The debate about women’s ordination also used the fact that Jesus was male to imply that there is a sense in which God (or at least the second person of the Trinity1) has male characteristics by very essence. And, along with this, people drew attention to the fact that Jesus called God “Father” to say this implies the essentially male character of God.
The maleness of the incarnate Christ is not in dispute. But, does this imply something about the nature of God? Because Christ was male when he was ensarkos (in human flesh), does it follow that Christ must be male when asarkos (without flesh – when as a heavenly being he was not “incarnate”)? Was being a male of the essence of the Son, or part of his human existence only?
Clearly certain characteristics of Jesus are not, essential, but are “accident”. For example, one would not claim that the Son while in heaven, asarkos, has genetic characteristics such as eye colour or body shape as part of the essence of being the second person of the Trinity. These are incidental. God does not have dark curly hair, any more than a long white beard!
Some argued from the fact that Jesus was male for an exclusively male ministry. Does this argument mean that “masculinity” is an essential characteristic of the Son? Myers wrote, “The sexuality of Christ is no accident nor is his masculinity incidental.”2 To be fair, Myers here is using accident in the popular sense, for he continues: “This is the divine choice.” If there is choice, then, in the technical sense, the sexuality (and in particular the “masculinity”) of Christ is “accident” meaning incidental, and not part of his essence. Surely it is evident that all such particular genetically determined characteristics of Jesus imply nothing about the nature of God.3 “What colour are God’s eyes?” only has meaning when asked of human idols. In precisely the same way: “What gender is God?” is a question that makes God into an idol.
1 This distinction ought to be unnecessary, except that certain writers take up over-enthusiastically the patristic references that apply feminine imagery and analogy to the Spirit, e.g. Hopko (1975). Such authors even suggest that the Spirit is feminine, in some sense balancing the masculine Father and Son. E.g. Swidler (1975). For a rebuttal see below, on the Trinity.
3 Whether, then, it implies anything about the theological acceptability of women ministers is not an issue for this thesis. I suspect that to argue for an exclusively male clergy one must argue that maleness (or at least masculinity) is an essential characteristic of the Son. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note, however, that Myers and others stopped short of this.