An excerpt from The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused<\/em>, edited by Andrew J. Schmutzer<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThere is a mystery to sexuality that demands respect. The most treasured relationships in Scripture\u2014personal, national, and divine\u2014draw deeply on sexual imagery: \u201cas a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you\u201d (Isah 62:5b, cf. Rev 21:2, 9).1 Paul\u2019s language to the Corinthians also employs sacred motifs of sexuality: \u201cI promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him\u201d (2 Cor 11:2b). Appropriately, Brueggemann states:<\/p>\n
[F]aith that must resort to the most erotic imagery to speak about a covenantal relationship that operates at the deepest levels of trust and intimacy is useful indeed \u2026 the outcome of such usage is a relationship glorious in its intimacy <\/i>and costly in its brokenness<\/i>. The Bible understands that sexuality is the ultimate arena of cost and joy<\/i>.2<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\nSo how does a sexually abused child carry both <\/i>cost and joy into their adult life? How does a young woman anticipate her marriage\u2014\u201cglorious in its intimacy\u201d\u2014when her own father has sexually betrayed her during her years of nurture, leaving his child with a defining experience \u201ccostly in its brokenness?\u201d Sexuality may be \u201cpersonal,\u201d but it is never private.3<\/sup> Whether in brokenness or gloriousness, sexuality functions within a grand web of embodied relationships that are fragile<\/i>, connected<\/i>, and enduring<\/i>.<\/p>\nSexual Abuse, Scripture and Theology: A Messy Obligation<\/b><\/p>\n
In this chapter we focus on a *biblical theology of sexuality primarily through the texts of creation (Genesis 1\u20133). Secondarily, we will observe how sexuality and its desecration reverberates through Scripture: in narratives of sexual violation (e.g., 2 Samuel 13), in Jesus\u2019 prescriptive model for human sexual behavior (Mark 10:6\u20139), and in Paul\u2019s letter of moral exhortation (1 Thess 4:1\u20138). Throughout, however, our chief interest is in the significance of the relational dynamics <\/i>that surround sexuality and its violation, including agency, consequences, *intergenerational transmission, and the way sin, evil, and community are portrayed in violence that is sexual in nature.<\/p>\n
Using a biblical theological approach enables us to highlight literary, historical, and thematic trajectories in these texts. Further, a combination of these elements, within the context of Christian faith, forms a \u201cplausibility structure\u201d4<\/sup> of Scriptural reading that is sensitive to the on-going truths of these biblical stories\u2014both the horizontal <\/i>and vertical <\/i>realities of human sexuality.5<\/sup> After all, the \u201chorizontal dimensions of biblical theology cannot be separated from the vertical ones: love of neighbor is practiced within the claim divine love makes upon humankind.\u201d6<\/sup> Note this relational dynamic that James K. Mead highlights in his useful definition:<\/p>\nBiblical theology seeks to identify and understand the Bible\u2019s theological message and themes, as well as how the Bible witnesses to those themes and to whom <\/i>and by whom <\/i>it declares that message. The outcome of such investigation will lead us to hear what the Bible says about God\u2019s being, words, and actions; about God\u2019s relationship to all creation, especially humankind; and about the implications this divine-human encounter has for relationships between human beings<\/i>.7<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe literature on gender, sexuality, and *sexual ethics is a veritable explosion8<\/sup> as there are diverse groups, approaches, and issues at stake.9<\/sup> Adequately addressing people who have a history of *sexual abuse (SA) is a complex undertaking. It requires a multiplex <\/i>approach: an interplay of social-sciences, pastoral *empathy, and relational categories capable of addressing the \u201cattack-factor\u201d of physical violation, *intrafamilial betrayal, biblical *anthropology, and the *disorganized relational associations that can be both cause and effect. Along with the victim\u2019s psychological damage are also composite issues of *spiritual incest and theological <\/i>trauma\u2014healing for victims often requires \u201cchasing down\u201d the God who never showed up or worse, sat passively by!10<\/sup> In fact, the complexity of issues surrounding SA\u2014chaos at numerous levels\u2014is part of the reason our understanding of SA needs a more holistic articulation and implementation, making trans-disciplinary studies like this necessary.<\/p>\nFor many reasons, studying the brokenness of SA alongside Scripture\u2014of an already mysterious sexuality\u2014creates a \u201cmessy obligation.\u201d Understanding and responding to the sexually abused means we are committed to the revealed truth <\/i>of Scripture as well as the observed truth <\/i>of empirical studies,11<\/sup> which help illuminate the victim\u2019s lived-experience.12<\/sup> When revealed truth and observed truth merge, then the complexity of the human condition is in fullest view\u2014the \u201ctreasure in jars of clay\u201d <\/i>(2 Cor 4:7).<\/p>\nCreation Theology: The Backdrop of Sexuality<\/b><\/p>\n
In Genesis we find \u201ca theological understanding of the Old Testament on its own ground<\/i>.\u201d13<\/sup> Here is the canonical \u201cdownbeat\u201d of sexuality, a sexuality rooted in *creation theology. Paradoxically, the Creator\u2019s intention for human sexuality can appear all the more vibrant when we consider the demise of Eden. While it may seem counter-intuitive, we are aided in a theology of sexuality by acknowledging the state of the broken world as we know it\u2014the world that victims of abuse know in uniquely painful ways<\/i>.<\/p>\nEden<\/i> Is Long Gone: Facing a Collective Reality<\/i><\/p>\n
Creation\u2019s portrait of human sexuality is deeply fractured. This rupture of biblical sexuality exists in every class, country, culture, and religious expression. When, for example: pornography remains so well funded, affecting children, women, and men; when women are victimized through *corrective rape in war-torn countries like Africa; when a 170-page manual on child *molestation circulates that details step-by-step, how to find, *groom, and molest children;14<\/sup> when human *sex trafficking exploits children and young women like *\u201cchattel\u201d on a global market; when young girls must endure *female circumcision; when boys are sexually abused throughout the world but shame, *cultural mores,15<\/sup> and male *stereotypes keep them quiet; when women are maimed or burned in *\u201chonor killing\u201d for breaking sectarian relational *taboos; when protestant churches sensitively pray about infertility on Mother\u2019s Day but won\u2019t acknowledge the sexually abused sitting in the same room;16<\/sup> when the Catholic Church remains so dogmatic about adult contraception but criminally silent about child sexual abuse of epidemic proportion\u2014the portrait of biblical sexuality is indeed fractured!<\/i><\/p>\nIn his book Sex in the Bible<\/i>, J. Harold Ellens captures the moral gravity of our time when he laments that, \u201cwe increasingly witness the progressive unfolding of the horror of sexual abuse and other forms of sexual aberration in all societies on this planet, particularly in religious communities.\u201d17<\/sup> Singling out the religious communities and the leaders of our faith traditions is a haunting but necessary remark. Any shepherd who preys on their sheep by sexually abusing them is a profound illustration of corrosive hypocrisy\u2014to faith, body, and community <\/i>(Ezekiel 34).<\/p>\nIt has been estimated that in a fifty-two-year period (1950\u20132002), at least fifty thousand young people were abused by priests.18<\/sup> What major Western country has not had the sexual abuse crisis hit their community of faith? Through symbolism or other means, there is now a need for collective <\/i>*restitution and healing on an international and inter-faith scale <\/i>(Psalm 32). On the model of South Africa\u2019s Truth and Reconciliation Commission<\/i>,19<\/sup> the international faith community needs to demonstrate a renewed welcome to their sexually violated, standing in solidarity with the betrayed in the name of our Wounded Lamb who stands \u201cas slain\u201d (Rev 5:6a).20<\/sup> The eternal scarring of the Savior is extremely meaningful to the sexually violated. This biblical text holds out a precious truth and a healing paradox for abused people still struggling with the effects of their *trauma: at the center of the throne John no longer sees the Lion (5:5), but now a Lamb (5:6). John\u2019s theology of Christ\u2019s victory through sacrifice <\/i>\u201cemphasizes the lasting benefits of his sacrificial death and resurrection.\u201d21<\/sup> Christ did not die to save humans from their humanity, but to authenticate and redeem it<\/i>.22<\/sup> Through the scarred Christ, a holistic redemption is provided.<\/p>\nVarious cultural forces have exacerbated this fracturing of sexuality, including: \u201cThe modern \u2018turn to the subject,\u2019 the inordinate preoccupation with \u2018I,\u2019\u201d23<\/sup> the ever-destructive religious hypocrisies, and various social movements defined by *power structures have, for example, called into question the foundational claims of biblical sexuality.24<\/sup> In many ways, the church has blunted its own authority on sexual ethics. Too much preaching on \u201clittle sins\u201d has shrunk our hearts. What imagination do people have left for epic <\/i>waves of human violation sweeping our globe?25<\/sup> Abuse victims are further diminished when fellow humans repackage others\u2019 pain, rather than sitting with the broken. Unfortunately, as Walter Brueggemann has observed:<\/p>\nThe practical outcome of this compartmentalization in the contemporary church is that so-called conservatives tend to take careful account of the most rigorous claims of the Bible concerning sexuality, and are indifferent to what the Bible says about economics. Mutatis mutandis, so-called liberals relish what the Bible says in demanding ways about economics, but tread lightly around what the Bible says about sexuality.26<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\nClearly, a representative policy on sexual abuse is desperately needed, one that can transcend our differences, and I believe a collective voice may yet be found to address this issue.<\/p>\n
Serious fracture is also evident when entire populations use stock phrases like: \u201cmy sex life\u201d\u2014an ethical *oxymoron\u2014they betray a lack of interpersonal understanding, steeped instead in ideologies of autonomy and hyperindividualism. Rather, as Christian Gostecnik reminds us, \u201c[S]exuality is and remains the arena where the most important relational configurations play out, and with all their power point to a transcendence and sacredness of interpersonal and <\/i>*family system relationships<\/i>.\u201d27<\/sup> Yet without an adequate perspective of the relational web comes a tragic minimizing of a deeply relational form of trauma. What has withered outside Eden is the very foundation for an interconnectedness that is also accountable.<\/p>\nLearning from Eden\u2019s Loss: Reclaiming a Collective Conscience<\/i><\/p>\n
Persons are parts of relationships. Addressing SA requires a more theologically integrative anthropology\u2014including the contextualizing nature of lived-experience. <\/i>Also needed is a more respectful appraisal of cultural assumptions that define personhood, assumptions operating in and outside the church.28<\/sup> Historically, theology has assumed a rather Western and \u201cfixed\u201d anthropology: essentially *dualistic, excessively individualized, culturally \u201cflat,\u201d and an experientially minimalist view of personhood.29<\/sup> However, through creation, Scripture offers a vision of moral community that also defines personal morality<\/i>.30<\/sup> Creation theology mediates the two extremes of collective *fatalism and hyperindividualism.31<\/sup> In creation theology, both <\/i>individual and collective realities are anchored and affirmed.<\/p>\nUnderstandably, personal violence and relational loss can foster a sharp distaste for the finitude and contingency of creation as part of its goodness.32<\/sup> \u201cIn creation is a recognition of the worth of limitation <\/i>\u2026 that which is limited and finite constitutes the very place in which God\u2019s being is exhibited.\u201d33<\/sup> But such creaturely (inter-)dependence can appear like reckless vulnerability. Sexually violated people naturally tend to \u201cwall-up\u201d and \u201cclose in\u201d; post-violation, relational vulnerability can simply seem too costly. Yet there is hope. Creation teaches an exalted anthropology; humankind is dignified through the *image of God (discussed below). Outside Eden, people still retain their ability to choose and the dignity of agency, enabling a journey of healing within <\/i>community. Collective conscience\u2014whether celebrating or restoring it\u2014means that personal morality is operating within moral community.<\/p>\nBuried in the profound damage of sexual abuse lay the vestiges of a Creator\u2019s intended design for sexual personhood. John MacMurray rightly claims that \u201cpersonal existence is constituted <\/i>by the relation of persons\u201d\u2014the personal self has \u201cits being in relationships.\u201d34<\/sup> This reality of \u201csituatedness\u201d in biblical anthropology highlights ethical elements functioning within the \u201cI\u2013Thou<\/i>\u201d and \u201cWe<\/i>\u201d of personhood. It is this relational dynamic that highlights the devastation factor of human-induced <\/i>trauma and the enduring consequences of sexual violation.35<\/sup> Neither sexuality nor its abuse can be adequately grasped outside of Creation\u2019s view of being-in-relation<\/i>. These implications run deep, both for violation and healing. For example, \u201cAll memories are communal,\u201d argues theologian Miroslav Volf. \u201cIndividuals do not remember alone but as members of a group.\u201d36<\/sup> Acknowledging these realities of personhood, we turn to Genesis 1.<\/p>\nSexuality Rooted in Doxology<\/i><\/p>\n
Genesis 1:1\u20132:3 functions as the first exposition.37<\/sup> The poetic cadence of this initial unit is theo-centric <\/i>*doxology, \u201ca world-making *liturgy that invites the congregation to respond in regular *litany, \u2018it is good \u2026 very good.\u2019\u201d38<\/sup> As theologized history,39<\/sup> creation theology has also spawned numerous creation-psalms. In fact, so central was creation to Israel\u2019s faith and hope that \u201cIsrael spoke about Yahweh\u2019s creation activity above all in hymnic praise\u201d (e.g., Psalms 8, 18, 65, 104, 148).40<\/sup> Creation is worded-forth<\/i>, according to the \u201cmoral imagination\u201d41<\/sup> of the Creator. Divine speech is effective, for the Creator to speak is to manifest (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, etc.).42<\/sup> What God makes is more than \u201cgood\u201d (vv. 10, 12, 18, 25); the concluding evaluation is \u201cvery good\u201d (1:31)\u2014only after the creation of humankind<\/i>. Elohim <\/i>is the transcendent, wholly-other, universal King (cf. 1 Sam 12:12; Ps 95:3\u20137).43 But God is not sexed, he is supra<\/i>-sexual. The God of biblical creation is unique. \u201cOutside Israel all gods or goddesses are sexed \u2026 goddesses all over the world are directly and inescapably linked to sexuality.\u201d44<\/sup> In contrast to the ancient Near Eastern cultures,45<\/sup> as John N. Oswalt explains:<\/p>\n[H]uman sexual behavior is specifically desacralized. Nothing happens to God or to nature when a man and a woman have sex together \u2026 Sex is a divinely willed characteristic of creation, but it is not a characteristic of ultimate reality. As a result, the Bible builds specific boundaries around the practice of sex \u2026 God is beyond the limits of our sexuality<\/i>. So, these prohibitions on sex outside of heterosexual marriage are not the work of prudes. They are a revelation of the boundaries inside of which the Creator intended us to find blessing and not curse.46<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\nNevertheless, as John Goldingay explains: \u201cGod can be bodily enough to be seen (e.g., Exod 24:9\u201311) and specifically has, for example, eyes, a nose, a face, arms, hands and a womb\u2014everything but genitals.\u201d47<\/sup> Since God is neither male nor female, human sexuality is a result of creation, not a quality of a sexual Creator<\/i>.48<\/sup><\/p>\nSexuality Deliberately Connecting Genesis 1 and 2<\/b><\/p>\n
The doxology of creation moves from earth (1:2) to \u201cearthling\u201d (1:26), inanimate to the animate, chaos to rest. \u201cAll of creation\u2014the natural world and humans together\u2014stands in relationship to God and is a suitable vehicle of God\u2019s presence.\u201d49 Yet, rising in complexity and agency, the creation of humankind on Day 6 <\/i>is twice the length (149 words [vv. 26\u201331]) of its corresponding Day 3 <\/i>(69 words [vv. 9\u201313]). The doxology culminates with humankind (1:26\u201328), the pinnacle of God\u2019s eight creative acts.50<\/p>\n
The 2nd exposition (2:4\u20134:26) amplifies the origin (2:7, 21\u201322) and sexuality of humankind (2:18, 23\u201325). The viewpoint shifts from a cosmic panorama (Genesis 1) to the \u201cground-level\u201d particulars of the human pair (Genesis 2). Tying these two expositions together are foundational theological themes with sexuality framing them all. Observe the following diagram.<\/p>\n
Sexuality Among the Themes of Genesis 1 & 2<\/b><\/p>\n
Using *chiastic structure, sexuality is the framing theme, highlighting theological focus. Law not only establishes boundaries <\/i>in the best interests of human life, but law is also God\u2019s gracious gift and pre-dates rebellion.51<\/sup> \u201cThe law is given because God is concerned about the best possible life <\/i>for all <\/i>of God\u2019s creatures.\u201d52<\/sup> Whether as boundary or blessing, God\u2019s directives foster life: for procreation (1:28) and relational protection (2:16<\/i>\u201317)<\/i>. God\u2019s provision of food moves from the introduction of image bearers\u2014sexuality in the *Creation Mandate (1:26\u201327, discussed below)\u2014to sexuality in vulnerability (2:21\u201325). The two sexes who have \u201cdominion\u201d over the animals (1:28; cf. Ps 8:6\u20138[7\u20139]) in turn define their sexual uniqueness in contrast to the animals (2:20, 24). \u201cProcreation is shared by humankind with the animal world (Gen 1:22, 28); sexuality is not.\u201d53<\/sup> Animals multiply \u201caccording to their kinds\u201d (1:25), but humans, \u201caccording to our likeness\u201d (1:26; 5:3).54<\/sup> The gravity of sexual abuse is better understood next to a deeper understanding of the grandeur of humankind made in God\u2019s image.<\/p>\nThe Image of God: Under-kings in Stewardship<\/i><\/p>\n
The study of the image of God is essentially the study of Western understanding of humanity.55 In Gen 1:26\u201328 we find core theological values. Here, sexuality participates in a holistic anthropology. Unfortunately, texts like Gen 1:26 and 27 are typically read in isolation from their larger context, and even God\u2019s dignifying speech. A *close reading reveals the literary contour of 1:26\u201328. God\u2019s speech\u2014both creative and appointing\u2014actually encircles v. 27; the Creator\u2019s \u201cLet us\u201d (v. 26, 1st person address) culminates with his priest-like blessing: \u201cBe fruitful\u201d (v. 28, 2nd person blessing). My following translation and semantic layout contextualizes the vital subjects of \u201chumankind,\u201d \u201cimage of God,\u201d \u201crule,\u201d and \u201cmale and female\u201d in an interplay of divine speech (vv. 26, 28) and a narrator\u2019s report (v. 27). Significantly, human sexuality is defined within community, granted a royal context, and tasked with an ethical mission<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Image of God (Gen 1:26\u201328):<\/p>\n
Resemblance and Relationship in Literary Structure<\/b><\/p>\n
Announcement:\u00a0\u00a0 <\/i><\/b>\u201cLet us make humankind (\u2019\u0101d\u0101m<\/i>) in our <\/i>image<\/span> \u2026 our <\/i>likeness\u201d (26a)<\/p>\nPurpose:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/i><\/b>\u201cso that THEY may rule over<\/span> (r\u0101d\u00e2<\/i>): fish, birds, creepers\u201d (26b)<\/p>\nA\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So created (wyb\u0101r\u0101\u2019<\/i>) God the human being (h\u0101\u2019\u0101d\u0101m<\/i>) in his <\/i>image<\/span> (27a)<\/p>\nReport:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/i><\/b>B in the <\/i>image of God he created him (27b)<\/p>\n
B\u2019\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 male (z\u0101k\u0101r<\/i>) and female (n\u0115q\u0113b\u00e2<\/i>) he created THEM (27c)<\/p>\n
A\u2019\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Then blessed (wyb\u0101rek<\/i>) God THEM and God said to THEM (28a\u03b1<\/i>)<\/p>\n
Blessing<\/i><\/b>1<\/sup> (= endowment<\/i>): \u201cBe fruitful \u2026 multiply \u2026 fill \u2026 subdue it\u201d (28a\u03b2<\/i>)<\/p>\nBlessing<\/i><\/b>2<\/sup> (= commission<\/i>): \u201crule over<\/span> (r\u0101d\u00e2<\/i>): fish, birds, creepers\u201d (28b)<\/p>\nFrom the outset, the syntax underscores relationships in purpose<\/i>. In *performative utterance, the more intimate \u201cLet us make\u201d now replaces the impersonal \u201cLet there be\u201d (cf. v. 14). The ruling community is specifically tasked\u2014\u201cso that <\/i>they may rule over \u2026 fish, birds, creepers\u201d (vv. 26b, 28b).56<\/sup> \u201cThey\u201d who are anticipated to \u201crule\u201d (v. 26b, r\u0101d\u00e2<\/i>) are the same community (v. 28a, \u201cthem\u201d) blessed with \u201crule\u201d in the Creation Mandate (v. 28b, r\u0101d\u00e2<\/i>).57<\/sup> The Mandate blessing ignites life, giving it direction, purpose, and ethical mission (Gen 2:15; Psalm 8).58<\/sup> Human sexuality is presupposed within the relational and ethical dynamic of the Mandate<\/i>.59<\/sup><\/p>\nNotice that humankind was made in \u201cdialogue\u201d for dialogue\u2014the man will only be heard when there is woman, a corresponding being to speak to (2:23).60<\/sup> *Rhetorically, the \u201cdivine plural\u201d (= \u201cus\u201d) from the heavenly stage initiates <\/i>a mission that the \u201chuman plural\u201d (= \u201cthem\u201d) enacts <\/i>on the earthly stage. Bracketing the entire unit, God\u2019s speech is both informative (1:26) and empowering (1:28).<\/p>\nHighlighting the historical and cultural context, biblical theology sees God\u2019s angelic court in the plural \u201cus\u201d (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19\u201322; Isah 6:8).61<\/sup> Humankind is cast as the terrestrial counterpart to God\u2019s heavenly entourage.62<\/sup> God\u2019s experience of community now spills over into a new arena, \u201cdeepening and broadening the community of relationships that already exists in the divine realm.\u201d63<\/sup><\/p>\nAs the image of God, humankind both represents <\/i>and resembles <\/i>God.64<\/sup> Rooted in the \u201cstuff of earth\u201d (2:7), humankind as the \u201cimage of God\u201d has \u201ca physical nature shared with the rest of the world and a unique form of liveliness that came from God.\u201d65<\/sup> In the theology of creation, the stone statues used by ancient Near Eastern kings are replaced by God\u2019s living emblems. So Goldingay perceptively notes, if the \u201cwe\u201d includes God\u2019s heavenly entourage, it \u201cwould fit with the fact that God and God\u2019s aids all have human form when they appear on earth\u201d (e.g., Genesis 18\u201319).66<\/sup> Further, the fact that: \u201cYou have crowned him with glory and honor\u201d (Ps 8:5[6]) coronates human under-kings (Pss 21:5[6]; 45:3\u20134[4\u20135]) with the dignity of their Cosmic King (Pss 29:1\u20134; 96:6\u20137; 145:5). \u201cGlory and honor\u201d are distinguishing characteristics shared by God and his vice-regents,67<\/sup> but a royalty that is now democratized <\/i>to all of humankind, not one gender, one class of people, or ancient kings who thought they were demigods. \u201cThe first human beings are themselves royal figures, living in a royal garden and exercising royal authority there.<\/i>\u201d68<\/sup><\/p>\nFollowing the above diagram, Gen 1:26\u201328 shows that \u2019\u0101d\u0101m <\/i>refers to the category of \u201chuman being\u201d to which the individual belongs; that is, collective humankind as \u201cmale\u201d and \u201cfemale\u201d (v. 27c). The Old Testament does not use \u2019\u0101d\u0101m <\/i>to distinguish one individual from another.69<\/sup> The terms and literary structure of this passage shows that neither gender nor *hierarchy is at issue here; at focus is the image-bearer as God\u2019s agent <\/i>in earthly stewardship.70<\/sup><\/p>\nAs image-bearers, their difference lies in sexual structure. Significantly, the terms \u201cmale\u201d (z\u0101k\u0101r) and \u201cfemale\u201d (n\u0115q\u0113b\u00e2, v. 27c) refer to their capacity as sexual beings, thus making sexual potency\u2014alongside the royal status of image-bearing\u2014the gravitational center of this passage<\/i>. As the above diagram shows, sexuality is an assumption celebrated in the blessing that immediately follows (v. 28). Not until we come to Gen 2:23 do we find the terms \u201cman\u201d (\u2019i\u0161<\/i>) and \u201cwoman\u201d (\u2019i\u0161\u0161\u00e2<\/i>) used by God\u2019s agents. Only in Gen 2:23 are social relationships evident\u2014gender, as we tend to think of it.71<\/sup> But our diagram illustrates more.<\/p>\nThe *chiasm in the center report <\/i>communicates some unique emphases.72<\/sup> Together, (A, A\u2019) \u201cso created\u201d and \u201cthen blessed\u201d73<\/sup> underscores the fact that human creation is beyond a neutral event\u2014\u201cLet us\u201d was salvific and doxological.74<\/sup> Used three times in v. 27, \u201ccreate\u201d (b\u0101r\u0101\u2019 <\/i>) communicates product <\/i>rather than process (cf. \u201cmake,\u201d v. 26), further highlighting the special nature of \u201cthe human being\u201d (h\u0101\u2019\u0101d\u0101m<\/i>, v. 27a). Further, the core subunits (B, B\u2019): \u201cin the image of God\u201d and \u201cmale and female\u201d are topically <\/i>stressed. The structure of subunits \u201cB\u201d are explicative <\/i>verbless phrases, not the \u201cnormal\u201d Hebrew word order. In other words, moving from the articular form (\u201cthe <\/i>human being,\u201d v. 27a) to the collective singular (B: \u201chim\/it,\u201d v. 27b)75<\/sup> presents \u201cmale\u201d (z\u0101k\u0101r<\/i>) and \u201cfemale\u201d (B\u2019: n\u0115q\u0113b\u00e2<\/i>, v. 27c) as two types of the same generic human being<\/i>, agents of the same mission. We now consider how sexuality and mission merge.<\/p>\nRoyal Custodians in Ethical Mission<\/i><\/p>\n
Sexuality operates in the context of a divinely delegated and other-oriented mission. God\u2019s vice-regents are custodians in an ethical trust. The mission in Gen 1:28 is a theological *hendiadys, or pairing of two interrelated parts: (1) endowment <\/i>for reproduction, (2) and commission <\/i>for governance (see above diagram). Aberrant notions of sexuality tend to divide: a severance of reproduction from governance, a dismissal of society from self, or an elevation of personal choice over social obligation. But moored to the image of God, the context of human sexuality is ethical mission\u2014from <\/i>God and for <\/i>others. Sexuality has a \u201cnested existence\u201d76<\/sup> in a web of relationships that originates with the Creator who considerately observed, \u201cIt is not good for the man to be alone\u201d (Gen 2:18). God \u201callows himself to be affected, to be touched by each of his creatures. He adopts the community of creation as his own milieu.\u201d77<\/sup><\/p>\nWhile endowment addresses sexual reproduction, it is never separated from the commission of ruling (cf. 1:26, 28)\u2014the stewardship of governance. Sexuality has an orienting vision in which God has interjected moral order and ethical coherence.78<\/sup> To produce and care is to mimic the Creator (cf. 2:5, 15). Humankind is intended to co-create with God (Gen 4:1; 5:3). The same ethical mission means that \u201csubduing\u201d (v. 28a) in creation theology is the task of earthly development<\/i>, whereas \u201cruling\u201d (v. 28b) grants humankind the necessary position to achieve this harnessing of earthly life.79<\/sup> But abuse defies both dignity and vision. Theologically, sexual abuse is: ethical mission in reverse, custodians in sabotage of their royal family, a distortion of delegated authority, a plundering of fellow-image bearers, a degrading of the redemptive horizon, and a marring of connecting metaphors for God<\/i>. The grand web of relationships is broken.80<\/sup><\/p>\nDoxology gives dominion legitimacy.81<\/sup> Theirs is not a dominion of power, but power for dominion<\/i>. Thus, both doxology and dominion must be held together, for worship without human authority is *abdication and human power without the context of praise becomes self-serving human regency.82<\/sup> God blessed the sexual human being for ethical mission. Sexual intimacy is unique, a merging <\/i>of blessed man and woman (1:28), of a \u201cmale\u201d and \u201cfemale\u201d who are structurally compatible with each other, possessing \u201cthe right degree of likeness and unlikeness to make the merger truly complimentary\u201d (2:23\u201324).83<\/sup><\/p>\nThe theological force of God\u2019s blessing reissued to Noah portrays the Creator in some degree of accommodation to sustain his redemptive program, recalibrating <\/i>the original Mandate for a new era\u2014involved, but never calling it \u201cgood\u201d again (Gen 9:1\u20137). Significant to the renewal of the Mandate mission with Noah is the reality that the image of God remains intact <\/i>(Gen 9:1, 6, 7; Jam 3:9).84<\/sup> Renewed law assures that moral order reflects the created order, thereby sustaining and extending God\u2019s creative work. Several implications for ministering to the sexually abused can be noted from our discussion.<\/p>\nImage of God: Implications for Personhood and Abuse<\/p>\n
First, regarding gender. Notice that the two pronouns (\u201cour\u201d [2x], v. 26a) underscore a theomorphic <\/i>perspective (i.e., having the form of God), as \u201cour image\u201d and \u201cour likeness\u201d fix their point of reference in God, not in \u201chim\u201d or \u201cherself.\u201d85<\/sup> God models a common humanity, not our gender specificity.86<\/sup> Moreover, the structure of the passage shows that the narrator\u2019s report culminates with a depiction of genders in unity (\u201cthem,\u201d v. 27c). Throughout Genesis 1<\/i>\u20132, God addresses them as persons, not genders\u2014persons in a <\/i>\u201ccommunity of need<\/i>.\u201d87<\/sup> Theologically, healing a victim implies restoring a community. While the Mandate is given to rule the earth, there is no Mandate for humans to rule each other.88<\/sup> As Patrick D. Miller notes, \u201cOnce the declaration is made that it is as man and as woman that God has created human beings, then the story speaks of them only in the plural<\/i>.\u201d89<\/sup><\/p>\nSexual abuse only compounds the survivor\u2019s struggle to define their gendered identity, a point addressed in other chapters. Our analysis shows that the difference in sexed bodies of men and women actually grounds their intricate interdependence<\/i>.90<\/sup> What has exhausted itself is the contemporary insistence, notes Allison Weir, especially among some *feminists, that identity is necessarily based on subject-object opposition, requiring the exclusion <\/i>of the other.91<\/sup> In other words, a theology of sexuality is not found in neutralizing <\/i>gender differences (i.e., \u201cneither-one-nor-the-other\u201d), nor synthesizing <\/i>gender (i.e., \u201cnot-the-one-and-the-other\u201d), but as Miroslav Volf explains, \u201caffirming gender differences while at the same time positing one gender identity as always internal to the other\u201d (i.e., \u201cnot-without-the-other\u201d; cf. Gen 2:18, 23\u201324).92<\/sup> What will help victims of abuse are models of identity that consciously include difference and identity<\/i>\u2014rather than excluding difference and identity through theories of opposition, class, or sanctioned stereotypes.93<\/sup><\/p>\nSecond, regarding embodied personhood. As a survivor myself, I understand how \u201coppositional logic\u201d has rightly attempted to empower the oppressed voice by securing dignity and personal autonomy, but secondary problems have also resulted. Politics no longer recognizes any roots or accountability to theology; rather, it is quite the opposite. And this has raised another problem\u2014the disembodied <\/i>victim. Here\u2019s the issue: if image is cognitive capacity, the *imago Dei <\/i>is reason<\/i>; if worship is central, the image is spiritual<\/i>; if the aesthetic is primary, then image is creativity<\/i>; if image is Trinitarian, emotion-filled relationship, then image is relational<\/i>.94<\/sup> Notice that the net result of all these emphases is locating God\u2019s image in the interior <\/i>of the person.
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/LongJourneyHome-cover1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n