One of the things that most upsets some people about same sex eroticism is that it supposedly “transgresses” the socially accepted bounds of decency and religious rules. Patrick Chen’s forth instalment of his Christological model of sin and grace for LGBT Christians for showing that Christ himself was in so many ways a “transgessor”. Transgression in itself is not something for Christians to avoid, but is deeply embedded in the Gospels (and in Christian tradition, although Chen does not explore that element).
I have frequently noted on these pages that Jesus Christ was no respecter of religious authority, and got into deep trouble with them for his attitude. (Who today would argue that he was wrong, and should have meekly knuckled under and complied with their rules and taboos?)
[ad#In post banner]
This is how Chen makes the same point:
The Transgressive Christ arises out of the reality that Jesus Christ was crucified by the religious and political authorities of his day for refusing to conform to their standards of behavior. Indeed, Jesus is constantly seen in the gospels as transgressing the commonly-accepted religious and legal boundaries of his day. In a world obsessed by purity codes, he touches those who are unclean, including lepers, bleeding women, and the differently abled. He eats and drinks with outcasts such as tax collectors and sinners.
Jesus also challenges the religious authorities with respect to their teachings (such as healing on the Sabbath, and the grounds for divorce). He rejects his biological family, and he is rejected by his hometown. Many of his parables are about those who are on the margins of society, such as Samaritans. As such, the Transgressive Christ can be understood as God’s solidarity with the suffering of LGBT people and others who refuse to conform to the rules of the principalities and powers of this world.
Chen continues by pointing to the work of the theologian and activist Robert Goss (“Jesus Acted Up“ and “Queering Christ“), who argues strongly that the idea of transgression can be seen as a central metaphor for queer theology today. (I would question the restriction to specifically queer theology. I would argue that transgression, in a refusal to serve the interests of the socially or economically powerful, should characterise all of Christian theology).
From this principle, it follows that automatic conformity and failure to speak up for others on the margins of society, is a form of sin. This is an important observation. It is easy for queer Christians to see how they are sinned against, and how justice is on their side. We are far less vocal in speaking up for other vulnerable groups who are likewise sinned against, and how we in turn can too easily find ourselves on the side of injustice.
Conversely, if forced conformity is a form of sin, then a willingness to deviate publicly from artificially imposed boundaries is a form of grace. This applies to the LGBT community as a whole, but again Chen has a sting in the tail: diversity within the LGBT community is likewise a sign of the grace of deviance: vanilla gay men and lesbians must recognize the gifts of grace brought to the wider community by those groups that are frequently marginalized as an embarrassment or political liability to the increasing social acceptance of gay men and lesbians.
Read the full post at Jesus in Love blog.
Read the full post at Jesus in Love blog, where you can also follow the full series:
1) Erotic Christ (sin as exploitation; grace as mutuality)
2) Out Christ (sin as the closet; grace as coming out)
3) Liberator Christ (sin as apathy; grace as activism)
4) Transgressive Christ (sin as conformity; grace as deviance)
5) Hybrid Christ (sin as singularity; grace as hybridity)
,” edited by Marvin M. Ellison and Kelly Brown Douglas. 
.”
