accidental ordering of the names; it’s that way in several places in the New Testament, indicating that Priscilla was, in some way, a leader in the movement ahead of her husband Aquila. He calls Junia an “apostle” (Romans 16:7) and encourages Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa, all of whom work very hard “in the Lord” (Romans 16:6, 12). Here’s the point: Paul, true to his writing about finding your spiritual gifts and using them, was incredibly ahead of his time by having women who provided leadership in the early church. Even in the home, Paul advocated not power, but mutual submission. To the Ephesians he wrote, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21). This was the model, the “attitude of Christ Jesus” that Paul championed in all of the churches he pastored, in all of the lives he touched (cf. Philippians 2:5).

In my twenty-five years of ministry, I’ve been privileged to serve on staff with female pastors twice. In my first appointment, Charlotte Overmyer was our older adult pastor and she led that ministry with grace, kindness and care. At my appointment prior to coming here, Pastor Deb Rousselle and I served together as pastors, and though we have different gifts and talents, we found a rhythm that complemented each other. The best pastors—male or female—are those who know their gifts and aren’t busy trying to prove they are “as good as” someone else. The best pastors are those who know they are created in God’s image and are able to use the gifts God has given them to make a difference for his kingdom. It’s about roles, not power. We often get that backwards.

In our own tradition, we often talk about John Wesley as the “founder” of Methodism, but in many ways, equal credit is due to Susanna Wesley, the mother of John and Charles and, as more than one author has noted, the “mother of Methodism.” Susanna was the youngest of twenty-five children and she herself gave birth to nineteen children, nine of whom died as infants. Susanna took time to instruct each of her children in the faith, and even held Bible study in the parsonage when her husband, the Rev. Samuel Wesley, was out of town. This, too, was in a time when women weren’t allowed to preach or lead a congregation, so when Samuel’s associate pastor complained about Susanna’s gatherings (which were attracting more people than his sermons were), Samuel wrote to his wife and suggested she stop. She wrote these words back to him: “If you do, after all, think fit to dissolve this assembly…send me your positive command, in such full and express terms as may absolve me from all guilt and punishment, for neglecting this opportunity of doing good, when you and I shall appear before the great and awful tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Samuel never said anything to her again about the gathering (Hamilton, Revival, pgs. 22-23). I don’t think I would have, either!

To call God, even the God of the Old Testament, “sexist” is to, in our minds, turn God against his own creation, specifically the part of creation uniquely imprinted with his image. Only humanity is said to have the image of God. God made men and women separate so that we could complement each other (cf. Kidner 52) and be able to fulfill the command in verse 28: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” We need each other. We need each other to answer the call and become who God designed us to be, each unique, each gifted, until the day when the kingdom of God comes on earth as it is in heaven, and we finally experience our true oneness in Christ. This is the hope, the trajectory, the cry of Scripture, from Genesis until the end. Thanks be to God! Let’s pray.