There is a crisis upon the Christian community, and anyone else who believes Christ gave a valuable message. It is none other than the issue of homosexuality. You may grab your Bible and cite several instances throughout the work in which the action of homosexuality is vigorously condemned, but Christ himself never singles it out as a sin. The Word of God in the flesh is silent on the issue. But Paul (that bastion of liberal opinions on gender) certainly has things to say, as does Lot, and supposedly the God of the Old Testament himself. For these figures, homosexuality is a sin that must be rooted out and eliminated, and is akin to idolatry, adultery, and general whoredom.
At the same time, however, it is generally accepted that the overall purpose of Christ's message was to reveal to man that God is forgiving and loving despite our flaws. What made Christianity so appealing to men and women of late antiquity, a period characterized by a fashionable love of syncretism and all things Jewish or Egyptian, was that it connected all the dots, so to speak, between these Mediterranean ideologies. It acted as the sequel to the Torah, which was greatly respected as all "holy books" were at the time; it contained the myths of resurrection espoused in Mithraism, Greek mythology (I'm thinking of Dionysus being torn apart by the Titans and being resurrected by Zeus), and the Egyptian religion; it posits a trinitarian God along the lines of Neo-Platonism, and Philo the Jew and others would have been thrilled with its inclusion of the Logos factor; it included mystical apocalyptic texts, which certainly were in vogue at the time; and it catered to the growing demand for privatized ritual centered around some sort of specific sacrament only allowed to the initiated. It is very difficult to say anything definitive about Christianity because of its bizarrely adoptive origins. What came first? And, if he came back today, would Christ's life be told in quite the same way? Wouldn't the new cultural demands color the story differently as it did in the religion's origins? In some ways these characteristics were contemporary selling points, and strong ones at that. It incorporated the most popular aspects of religion and magic of the time, while also delivering a powerful, redemptive message: God is love, and is willing to die for that love.
But what happens when this message is undermined by its own proponents? The Catholic
Church and other fundamentalist Christian institutions have raised a strong campaign against homosexuality, deeming it unnatural and the result of a "sick" society. As I'm sure many of you are aware, their argument has reached such high pitches as to create atrocities like the Westboro Baptist Church's signs that read, "God hates fags." While this does not characterize the Christian anti-gay sentiment as a whole, it is quite obviously worrisome. The notion that God "hates" someone because they have sinned is glaringly antithetical to the "God is love" message. On the more mild end of the spectrum, Catholics agree that the primary issue is one of procreation - God made Adam and Eve, man and woman, and that's that, end of discussion. Marriage, therefore, also must consist of this bond between man and woman solely. But what do we do when we find homosexual animals in nature? The line between "choosing" to be homosexual and simply being homosexual becomes irrevocably blurred. For the Church, animals do not have free will, and therefore cannot choose to be anything but what they are. While one can argue that man, in his ability to "choose the higher road," should choose to reject homosexual behavior, we can no longer deny the simple fact that the great Author of nature somehow slipped homosexuality into Mother Earth's architecture.
Then there is the argument, "hate the sin, love the sinner." But how is the expression of love between two individuals, whether two men or two women, a sin? Surely the issue is not about caritas, platonic love shared between neighbors. The issue comes down to eros, erotic love and sexual intercourse. The problem lies in the fact that reproduction cannot occur without opposing sexes. And yet, Pope Benedict has written that agape (sort of similar to caritas) and eros are two halves of one "true love." Therefore, God Himself must embody this sort of love, both passive agape and active eros, modulating in currents of both. Marriage is the greatest representation of this, as it depends on both forms as well. But eros, the pope explains, is grossly misunderstood by mainstream culture today, and it is really about the desire to possess something as one's own for unselfish reasons. True love is all about the sublime act of giving oneself and receiving another simultaneously. I believe the problem with society's interpretation of sex is that there's too much eros and not enough agape. It stresses the importance of sex's materiality, the idea that one gains some sort of accreditation by having intercourse, and thus it breeds individuals who only know how to take and possess and not give back equally.
Here lie several hitches, however. Firstly, if God embodies true love for all people, He must therefore also be homosexual, unless we finally dispense of the whole singularly gendered God idea. Secondly, how can we love as God does - indiscriminately - if we do not possess an equal agape and eros for both men and women alike? How do we act "as Jesus would do" if we are not willing to entertain a desire to essentially wed both sexes? If to marry is to perfectly embody God's love, then why do we deny marriage to same-sex couples? Does God, because he is supposedly male, not want to marry other men? Whatever one's definition of eros may be, it is crucial for us to truly understand Divine Love in its full scope by breaking down the segregating effect of marriage's limited social definition. Otherwise, we are left with a God that we are meant to emulate to the best of our abilities by following in Christ's example, but who, at the same moment, expects us to disregard entirely any feelings of love toward another of the same sex. It is dreadfully paradoxical and confusing, but it is what we are confronted with.
Christ is often termed the "Second Adam," as he reverses the mistake the first man made at the Fall. Adam failed to obey God and sacrifice his own egoistic curiosity in the name of love. He did what we moderns do and chose only eros without agape. But Christ managed both, and preached that God loves all people, and that we must learn to love in this same way. So now we have a few options. For one thing, either the papacy must revise its statements or change its position on homosexuality entirely. Additionally, we now may choose essentially between two Gods - one that represents a selective love, and one that embodies a holistic, indiscriminate love. What is more important to Christianity? the words of the Apostles? or Christ, the living Word? the apocalyptic image of Christ as Judge throwing sinners into lakes of fire? or the absolutely fundamental and foundational concept that a redemptive God is a loving God? For these reasons, we absolutely must resolve to admit that homosexuality is warranted by the infinite capacity of Divine Love, otherwise the whole religion implodes upon itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment