I agree–Jesus is fully human and displays humanity in an archetypal way. But two thoughts for consideration:

Must arche-typal be the same as pan-typal? That is, must the archetype contain all the diversity that corresponding types can have? Must Jesus’ humanity correspond with all the variations? (This isn’t a new idea. In a sense, Irenaeus had this idea when he argued that Jesus must have died later in life so that he could identify with all of life stages.) Perhaps, this also ties into a tendency to view the prelapsarian state of Adam as homogenous. Perhaps Jesus is the Second Adam–pre-Eve. (I’m sounding like one of those “pre-mill, post-trib” e-scatologians now.)

Second, Barth also talks in this same part (III.4) of finiteness or “limitation” as being central to what it means to be human. In this regard, then, Jesus, as being fully human, could only be the person that he was at that point in time following the will of the Father. For him, then, being fully human meant doing what he did in obedience to the Father’s will and this meant not being married, having children… This then, would support your point that these aspects are not central (dare we say essential?) to being human. And that being fully human consists in living with the freedom of their limitations in accordance to the will of the Creator.

For some this would be unmarried and childless… [BTW: if this were true, it would also help with another obsession within some Christian communions. That is married women who are distraught and driven to radical measures when they are not able to have children for biological reasons.]

On the other hand, there are most certainly those who live within their person-al limitations who are called to marriage and children–perhaps through natural sexual drive or need for companionship. For these, then, to be truly human must involve marriage and bearing children.

As one who is married and a father of three, I confess there are times when I raise my fist against God and say “Why couldn’t you have called me to the free-swinging bachelor’s life?” Sometimes this is spurred by my own evil inclinations to not live in the freedom of my own limitations. But other times it is because I’m hearing more and more comments in my local church about the superiority of being a single Christian over the ball-and-chain reality of having a family.

The pendulum is swinging, as rightly it ought. I have a dream…of a day when my children are judged (at church) not by the reality of the particular person they were created to be (color of skin, marital status…) but by the degree of joy they have within the limitation of their humanity by following the call of their Creator.

I too have been lurking in the background.

A thought:
Sarah’s point remains important and interesting at least to me for two reasons.

1) The assumption of an eternally and essentially dualistic (male/female) universe (the associations with this dualism are left unsaid) – in other words, does the new creation continue in dualized fashion (male/female, somehow substantially different), or is there some sort of radical unity EVEN in difference that transcends/transforms old differences in a new way? Also, what about now? If, as I would imagine most would agree, the church serves as a present foretaste of the reality to come (when it comes in all its fullness), then questions about how that reality can be presented are extremely important. I appreciated the divinization thinking here. Obviously, Galatians 3:28 comes to mind. I’ve been playing with that idea for awhile now, particularly after reading Zizioulas’ Being as Communion. This idea seems to suggest/state that ultimately the dualism between human and divine themselves may be transformed in radical love/unity… interesting, no?

2) I sense that, at least for myself, what is most problematic about the dualistic scheme is the hierarchical valuation that seems to (and has historically, pervasively) place the female as second and therefore secondary. The reality of the situation is that sexuality and gender both matter significantly for life as we know it (aka, experience it and our attempts to talk about it). I would agree that each individual’s perspective is unique, based on biological/sociological factors. That’s not the point. The point is one of value, and that, I imagine, is where the power/hierarchy questions come into play. Not to boil it down prematurely or simplistically… that’s just what I’m interested in here… :)

I’d very much like to take seriously the tension of our continued existence in human bodies, which are gendered and sexed (socially constructed and physiologically differentiated, which should not, as a side point, probably be too carefully distinguished. They flow into each other mutually), and our expectations in the new creation. In other words, we have several historical options that people struggling with this and related issues have chosen (indeed, nearly all in related somehow, but that’s not the point), asceticism and sexual renunciation among them (which as someone above mentioned, is not asexuality but a particularly type of sexuality). One particular example (perhaps the Etiorites? – see Peter Brown’s SEXUAL RENUNCIATION) included a sect that taught that a way to overthrow the principalities/powers of Rome was by refusing to procreate and thus participate in the political and social order of the Roman polity. Very apocalyptic in a way, though it was deemed heretical.

I’m getting off point. I’ll conclude with this: Thanks for the EXTREMELY interesting thoughts and for letting me speak, even if it’s on areas that you may not be particularly interested in. I appreciate your desire to re-balance things, and I certainly believe this could preach well. It certainly needs some continued wrestling, as do most thoughts. Grace and peace to all! :)

This is so wrong on various counts, chief of which is that “fullness” is once again straight-jacketed to mean “exclusivity”, a clear case of Christomonism… A Christology divorced from a theology of creation, or a Christology that does not engage a theology of creation is bound to produce such conclusions as “marriage, sex and parenthood tell us nothing whatsoever of ultimate significance about humannes.” Perhaps Halden could define what he means by “ultimate significance” here? Does this mean that what is of “ultimate significance” leaves all those that are of “relative significance” so far behind that they become unreal? What happens to theological language, given this presupposition? If we follow Halden, should we not then eject and reject all talk of God as “Father,” of Jesus Christ as “the Son” or the “bridgroom” and all the metaphors and symbols used of God and the Church… Should we not rather say that Christ does not so much reject these categories (they are after all biblical and theological as well) as reframe them? Perhaps, what we have here then is too much dialectic frightened by any theological use of analogy…

I think what Halden might be getting at can be expressed by the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on the difference between ‘person’ and ‘nature’. In the most basic of terms, ‘person’ is WHO you are, ‘nature’ is WHAT you are. The point is that only God can tell you WHO you are (in Christ, via the Spirit). Nothing whatsoever in the created order, not any contingent feature of nature per se (no ‘tropos’ or ‘way’ nature can be exercised; its form), can tell us WHO we are. And we can truly experience the fullness of personal identity and being in Christ without getting married, having sex, raising children, etc., just as Jesus did. And that’s an important point to make because the world is full of people who are trying to derive their true identity and meaning in the world (‘who’ they are) from how and when they exercise some natural capacity (from their marriage, their kids, occupation, etc.). But that’s not ‘personhood’.

I’ve just written a semi-alternative take on this issue – http://thinkingblueguitars.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/penis-rings-you-may-why-sex-doesnt-matter/ – by considering it in terms of what Slavoj Žižek has defined as the postmodern superego: rather than the castrating ‘No!’ of the father, we now have the polar opposite ‘You may!’. This leads to a compulsion to consume, in which, in my opinion, sex plays an integral role. In this context,Rowan Williams’ quotation seems not only morally radical, but also politically so.

Best wishes all,

Daniel

1. In Jesus’s time, marriage was primarily about reproduction. Given the particular nature of his call, for Jesus to marry would necessarily mean he would knowingly leave a woman a widow, and their children fatherless. That reality alone explains Jesus’s decision to remain unmarried. When such a common-sense explanation exists, I’m hesitant to adopt a more profound interpretation, lest I use it to import my own prejudices into the Scriptures.

2. To the extent Jesus’s decision to remain unmarried can be construed as part of his teaching, it would be a statement about what it meant to be married in his day– not today. From a liberationist perspective, for instance, Jesus’s decision could be seen as a rejection of 1st Century marriage as a domination-system that oppressed women; his rejection of divorce (as it existed then) fits nicely with this view. I don’t read Scripture that way, but it’s at least as valid as saying that Jesus chose to remain unmarried to set an example that’s relevant to us moderns.

3. Jesus lived and taught in the context of a well-developed Jewish tradition. The Song of Songs is part of that tradition. If one concludes that “marriage, sex, and parenthood tell us nothing whatsoever of ultimate significance about humanness,” then one must explain the inclusion of Song of Songs in the canon– to say nothing of the numerous O.T. references to marriage, sex and parenthood. If Jesus wished to overturn Jewish tradition on such matters, he surely would have spoken more clearly on the topic.

4. I join Halden in rejecting the view that “marriage, sex, and parenthood are somehow the fullness of humanity.” Such a view is contrary to Scripture and idolatrous, even if you think Jesus’s decision to remain unmarried is of the same import as sandals and carpentry.

What I am asking is: What sort of things (beer? quiet reflective study, music? weekend at the Oregon Coast?) help you drill deeper before you post?

And would you consider taking more time to drill down to the deep aquifer of your creative curiosity?