tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post2715719393546762510..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: Are We Ready for an LGBTQIA Jesus?Anthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-69961060945554053312015-04-17T16:13:19.664-07:002015-04-17T16:13:19.664-07:00Agreed. In particular, agreed that Janis Joplin su...Agreed. In particular, agreed that Janis Joplin suggests greater eschatological urgency than Stephen Stills.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14778209150227808697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-37662092477413529102015-04-17T15:29:23.810-07:002015-04-17T15:29:23.810-07:00Larry, I have thought along these lines before and...Larry, I have thought along these lines before and will need to think more on it. I do think, though, that the saying that precedes the cited verse from Matthew 19 might be understood as an example of your "situational" paradigm: "whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery. His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given." ...Jesus does suggest that circumstances have influence on the level of celibacy that one can consider. More, to your point, this saying may make sense within the context of men and women who have families at home and find themselves on the road with a mixed-gender group. I.e. maybe he's saying: "for those of you who have wives/husbands at home, remain true to your girl or guy" (to paraphrase the Beach Boys rather than Janis Joplin). -anthonyAnthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-69278591243085094422015-04-17T13:23:21.039-07:002015-04-17T13:23:21.039-07:00Anthony, terrific post! One of your very best.
Th...Anthony, terrific post! One of your very best.<br /><br />There are many things about discussions of Jesus' sexual identity that trouble me. Let me mention one of them. I'll ask in advance for your understanding and tolerance. I don't know much about the scholarly topic of human sexuality, and it's difficult to talk honestly about Jesus' sexuality without risking offense.<br /><br />I understand that there's a concept out there of "situational sexual behavior." The concept is somewhat outmoded, but it's useful for my purpose. The concept is that at any given moment, an individual's sexual behavior may be mostly shaped by his/her social situation. The concept is outmoded, I think, in that it fails to properly recognize what seems to be a natural fluidity in individual sexual orientation, as well as the continual influence of social factors on our sexual behavior. But the concept is useful, I think, in that it recognizes how certain social situations dramatically affect what might otherwise be our sexual behavior. The obvious ones cited are men in prison and other enforced all-male societies. But we can imagine many other such situations: for example, the celibacy of a married couple where one partner is seriously ill, or a person who has taken a public vow to remain celibate. <br /><br />Let's assume for the moment that Jesus was celibate during his ministry. Is this evidence of his sexual orientation? Or was this the result of the situation of his ministry? I'll admit, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. But we can imagine a number of reasons why Jesus' celibacy was less an expression of his personal sexual inclination, and more a product of his mission. Jesus appeared to feel a strong sense of eschatological urgency in his mission: time was running out (for him? for all of humanity?). Under these circumstances, it would be natural to put sexual behavior to one side (just as we're likely to refrain from sex in an emergency: we're on a ship that's sinking, or our neighbor's house is on fire).<br /><br />There were also practical considerations at work. In a first century without birth control, sexual activity could lead to pregnancies and childbirths. Such activity within Jesus' group might have delayed the progress of the group. At minimum, it would have distracted the group from its mission. Such activity with people outside of Jesus' group might have made the group unwelcome (or at least, suspect) as they traveled through the Galilee and greater Judea. Jesus and his disciples were a travelling troop (or troupe?) of men and women "loose" from the usual constraints of society and family, and could easily have been seen as sexually threatening in the absence of a group-wide pledge of celibacy. <br /><br />OK. To a large extent, I'm talking out of my hat. I don't know much about the sexual mores of first-century Judea, and I don't see much evidence that celibacy was required from every member of Jesus' travelling ministry. What I'm trying to suggest in a long-winded way that there's a distinction to be made (however carefully, however subtly) between Jesus' sexual behavior and his sexual orientation, particularly if all we're looking at are the few months/years of his ministry.<br /><br />None of this is meant as criticism. Quite the contrary. Like you (I think), I would like to see religion get out of the business of judging people on the basis of sexual orientation. Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14778209150227808697noreply@blogger.com