Sexualized God
I’m not sure that this has been brought up before.
If we allow the sexuality issue to split the Episcopal Church, then what we’re saying is that sexuality (or the Scriptural understanding and interpretation around sexuality) are the most important issues facing us. Even more so, we are saying that this issue and its connection to our understanding of God are SO important that they necessitate a split in the church. In essence, we will be sexualizing God and declaring that to be the most important aspect of the Deity.
Both “sides” seem guilty of this to me.
That’s tragic.
Ecto blogging software
5 August 2003 at 1:39 pm.
Nate, I’ve always thought that assigning a gender to God necessarily meant that God had a sexuality (mind you, I don’t particularly believe in God), whatever that sexuality might be.
It disgusts me though when sexuality is used as a criterion for anything other than interpersonal relationships. Scares me. Sexuality has a very important place in the world, but that place shouldn’t be in politics, religion, education (other than specific sex education of course), etc. etc. etc.
5 August 2003 at 2:52 pm.
Which is precisely why many Christians have been looking for images of God besides the traditional male ones that we often use. It’s why we talk about God as being like a Mother, like a hen brooding over her chicks and so forth. ‘Cause God, as I understand (which is to say, I don’t) transcends this category of the creation.
I know that we refer to God as “He” because that’s how English expresses gender neuters in its grammar. The problem is when that gets extended into God. We use the neuter-masculine for lack of another linguistic construction, but then we read that back onto the described.
But I do think that sexuality has a place in public conversations, because it’s got an important role that it plays in people’s lives, both in public and private. I have to bring my sexuality into my politics, because my sexuality matters in the political world. And the same is true, fortunately or not, in my church, my classrooms, and so forth.
5 August 2003 at 9:52 pm.
Well, in all fairness, the issue isn’t sexuality for pro-GLBT, progressive Christians. The issue is justice. In religious terms, the issue is living out Jesus’ mandate that Christians are supposed to love their neighbors as themselves. The smear effort against Bishop-elect Robinson points to the undeniable fact that ONE SIDE of the debate does not want to show godly love and kindness, and it’s not the side in favor of Robinson’s elevation.
Schism is nothing new in religion. It’s happened to the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and other denominations. And though, as Neil Sedaka sang, breaking up is hard to do, sometimes it is for the best. If the ‘phobes want to walk, I say let ’em.
6 August 2003 at 1:36 pm.
Just correcting the URL for my site, per Nate’s request.
Also sending along a link to a newspaper article I wrote three years ago on the specter of schism in mainline Protestant denominations.
http://gratefuldread.net/fando/writings/obb.html