One of the joys of blogging is that I sometimes get to learn so much from my readers. This response to my post on Jesus and the Beloved Disciple set me thinking:
One of the points traditional theology makes on the Incarnation is that what was not taken on by the human nature of Jesus was not redeemed. Hence the idea that Jesus experienced same sex attraction is essential for those who look to him as the source of salvation. Perhaps the Celtic View of Salvation would be more helpful here than the Augustinian One. Rather than concentrating on the woundedness of human nature by sin undone by the redemption the idea that Jesus is teaching us how to be truly human serves to give context to the meaning of what redemption is about. It is as if Jesus is teaching us a song that we once knew but have forgotten. Jesus is providing the courage to take up the melody again.
His is not only instruction but empowerment. Intellect and Will Together assemble a portrait of genuine human persons fully integrated in all aspects of the character and personality. Jesus makes us whole. The Spirit continues this Mission of the Son in our time renewing the face of the earth so that Eden is Intimacy with God, with Self and With Others: a Garden of Delight, Openness and Love.
I was not aware of Jack’s starting premise, which I simply accept here as given. I love Jack’s suggestion that the redemption is about learning to be fully human, and the wonderful image of Jesus “teaching us a song that we once knew but have forgotten. Jesus is providing the courage to take up the melody again.”
But there is a darker interpretation too, to Jack’s words, that initially left me distinctly uncomfortable. Jack says that “the idea that Jesus experienced same sex attraction is essential for those who look to him as the source of salvation.” Why is this essential ? What if he did not? We can assume that Christ experienced sexual feelings, but beyond some tantalising hints, we have no hard evidence of their precise nature. If he did not experience same sex attraction, then the starting premise leads to the conclusion that such feelings were not redeemed. Perhaps orthodox, rule book Catholics have been right all along, and we queers are simply doomed to hell after all?
No, that line of reasoning cannot be turned against us either, because what’s sauce for the goose: By precisely the same logic, we could argue that if Christ did not have opposite sex erotic attractions, they too were not redeemed. Just imagine the outcry if it were seriously suggested that Jesus was completely celibate and asexual and that heterosexual attractions are damned alongside us homos? The clear conclusion is that he must have at least experienced erotic attractions - and probably to both sexes.
In modern terminology, Jesus Christ was probably bisexual - just as Kinsey found for the overwhelming majority of people.
Related articles
- Put Christ Back Into Christianity: The Body of Christ (Queering the Church)
- A Reader’s Excellent Questions On Celibacy.(Queering the Church)
- Benedict’s Thoughts on Priesthood: Confused, Contradictory. ()pen Tabernacle)
- Patrick Chen, on the “Erotic Christ”. (Queering the Church)
- Bi spiritual leaders? yes, you can be religious and bisexual, and was Jesus bi? (Bisexual Examiner)
- Could Jesus Have been Gay? (Michael B Kelly - published in “Seduced by Grace”, online at Professor Kyung Soo Park’s Study )
Although there is a point to be made for the old maxim “what is not assumed is not redeemed”, I daren’t stretch the argument too far. I’d be more content with saying that Christ took upon himself our humanity (in the general sense of the word), without going into the specifics of what he did or didn’t assume. Just to give an example: did Jesus have to be androgynous (i.e. having both sexes) to redeem both men and women? Surely not!
I prefer to think of it this way, that in the scandal of specificity, that is, that Jesus was a male Jew, a carpenter by profession, etc., Jesus blows apart the dangerous logic that we have to be equal in all our characteristics to be equally human. Diversity and normalcy must learn to live together - for everyone’s sake. Even though my feelings of attraction are exclusively for other men, I can appreciate what other men feel when they describe their feelings of attraction for women. Okay, this isn’t hard science but let’s say we share in common our humanity. And the more we communicate with each other, the more capable we are in sharing our humanity. So, coming to the issue of Jesus’ sexual feelings: Do I have to confirm whether or not Jesus had same-sex attraction to argue for my own same-sex attraction, or better still, for gay sex? Or for any sexual activity whatsoever, judging by what we know of Christ? I hope not, because that’s going to mean total abstinence for everyone, gay and straight.
“What is not assumed is not redeemed” was a statement by the Fathers of the Church in support of their argument that Jesus assumed a full and complete human nature. Others had argued that Jesus had simply adopted a human body for a time, or appeared in human form. The Church concluded that Jesus is fully human, like us in all things but sin, as the Book of Hebrews says.
The orthodox statement does not require that Jesus experienced every variation in human sexuality or any of the other possible variations of human existence. It simply means that Jesus is fully human, possessing a full and complete human nature. The implication for humanity is that we all share in a single human nature, whether gay or straight, male or female, etc.
John, Bart - thanks to both for bringing some sanity to my overstretching Jack’s observation