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.

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.

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?