I don't think it is logically or theologically untenable. To suggest that the difference between races or age groups is as profound as the differences between the sexes, to me, is logically untenable. Very few priests will look all that much like Jesus physically, based on ethnicity, age, facial features, etc., but they look like Jesus in a very important way. Jesus Christ is the new Adam, the model of perfect obedience, the restoration of man to communion with God. While it is absurd to think that women are not counted in this restoration, men adhere more closely to the archetype of Adam, and of Christ.
But this plays right into what I said previously about it being theological untenable (imho). How are women counted in this restoration of fallen Adam? It must be in the same way as their male counterparts for there is only one Christ and one Salvation. If we say "men adhere more closely to the archetype of Adam and of Christ", how do we maintain women's equality in the economy of salvation (salvation again, being the restoration of Adam/Man).
It is not a question merely of physical appearance but of physical archetype. The Theotokos is the new Eve, the one who says "yes" to God, and by her consent ushers in the restoration of mankind in the person of Christ. Women are more representative of this archetype. This may seem absurd to some people, but there is a real difference between men and women, and while they are equal, they represent different things in the human psyche.
In a sense I agree as I pointed out in my OP, but when it comes to the issue of being an image-bearer of Christ, and it's closely associated doctrine of theosis, we need to tred very very lightly. For Paul said, there is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.
You made mention of this in your OP that there are certain things that you associate with being a woman that are archetypal traits. Just consider for a moment (and be honest with yourself) how you would feel if a movie was made about the life of Jesus, where Jesus was played by a woman.
I have not seen an actual movie, but I have seen art to this effect (the particular pieces I have in mind I have found very moving). And you're talking to the girl that had to dress up as a wiseman one Christmas Eve, not to mention the dozens of times I've played an angel. It's all subjective. It's all in what we are use to. For example, most Christians think nothing of seeing a "feminine" angel. In fact, they appear feminine more than they appear masculine in western art, but no one gawks at that, we never stop to think that most if not all of the angels in Scripture went by male descriptions/designations.
Now think about if that role was played by an older man,
Now, that would probably be very odd for me yes.
or played by an african american man, or an anglo saxon man.
I've seen Christ played by an African American and felt uncomfortable with that too. Why? Because I knew Christ was a first century palestinian jew and when I watch a movie about Christ, I expect it to be as historically accurate as possible.
Does one not seem like far more of a departure than the other?
Well having an African American portray Christ is honestly really weird for me.
If you really think that they are the same, then I'm not sure anyone can convince you otherwise.
It's not about me and what I am personally comfortable with, it's about logical consistency. I've spent enough time in the Jewish/Hebraic Movement to know how big of an issue this is for some Christians. Many Messianic Jews have a real problem with Christ portrayed as anything other than Jewish.
As for no one being able to convince me otherwise, I doubt it matters one way or the other, as neither your position or mine is officially EO. Frederica Matthewes-Green sometime back said:
Heres another argument: a priest must be male because he represents Christ. When I was in seminary I would say, sure, Christ was male, and he was also Jewish, and a certain height and hair color. Why is only his maleness indispensable? Surely the fact that he was Jewish is even more significant, but we dont exclude from ordination people who dont have Jewish genes.
We dont find the argument that Christ was male used in the early church; in fact, early Christians reflected very little on why Christ was male. Instead, they emphasized the fact that he was human. As Bp. Kallistos Ware points out, Christs maleness isnt even mentioned in the hymns appointed for the Feast of the Circumcision, which would seem the likeliest spot. There might be good practical and theological reasons why Jesus was born male, but the early church did not explore them.
So I think it's safe to say that you and I can agree to disagree on this one.
This was actually the departure point on which I built the rest of my post, which you didn't really respond to.
I didn't know what to say. I thought it was a very good point (probably should have said something to that effect). For the future, if I don't respond to a particular something or someone it doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. It's usually because I either concur, want to respond to it later, or thought it was something that I needed to ponder further.
I would really suggest that you look into the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist. It is quite different than in the West. The West really seems to have fallen prey to rampant clericalism, which the Protestants over-corrected leading often to rampant anti-clericalism. In the Orthodox understanding, the priest leads the congregation, as one of the congregation in the work that they do together. The priest does not do anything of his own accord, but on behalf of the assembly of the people. To be fair, they do play a special role, but it is something that ought not to be desired after. As the priest prays in the Liturgy, "for to serve thee is a great and terrible thing even to the Heavenly Powers." The priesthood is a calling, and one that should never be taken lightly, because while it is no more important than the role of the laity in the consecration of the gifts, it brings with it the tremendous responsibility of being accountable for the proper distribution of the Eucharist. It is for this reason that so many saints of the Church have tried to run from this calling. It is a heavy burden. It is much easier to be the crowd that gives its amen to the transformation of the gifts, where one needs only worry about their own unworthiness to receive, than having responsibility for all who come to the chalice.
I understand all this. I don't know how much of this thread you've read. But I've recently purchased Fr. Hopko's book on the subject. It will be here Tuesday.
