Jesus the sex God: Post-modernism and sexuality

gender signs 

I propose that gender is not a static, platonically absolute ideal. Our humanity, and thus our sexuality, means so much more than simplistic metaphysical maleness and femaleness occupying female and male bodies.

Irony is a bastard: I don’t know whether to call it an obsession or an ambivalent affinity, but ironically the sexual policing by the Church remains married to a naïve and often ambiguous authority over sexuality. Evidently, as history has shown, what the Church doesn’t understand is relegated to an anthropological anomaly or worse yet, a sin. I believe Christian anthropology is at a cross-road, not knowing whether to stay on the track of ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ or to venture down the road less trodden of Christ-centred sexuality.

Just like astronomy, evolution/adaption, slavery abolishment, racial equality and the rights of women; the LGBT community is the Church’s present ‘social devil.’ In fact in the social debate around marriage equality, the Church has done more damage to the ‘meaning of marriage’ than the so-called sexual infidels. Indeed the status quo seems to minimalize marriage to procreation. Really, is that all God intended marriage to be, an institution to procreate? Sounds a bit Darwinian.

As Jesus prioritized people over the institution of the Sabbath, so we could ask whether humans were “made to fit into an absolute, unchanging institution called marriage, or whether marriage was created to help humans…to live wisely and well in this world” (McLaren, 2010, p. 237). It may seem very odd, but I propose that Jesus is THE sex God in which we find what it really means to be embodied souls of humanity. Sexual intercourse is just one aspect of sex, Rob Bell suggests that our sexuality is all the passionate ways we go about connecting with the world, God and others (Bell, 2007, p. 42).

Interestingly in the Edenic narrative of Genesis, the only thing God deems ‘not good’ is the loneliness of Adam. Indeed through the post-modern theology of relationality, we begin to see Jesus as a sexual God, a liberator of oppressive disconnection and the instigator for reconnection. In turn the gospel becomes not about saving souls from hell-bound behaviours (like having a different sexual orientation from the status quo), rather the good news is an invitation for ALL people to participate in reconnecting ALL things through mutual, meaningful and faithful relationships.

Works Cited

Bell, R. (2007). Sex God: Exploring the endless connections between sexuality and spirituality. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

McLaren, B. (2010). A new kind of Christianity. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.

 

Wired for love: The neurobiology of relational emotionality

the triune brain

What if I told you that every human has what is called a ‘triune brain?’ – Namely that our cerebral treasures consist of three key sectors (reptilian, limbic, and neocortex), in which one area in particular holds the existential roots of love.

The Limbic System of the brain is a fascinating organism of emotional reciprocity. Indeed emotions, which are evolutionarily exclusive to the limbic brain, are the mammalian messengers of love and compassion for another; evidently for human beings, “feeling deeply is synonymous with being alive” (Lewis, Amini, & Lannon, 2000, p. 37). Regardless of Modernity’s neuro-alliance with neocortical reason (I think therefore I am), we are unmistakably wired for love through the mammalian limbic system (we love therefore we are), essentially the crux of our humanity lies not in our abstract thinking but in our emotive relating towards one another.

I propose that we honour our humanity when we limbically reciprocate honouring emotions, and we disregard our existential character by relegating others to less than emotive beings. From this point it would be fine to commemorate our mammalian neighbours, indeed my pet rats reciprocate comfort when the other is sick or depressed, yet I’d like to expand on the relationality of our humanity.

If our neurobiology sings of love, would it be plausible to conclude that all human reciprocal relationships are validly…well, normal? If you haven’t guessed where I’m going, I’ll clearly spell it out: both hetero-sexual and homo-sexual relationships are socio-biological expressions of limbic wiring. In terms of (what I call) Emergent Christo-anthropology, it is clear that “Jesus’ treatment of the marginalized and stigmatized requires us to question the conventional approach” (McLaren, 2010, p. 241).

Arguably, Jesus came not to show us the way to ‘divinity’ but the way of being fully human – through his limbic resonance for ‘the other’, Jesus calls us towards a gospel of limbic regard for all who share our humanity. The narrative of the Triune God invites us to partake in the communion of relational emotionality.

Works Cited

Lewis, T., Amini, F., & Lannon, R. (2000). A General Theory of Love. New York: Vintage Books.

McLaren, B. (2010). A new kind of Christianity. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.

 

Bob McKoskrie and hetero-phobia: The fear of people different from yourself

vote_McCoskrie

It is incredibly sad that even though today is a historic moment in New Zealand’s social history, there are still trolls trolling about ready to pounce on the fun and dampen the party. ‘Hetero-phobia’ can be described as the fear of something or someone different, and as Bob McKoskrie has shown yet again – trolls be trolling (http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=9066).

McKoskrie’s creativity seems to be limited to stale boundaries of hyper-fundamentalism, in which apparently he holds the universal truth of the definition of marriage, in which he has and still does vehemently defend. The use of the Bible as an authoritative weapon of mass distraction obviously does more harm than good. Why, why, why do fundamental evangelicals continue to paint a violent, judgemental, racist, condemning and bigot of a Jesus? As the popular maxim goes, ‘what would Jesus do?’ It is obvious that the actions of the fundamental right differ extremely from the ethos of Jesus the liberator of the oppressed and healer of the broken. This reminds me of the passage in scripture when Jesus gave up his last breath and cried out “it is finished!” In which the curtain in the temple was torn in two, and the division that kept people from encountering God freely was done away with.

It seems to me that whether it has been slavery, colonization, segregation, apartheid, and now same-sex marriage – the Church has always been the one justifying the dehumanizing of ‘the other.’ One could say that throughout history, the Church has metaphorically taken the torn curtain and repaired it to once again separate people from fully encountering their humanity.

I beg of the so-called ‘defenders of THE definition of marriage’ – everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when it is discriminating against others then serious analysis needs to be considered. I’m no pastor or theologian but I think it’s pretty straight forward that Jesus’ message hung on two paradigms in which it seems dominant Church culture has neglected: LOVE God, and LOVE people. Difference is wonderful and should be celebrated.