Without Anthropology there is No Theology

If we can't see what happens, its because we've blinded ourself to cultural difference.

Let’s start with a short quote from Rev. Dr. Jerry Kulah P. Kulah, Dean of the UMC’s Gbanga School of Theology in Liberia.

Referencing the first of five recent amendments to the UM Book of Discipline he affirms the intention of equality, but 

"we strongly opposed the reference that“it is contrary to Scripture and to logic” to acknowledge or claim the maleness or fatherhood of God.The Scripture is replete with references to God as Father. When Jesus taught his disciples, (and, by implication, us) how to pray, he taught them to call God “Our Father” (Matt. 6:9; Luke 11:2); throughout his teaching and preaching ministry, Jesus often referred to God as “Father” (Matt. 5:16; 6:9,26; 11:27; Luke 2:9; John 2:16; 4:21; 10:17,30; 14:6-11; 15:9). When he prayed, while carrying the sin of the entire world on the cross, he addressed God as his Father (Luke 23:34). After Jesus’ resurrection, he informed his disciples that he was returning to his Father and their Father (John 20:17). In addition, the Apostles referred to God as “our Heavenly Father” (Romans 8:15; Phil. 2:11; 1 John 1:3; 2:15, 22-23). Furthermore, to accept this inclusion, “The United Methodist Church recognizes it is contrary to Scripture and to logic to say that God is male or female, as maleness and femaleness are characteristics of human bodies and cultures, not characteristics of the divine”would undermine the doctrine of the Trinity, nullify our affirmation of faith (Apostle Creed), and portions of the Bible as non-scripture. Therefore, we voted “NO” to this proposed amendment with a “no” vote of 956; a “yes” vote of 0; and abstention vote of 0.

What is noteworthy here is a comparison of the texts I’ve place in bold italics. The first is a paraphrase of the amendment, the second is the actual amendment.

Dr. Kulah and his conference associate the fatherhood of God with maleness. There is no apparent distinction in their minds between sex and a gender role. Hence to undermine a claim about God’s maleness is to undermine the clear scriptural references to God as Father.

Going further Dr. Kulah even sees this as undermining the doctrine of the Trinity - a position one finds in Orthodox and Catholic theology as well. It isn’t hard to imagine that the Liberian Conference isn’t comfortable with the idea of a Divine Parent substituting for a Divine Father for liturgical purposes. 

Its not my intention here to delve into these theological issues. What needs to be pointed out is simple: The differentiation of sex, gender, and sexuality that has become a common part of Western, post-modern, ways of understanding humans in their social roles IS NOT part of the anthropology of all societies everywhere. Or even most. 

Another example comes from the Philippines, which overwhelmingly supported the amendment above. There it was, and I believe still is, common to refer to gay men as “third sex,” placing a particular way of being human sexually not in terms of sexuality (homosexual) but of sex. A very different way of imaging the human than is found in Africa, but also very different from what is found in the U.S.

What is blindingly clear, so blindingly clear that the United Methodist leaders and indeed virtually the entire UMC in the US are blind to it, is that culture makes a real difference in these matters. And every culture has a different anthropology. If one cannot, or in the case of the UMC refuses to take this into account then the result will not only be division in the church, but increasingly incoherent theologies built on a failure to discuss anthropology. 

++++++++++++Additional Notes

In Chinese metaphysics the distinction between the male and female principles is essential to the relationship of the Tao to creation. Indeed the Tao is the ever-vital relationship between yin (female) and yang (male.) Out of that ever changing relationship comes the creation of the elementals and finally "the myriad of things." In the metaphysics of the Subcontinent we find that Brahman (undifferentiated Being) cannot be grasped without recognizing that Shiva must have a consort, Devi (Kali) if there is to be creation. The idea of a world without male and female is unimaginable. One only need look at the iconography of Shiva (a lingam in a yoni - check your greek on this Sanskrit meanings) to see this. Only in the west do we believe that by distinguishing sex from gender and sexuality that we can actually create a differentiation between the three. Perhaps we should thus question our cultural assumptions rather than belittling others.