What if Jesus was Gay?

While I was scanning headlines on Yahoo News today I lunch, I was caught by surprise at a headline. "Gay Jesus play angers Australian church leaders". I wasn't really shocked at the headline. I think I would have been shocked had the headline read "Gay Jesus play a hit with church leaders".

The play, "Corpus Christi", is being presented at the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney, Australia and presents a Jesus who was gay and had gay followers. Interestingly enough, the play was directed by a person who identifies himself as a Christian and wanted to provoke debate.

I don't have a strong opinion on the play either way. As a long time supporter of the theatrical arts, I believe theatre, and in particular, modern drama, is a place where we can talk about topics that make us uncomfortable in a safe, nonjudgemental way. I haven't seen or read the play yet but I'm curious to see what the play presents.

The topic of the play alone raises so many questions in my mind that I am almost overwhelmed at the thought.

For example:

• What if Jesus was gay? Would you be open to the gospel had it come from the mouth of a homosexual?
• What parts of the gospel could you accept from a Gay Jesus?
• What parts of the gospel would you be unable to accept from a Gay Jesus?
• How does this impact the idea of homosexuality and the Church?
• If there was a Gay Jesus, what would the face of marriage look like today?
• Can we as Christians talk about the impact of this play without getting caught in the shock value of its content?
• Is the idea of a gay Jesus as upsetting to Christians today as the idea of a black Jesus would have been one hundred years ago?
• Can we listen to the message of God without judging the vessel it came in? Or does the vessel make the message?
• What if Mary Magdalene played the role of the Savior and Jesus played her role instead? Would we be able to believe in a female Jesus?
• Would we be willing to buy into and believe in a Jesus that does not look like what our idea of what the Son of God should be?
• Why has faith beome dependent on a Messiah that seems safe?
• How did we forget how unsafe Jesus was to the Jewish population two thousand years ago?

I think the best way to close this is with a quote from the director. I hope to open it up again with your comments and questions.

"I wanted this play in the hands of a Christian person like myself to give it dignity but still open it up to answering questions about Christianity as a faith system," Leigh Rowney said.

Why God Does Not Appear On My New Year’s Resolutions

I have noticed on several Christian blogs a theme of adding Christ to one’s New Year’s resolutions. I’m going to pray more. I’m going to tithe. I’m going to read the entire Bible. I’m going to be more active in my Bible Study. I’m going to devote more time to Church. I’m going to attend Church every Sunday. I’m going to be a better Christian.

I am going to hurl.

The problem with these resolutions is two-fold. The first problem is that it says very little or very negative things about your current relationship with God. The second problem is a big more concerning: what will happen to your faith if you do not accomplish your goal? There are probably many other problems that can be mentioned but these are two very important problems to start this examination.

Let me expand by adopting the premise that I am going to read the entire Bible and pray more in 2008. Neither are my goals for the year but I believe it will serve as a good example.

What do these goals tell me about my current relationship with God? First, it tells me that my relationship with Christ has not been a priority in the past. Or rather, using the two measuring sticks of faith called “frequent prayer” and “Bible reading” my faith has been inadequate and it needs to be improved. However, changing these habits to make one’s faith agreeable to these measuring sticks does not automatically improve one’s relationship with God. For example, I can read every page of the Bible. I can memorize every word that escaped Jesus’ mouth. I can read the Bible in its original language. I can become a Biblical Scholar.

None of that means that I have become a better Christian. None of it makes me a better wife to my husband. None of it makes me a better representation of the Christian Faith. I am not “Christ-like” because I have read every page of the Bible.

But it creates a false image. Its creates the idea that by completing certain goals and tasks, one can become a better Christian and in turn a better person and in turn have a better seat in the kingdom of God. While that feeds into the middle class dream of suburbia quite nicely, it does very little for a life of true Christian faith. It only fuels a false image to those in our community of how “godly” we are, feeding our egos and pulling us father from God and Christ.

But the second problem is much larger and has a devastating long term impact. What happens when we fail? What will happen to our faith when we do not reach our goal? Or worse, what will happen to our faith when we reach our goal? As Max Bemis of Say Anything points out “Like Judas the Traitor, we are both favored and deeply flawed”.

We fail. We are humans and we have fallen from grace. We are imperfect people in an imperfect world and we ache for the closeness we once shared with God. We ache to walk with God and to feel complete. We are tempted and we sin and we make mistakes. We search for forgiveness and we grant our own forgiveness sparingly. Setting a goal for faith does leave us in a good position for failure.

What happens when I vow to pray every single day in 2008? Do I have to beg myself and God for forgiveness when I miss a prayer? Or are my prayers filled with the simple requests of children but with none of the heart behind them? And what happens during times of doubt when prayer does not come easily? What happens when prayers are not answered the way I want and in the time I demand?

The rift between me and my maker grows deeper at my own doing? I will have set myself up for failure.

More alarmingly, what happens if I succeed? God will not descend upon me, although if I am truly heartfelt in my 366 daily prayers, I will most likely find peace and grace. But I will not find world peace. I will not discover that there is no more political divide (sadly, I will not find that liberal ideals are no longer forced at me in social situations). I will not find that I suddenly know the meaning of life. And if these were things that I expected as a result of my resolution, what will happen to my relationship with Jesus? Will I still know in my heart of hearts that he is, in fact, my savior? Or will it add to the jaded, cynical edge that taints the rest of my life?

The theme between these problems is simple: by making God part of our To Do List, we attempt to stop God from working in His own mysterious ways. We try to make God another aspect of our day planners. And God cannot be compartmentalized in that way. He won’t be. He refuses to be. And he refuses to fit into our areas of convenience by shaking us up.

These goals take away the true meaning of Christ. As Christ’s followers, we need to be able to go out into the world and do the work of God. And we need to be willing to surrender to the inconvenience of it. We need to be open to those moments not falling within the boundaries of our carefully planned lives.

God is not on my resolution list this year. He’ll do what ever he wants regardless of my vows.

Today in Nebraska

I can't say I've ever paid all that much attention to events transpiring in Nebraska but this one really caught my eye.

The defendant in a state senator's lawsuit is accused of causing untold death and horror and threatening to cause more still. He can be sued in Douglas County, the legislator claims, because He's everywhere.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers sued God last week. Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he's trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.

Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

The Omaha senator, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, also says God has caused "fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes."

He's seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty.

Wow. I understand from other news reports I follow that this gentleman is either an atheist or an agnostic but still. Wow. God as a terrorist? I thought Jesus came to Earth to spread a message of peace, love and faith but maybe he secretly was a terrorist!

I understand that this Senator believes that he is making a point about lawsuit but I think it means so much more than this. He is, to a certain extent, making a very good argument for people to blame God. He is reducing faith to blind fear.

Can Chambers really sue something he doesn't believe exists though? Strangely enough, I would have a much easier time swallowing this lawsuit if this came from a person who was a Jew or a Christian. Because the first step in this is to believe that God exists. The second step is to believe a literal translation of the Bible. And finally, you have to believe, on some level, that the quality of your life was dramatically decreased because of these "threats"!

Ironically, the lawsuit Chambers says that his lawsuit is in response to, the lawsuit that was so frivolous, involved the use of language in a trial involving sexual assault. The victim is suing a judge because he won't allow the words "victim" or "rape" to be used in the trial, in turn, making it very difficult to deal with a horrifying crime.

Anniversaries

Note: While a good part of me is desperate to give a scathing review of Britney Spears and its impact on pop culture and another part of me feels obligate to write something about September 11 and what it means to remember, I have decided that I will not be touching those topics until later in the week. There is still too much hype from Britney and it is so cliché to write about September 11th. I don’t believe that I can address those topics in a meaningful way at this time so I decline to do so until I feel ready. But trust me, I will.

On Saturday afternoon, I found myself shopping in Macy’s for dress clothes for Brian with my father which was not something I had planned to do. I had planned to go to my parents’ house, have my mother iron Brian’s new dress shirt and then head home but my mother’s quick departure to a hair appointment threw a wrench in those plans. I was grateful when my father offered to show me how to iron the dress shirt but one burnt fifty-five dollar French cuff shirt later, I was wondering if I made the correct decision.

Both fortunately and unfortunately, Macy’s was having their Labor Day One Day Sale on Saturday which meant prices were great but the lines were massive. We managed to find something similar to the burnt shirt in the very last one in Brian’s size. The line seemed to go on forever and very quickly, I found myself engaged in awkward conversation with my father.

My dad is not really a much of a talker in the best of circumstances. He’s a quiet guy, insightful. He’s the type of man that you have significant conversations with at home or in a nice restaurant on a predetermined date. He is not the type of man who wants to have a great conversation in line at a Macy’s. Whereas I’m the type of girl who does want to have those conversations.

We very quickly burned through the conversation he was willing to make. So I moved on to birthdays, anniversaries, upcoming significant family events. It just so happens that my parents’ sixteenth wedding anniversary is in two weeks so I asked my dad what he and my mom would like for a gift.

I was quickly alerted that this was an inappropriate question for me to ask. My father, apparently, believes that an anniversary is a private, intimate event between two people. An anniversary has nothing to do with anyone other than the two people who were involved.

I was shocked. And mildly insulted.

In a strange way, I realized that the words coming out of my father’s mouth went against everything I was raised to believe. And somehow, I felt like I was being left out in the cold by my family.

As a child raised with just a mother, I knew any marriage she was able to make was also a marriage with me. A potential husband for her was a potential father for me. We were a package deal and there was no way to separate us. My mother’s second husband adopted me following the wedding, making him the only father I have ever known. The marriage that took place in September of 1991 marks not only the beginning of my mother’s life with my father but the beginning of stability for me as well. Their anniversary is far more than just them.

Even more importantly, I was hurt as a Christian. A wedding between a man and a woman is not a rope with two strands but a rope with three strands representing Man, Woman and God. My father seemed to be leaving God out of his marriage. I also believe that a marriage is an event with in a community and therefore, shouldn’t the anniversary of that marriage also be an event within a community? If it does not continue to have that significance, then why do we take the time and effort to engage in premarital counseling through the Church, have the wedding ceremony take place in a Church and then invite a multitude of family and friends to the event? It seems to me that in order for a marriage to be successful, a community needs to stand behind it and in it. The support of other followers of Christ is what separates Christian marriages from our contemporary counterparts.

I’m still not sure what I want to say to my dad on the matter. I did some sleuthing and discovered where they are celebrating the day with a meal. It’s my intent to do something nice to mark the day, regardless of his desire for my involvement. Maybe its stubbornness or maybe it is a desire to be more Christ like in my actions. I have yet to determine which option it is.

Pope: Other Christians not true churches

Silly Pope! What were you thinking?

Let's start off by saying I am not Catholic. I am no where remote to Catholic. At this point, I don't even quite know how to describe myself in terms of Christianity. I would describe myself as a follower of Christ but I would not identify myself as a Christian. As a Presbyterian, I believe in predestination (in the comforting thought context) but I no longer worship in a Presbyterian Church. I attend a nondenominational church but I do not describe myself as a "born again". I am not a Jew but I try to incorporate Jewish values and traditions into my beliefs as I believe Christianity has lost the value of these traditions. The closest description of myself would be a "non-Jewish Calvinist follower of Christ" but that title is still lacking.

I am not a Catholic.

I usually laugh at a lot of things that escape the Catholicism Wow Camp. For instance, birth control. While I respect the ideal that couples only have sex to procreate, I believe the Catholic Church is missing a huge learning opportunity for its members. Teach them about safe sex, teach them chastity as a spiritual discipline to build a stronger relationship with Christ. Teenage boys and girls are not going to keep it in their pants. They don't understand why they need to keep it in their pants. Give them the tools so that they can learn.

I'm also confused on the whole only baptised babies get to go to Heaven concept. I can commit a mass genocide but as long as I repent and confess to a priest, I can still go to heaven. That little baby that didn't have holy water sprinkled on its forehead though is shit out of luck.

But I try to ignore that. We are all fallen and broken and therefore the institutions we establish on this Earth are also fallen and broken. We are not perfect, that is why we go to church. Periodically though, the Pope issues something that really makes my blood boil.

He says my church does not have the means for salvation.

And perhaps he is right. My church does not have the means for salvation. But Christ has those means. And I believe that Christ is beside us as we worship in the Little Warehouse Church That Could. If our God is a loving god, why would he turn his backs on his followers who worship differently? Do we turn our salvation down by not having a first holy communion, baptism or confession? Does Jesus love us less because a woman led our worship? Is God pissed off because we used a condom with our spouse because we did not have the means to properly care and protect for a child on loan to us from Him?

What did the Pope hope to accomplish in this document? What did the Pope think he was going to accomplish? And more importantly, what did the Pope actually accomplish? Did he desire to alienate other Christians? Did he desire to show the outside world how broken, divided and un-Christ-like the Christian people are?

Was the Pope attempting to point towards Christ in the issuing of this document?