I’m very reluctant to mention any of the Baldwin brothers in a post. But born again Baldwin aka Stephen exemplifies a really weird feature of much contemporary evangelical discourse in the US – the hypermasculinisation of Jesus. Quoth our Crusader:
“I’d always imagined Jesus was the sweet, cuddly, loving dude, and suddenly I find out he makes Conan the Barbarian look like Conan the wimp,” he says. “He didn’t come with a guitar singing Kum Ba Yah. Jesus brought a sword to the earth, and he is still swinging it.”
As for Baldwin himself, “God has called me to go and make disciples of the youth of America. That is what I am going to do. And if you try to stop me, I am going to break your face.”
Baldwin is a goose, but this phenomenon is a big thing in the States. See this article on beefing up the church to avoid feminization – junk those girly-men pastors! More egregious examples which are more akin to Baldwin’s take on religion can be found in the increasing characterisation of Jesus as a warrior among the apocalyptically inclined. To be fair, you can also find descriptions of Jesus as violent in some Catholic circles. And of course you can buy the t-shirt. If the error of the 19th Century liberal Quest for the Historical Jesus was to read back into Jesus’ life contemporary images of a progressive good guy, it’s perhaps no surprise that the zeitgeist of a violent time is unfriendly to a saviour who espouses a “religion of peace”.
My understanding is that the saviour was surrounded by zealots. But whenever violence was in the air he somehow managed to steer a zen-like middle course.
A very inspiring character.
I’m not sure whether that particular Baldwin is either much of an “Historical Jesus” scholar or yet even a traditional theOlogian.
Kim, what’s not weird is that some Christian churches are trying to overcome the hyper-effeminacy within the church tradition. I wish them well with this long overdue reform.
Maybe we’ll start hearing more gospel as per Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter:
It’s a zeitgeist-y thing, not just confined to religion. Check out this article in Slate concerning the impact of black male culture on closeted homosexuality. I’ve seen other articles on the unfashionability of, and backlash against, the camp ethos in gay culture in the US as well.
My reading is this macho Jesus bizo has its roots in insecurity of sexual identity. What better way that to assert that you are not some ladyboy pantywaister by threatening violence to those that disagree with you? Bismark’s piece is apropos in that context. The quote at the end is great:
“And on the night before he was betrayed he took the ampule, broke it, saying to his disciples. “Take this, all of you and inject it, for these are serious ‘roids, dudes! And their ain’t no way we’re not going to look buff when they nail us up.”
I wonder if this quote from the bible has any significance
Are false profits some kind of fairy gold? When you wake up in the morning it’s disappeared?
Maybe the super hero Jesus is so all those fundamentalist evangalicals in the US – the ones who think that evolution is a secular humanist conspiracy, intelligent design is real science and that earth dates back to 4004 BCE – are trying to get with a Jesus who can smite those Islamites hip and thigh. You know, the “My prophet can whip your prophet’s ass anytime…” sort of thing.
Actually, given what we know about so much of contemporary American religious thought (Hmmm. Religious thought – could be another mutually contradictory term. Like Military Intelligence) there is probably no sensible explanation as to why a butt kicking Christ is emerging now.
Cheers…
I am reminded of a conversation I had with a leading member of La Trobe University’s Christian Union at a time when the Shroud of Turin was still considered genuine. The lad insisted that the imprint on the Shroud showed that Jesus must have been two metres tall or thereabouts, and built. Subsequent investigation showed that this was quite a widely and fervently held view amongst Shroud believers. I forebore to ask them how they reconciled this belief with the description given in the Servant Song in the Book of Isaiah, or what point would be served by The Word being made Flesh with a height and build completely outside the range of any of the peoples of the eastern Mediterranean region at the time.
The manly Jesus thing isn’t a particulary recent development. Illustrators in the 19th century seemed to portray him more as the gentle Shepherd, which he is, than the warrior with fiery eyes, which is also true, but the image of a peaceful person with a retrieved lamb across his shoulders was stronger than that of a person called to govern with authority and power. He is the Prince of Peace, but he is also the Lord of Hosts, meaning the armies of God destined to bring ultimate order to the world.
Remember David, an antetype, was a shepherd who tended his father’s flocks and cared for them by taking them to the green grass and gentle streams, but also guarded and protected them from the lion and the bear, which he slew. He was a man called to be a shepherd-king of the nation of Israel who began his guardianship by slaying and and cutting off the head of Goliath.
the thrashing around of a dying and discredited US christianist movement is pretty grim to watch. they have thoroughly discredited themselves and the left hasn’t had to lift a finger
pity about the appalling damage they’ve inflicted on the rest of the world in their brief season of power
secularism rocks
Rogs,
‘a dying and discredited US christianist movement’. You wish!! The left made the same mistake and underestimation at the last election in both US and Aus. Minority reports like this post on borderline events are a poor indication of the true and healthy state of the worldwide ‘christianist movement’, which is alive and kicking.
God Rocks better!
The problem for these macho Jesus types is that by the very gender dynamics of the ancient and medieval worlds an incarnate deity is already in a feminized space. What further complicates things is that jesus is seen as also the embodiment or emanation of Wisdom. In fact, Wisdom is one side of that for which the Logos is the othre side. Hence medievals such as Julian of Norwich and Bernard of Clairvaux could speak of Jesus as mother
Certainly Revelation and andmuch of the apocalyptic and prophetic trajectories have their macho or more accurately warrior imagery. But the Lamb in Revelation is also a feminised image and I suspect that the background for the warrior imagery is very far from macho but draws on the ancient Semitic warrior goddesses, especially Anat. The Old testament rerpesentations of YHWH, who is the Word/Wisdom jesus incarnates (the Father is God MOst HIgh, El Elyon), are likewise very androgynous. I think it’s because YHWH absorbed Anat who was once his consort
You’re talking through your hat, Michael. If God (the ‘Father’-masculine and paternal eternal) had wanted to portray his Godness in the flesh as feminine he would have manifested himself as a woman, not as a male effeminate.
The Lamb is representative of innocence and guilelessness, as opposed to guilt. He allowed himself and yielded himself willingly as a sacrifice, to be harmless and unprotected by any force, human, natural or spiritual, so that he could be led, by his killers, as a lamb to the slaughter for our sakes, not to demonstrate any attachment to gender or sexuality, or even masculinity or femininity, but to pay the price of the sin of the whole world, which was an act of incredible strength and courage, as well as an act of war, because he defeated satan, sin and death through his sacrifice.
The he was raised form the dead, with all power and authority and glory and might, and will return to judge the living and the dead as the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Yep, he’s all male!
Whatever way you look at it, “That is what I am going to do. And if you try to stop me, I am going to break your face” is not a Christian comment.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:39
However tough he reckons Jesus was, Jesus specifically instructed his followers not to hit back, but to turn the other cheek.
Ridiculous hypocritical so-called Christians who ignore what it says in the Bible and just pay attention to the bits they find useful should be pilloried, mercilessly. And I can say that, cause I’m not a Christian.
Well, you’re right about Christians not striking back against their persecuters, Rebekka, and you can say what you want, of course, but declaring that people who say that they’ll punch a person in the face for not agreeing with them should be mercilessly pilloried is a little on the hypocritical side, even for a non-Christian.
Of course, much depends on who Baldwin had in mind, or was addressing when he made the comment (we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but we do wrestle against spiritual adversaries), and how far he is into his spiritual walk. Is he a new Christian? That would have some significance also. Sometimes well known identities who convert are launched into the public before they’re ready (ie Bob Dylan).
Mind you Paul himself was quite zealous character when he was first saved, and had to be rescued from an entire city after making some fairly ‘in your face’ comments early on in his Christian career. Peter actually cut off the ear of a guard sent to arrest Jesus, which Jesus had to fix up. People grow up eventually, don’t they, and they hopefully keep the fire but gain some wisdom along the way!
This reminds me of Carl Schmitt, who in “The Concept of the Political” interpreted Jesus’ command to love thy enemy as referring only to the private activities of private persons. The command does not apply to peoples or states. Apparently in the original Greek that some of the gospels are written in there are different words for private and public enemies. The gospels refer to the private version. Its an interesting interpretation that makes Jesus sound a little bit like Hobbes. I’m sure Mark will clarify/correct this point… I don’t have a copy of the book at hand.
Derrida has more on that semantic distinction in The Politics of Friendship, Cliff, but I’m a bit stuck for time at the moment to look either it or Schmitt up.
I wonder how, FaceLift, you reconcile these readings of scripture with previous claims that you’ve made that – allegedly compared to Islam – Christian scripture contains no messages encouraging violence. That appears to me to be the sting in the tail of Kim’s post.
Baldwin, I think, is following a career path which is becoming common for washed up Hollywood actors – become born again and get a new career. See for instance, Kirk Cameron, ex soapie star, now in the movies of the Left Behind books and all over Christian cable tv.
*Sigh*
Facelift said: “declaring that people who say that they’ll punch a person in the face for not agreeing with them should be mercilessly pilloried is a little on the hypocritical side, even for a non-Christian.”
Hypocrisy is “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.”
So in what way am I hypocritical, Facelift? I don’t profess to belong to a faith that forbids merciless pillorying.
And in case you didn’t get it, my call for merciless pillorying of said Baldwin was for calling themselves a Christian while making statements about punching people in the face, not just for making statements about punching people in the face.
Hmmm…the point about washed up B-grade actors like Baldwin and Cameron making comebacks in the christian movie sector is important, I think.
Christian$-backed films with a strong Biblical message are doing great guns at the box office, not just with christian audiences either (many viewers of the action thriller The Omega Code may not have even been aware of its religious connections, for e.g.). Some recent research is emerging about the christian movie industry – it rivals christian rock, in its assimilation of industrial practices to propagandistic ends.
They’re a neat fit with Hollywood’s codes – at a textual level, apocalyptic visions, pure white goodies and evil black baddies, attractively frail womenfolk and strong, decisive menfolk…and of course, for production of all those special effects, endless supplies of lovely lucre (what was that about the Vatican being the world’s most powerful corporation?).
The mother of them all was, of course, Mel Gibson’s The Passion – let’s hope that Baldwin and Cameron’s business sense wins out over ideology! Though a drunken rant from either of those would be funny, but not as train-wreck-enthralling as Gibson’s, methinks.
A hunkier, manlier Jesus than the blonde blue-eyed Lamb of western christendom plays best at a particular box office where even a hint of a limp wrist or a lisp would not only damage ticket sales but run the risk of invoking an angry, frothing mob (is it just me or is there more than a soupcon of protesting too much to a lot of that, anyway? OTT, i know..).
In other words – Jesus’ makeover could be seen to bring together the standardised heterosexist tropes of Hollywood, with good ol’ Christian homophobia.
Far from being a ‘my-messiah-whoops-your-messiah’s-butt’ thing, the ‘butching up’ of Jesus might have everything to do with the political economy of contemporary filmmaking.
I can’t remember saying precisely that Mark, but it is true to say that Christianity encourages peace, love and joy, but it also tells us that there will be war on the earth, mixed with many troubles, that we’re to obey the authorities, that wherever possible we’re to live peaceably with one another, and have a good report with those who are outside of the Christian fraternity.
I still think I have an obligation to defend my family if an intruder enters our home uninvited with the intention of causing them serious harm. And I think I should have the right to stand for my nation agianst tyrany, either politically or by force of arms if necessary. ‘No messages encouraging violence’. Well unless the Last Day in Revelation can be catagorised that way!
I had an interesting experience last week where an aggressive person with a large chip on his shoulder against Christians and brainful of amphetamines attempted to stir me into a fight on our church grounds as I was helping out during a youth event. He spat in my face three times, and called me a sook for not engaging in a wrestle. Someone called the police and he attacked them when they arrived, and was taken away for a psychiatric assessment. I didn’t press charges. I guess if he had threatened any of the young people I would have wrestled him, but since the threat was against my person I was able to resist retaliation. On this occassion I definitely turned the other (soggy) cheek. But at other times I might wade in if I thought soemone’s person was threatened. So the way we react to such people is always going to be relative to the situation. Now iif he had threatened my wife…
The Jesus of the Gospels (if you accept he existed) is largely a pacifist fellow, though you can find verses which will back up your warrior vision, if that is what you really want. However, the warrior Jesus really belongs to the apocalyptic vision described in Revelation.
Of course, if you have embarked on a quest for the historical Jesus, and have come to the conclusion that he probably never existed, then what he is supposed to have said becomes largely irrelavant. In fact, if you do your research properly, you will come to the conclusion that the supposed wisdom of Jesus was copied from pagan philosophers.
We shall never desist from working for the common good, helping one another, and even our enemies, till our helping hand is stricken with age. – Seneca
The nineteenth century had a similar phenomeon called “muscular christianity” – an attempt to reform the Anglican church to make it more suitable to teaching English boys to bear the ‘white man’s burden” of imperial colonialism, and to fight against the effeminising effects of feminism and women’s rights.
Sound familiar?
I keep hoping that sooner or later blokes are going to realise that admitting that women are people too won’t make their dicks drop off but after Lawrence Springborg’s effort opposing water recyling because it was going to turn all those Queensland blokes into sheilas, I think perhaps I’ve had my hopes too high…
I think that the “masculinisation” of Jesus which is evident in some of these sorts of quotes is a trojan horse for another dynamic which is ongoing in modern Christian thought. Currently, there is a conflict between the idea of nuanced Christian belief influenced by some degree by post-modern thought (which some describe as “liberal”) and a more certain and black/white view of theology.
So, to be simplistic, you have two broad movements. The first suggests to some degree that there is diversity of thought in christianity and outside of christianity and that there is some validity in other viewpoints (including non-Christian viewpoints). The second suggests that there is one true set of beliefs and which are valid for all times and all peoples (because they are “right”).
The “masculinisation” actually seems to me to be an expression of the second path in Christianity, by appealing not to certainty or inherent truth per se but to some sort of idealised action-hero model.
It was the masculine Christianity of Aslan the lion that made The Chronicles of Narnia such an odious work. What kind of sick mind would have Santa Claus give out weapons as Christmas presents for children?
Alecto wrote: “I keep hoping that sooner or later blokes are going to realise that admitting that women are people too won’t make their dicks drop off ..”
Alecto, the problem is the exact opposite: the Christian churches need to recognise that masculine qualities, and not only feminine ones, are part of what is essentially human.
For example, in 2004 the Catholic Church released a letter on feminism. The first part of the letter rejected a secular liberal feminism. The second half, though, sought to establish an even more radical Catholic feminism.
The argument for this Catholic feminism went roughly as follows: giving yourself to others is central to both Christian and human values; that women represent this quality more closely than men; that women therefore have a particular “humanising” role in the world; that men can contribute too by adopting this feminine quality.
This is not an adequate way to include men in the life of a church. It’s not good enough to say that the feminine quality is the essentially human one, which men may, nonetheless, participate in. I don’t believe you can successfully build a church on this basis.
silkworm,
‘What kind of sick mind would have Santa Claus give out weapons as Christmas presents for children?’
You obviously haven’t been near the boys section of a toy store a month or two before Christmas recently, or enjoyed a childhood where pretend battles were part of boyhood development, or played rugby or Aussie rules, which is organised warfare with a ball, although the big thing at the moment is X-Box refined high tech warfare right in your living room with surround sound.
I think C S Lewis appealed well to the imagination of children, particularly around the heaviness of wartime, when a real struggle was taking place, which children would have found hard to handle. I think Tolkein went through a similar process when constructing Lord of the Rings, although in a slightly more sophisticated, even darkly concentrated and obsessed way.
Bringing boys to masculinity is a major responsibility. The idea of being able to stand up for what is right in a world of complexity and danger is incredibly important. It is far worse to be ignorent of our enemies and unable to use our weaponry for a just cause than it is to be powerless when they do come, as they will.
The Santa Claus of Narnia didn’t just give weapons to the boys. He also gave a weapon to Lucy, even if it was only a girly bow-and-arrow set. Was Lucy being properly masculinized by this act of Christian charity?
You’ve obviously spent too much time around the boy’s section of a toy store.
If you love war so much, why don’t you move to Israel?
There isn’t much Christianity in Tolkien. Apart from the Manicheanism, of course.
No, Tolkien was rather averse to Christianity – a bit of a pagan at heart – hence his studies of Norse mythology. Also very averse to Communism and anything smacking of modernity. Anyone wanting to read a good critique of Tolkien should consult Michael Moorcock’s various essays on him.
You seem to presuppose, FaceLift, that there is only one type of masculinity and that everyone knows what it is. And that it’s a good thing that there is. There isn’t, and it’s not.
‘If you love war so much, why don’t you move to Israel?’
Funny thing, silkworm, I was just discussing whether to go for a trip with my wife this evening! She went last year, but I was on a trip to another nation at about the same time so I couldn’t go. I don’t understand your point though. When did I say I loved war? War is disgusting and pointless, but it will come our way some day even if we’re not the purpetrators, so what’s best for us, to be ready or to be dead?
Of course, you miss my point, which is that boys have traditionally engaged in make believe war for centuries as part of their development. Lewis’ inclusion of Lucy was a tip of the hat to the brave women who also fought in the world wars, and who will surely be called upon to help defend freedom and liberty on other occassions, hopefully without the kind of violent and nasty wars experienced by Lewis’ contemporaries.
Mark, Cliff, many commenters see Christian types in Tolkien’s work, despite your assessment. However, my point was that, similar to Lewis, he contrived an elaborate make-believe story partly, in his case, out of his need to exorcise his personal ‘demons’ of an ugly and unforgiving war.
There’s no doubt that the war played a large part in Tolkien’s imagination, FaceLift, though I think if you read any biographies of him it was also part and parcel of a general regret as to what he saw as lost in the transition to a modern urbanised society – which was a pretty common cultural mood at the time he began writing.
I’m not sure how much his work is enlightened by looking for Christian types in it, personally, though if people find it helpful to an appreciation of his work then of course they’re welcome to do so.
Lot more female characters in the films than in Tolkien’s novels…
I’m surprised no one noticed today is the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in the Catholic calendar. An interesting day on which to be discussing Jesus’ gender symbolism…
Surprised also that no one picked up on this comment of Michael’s!
I’d just observe that the dynamics and nature of gender roles and symbols in both scriptural times and in the middle ages were very very different from those of today. That’s in part what I’m getting at with my reference to the Liberal Quest for the Historical Jesus – committing the fallacy of reading back current ideals into the religious and historical literature of a very different time.
That could do with some more discussion.
Mark,
‘You seem to presuppose, FaceLift, that there is only one type of masculinity’
Where did I say that? How do you categorise the many types of masculinity you’re proposing? Are you saying that boys shouldn’t be encouraged to enjoy the kind of competitiveness they thrive on during play, including play combat, which seems to be part of their male drive, as has been identified by various traditional institutions and steered towards sporting rivalry rather than a freeforall debacle, or tribal gang-warfare? Of course, not all boys want to be part of this, and it is no precurser to masculinity, but it seems that high percentage do tend towards this kind of play at some time in their development. Just throwing ideas around!
I think Mark’s point was that masculinity is not just about rivalry and competition. Indeed that seems to be a particularly individualist conception appropriate to a capitalist age. This is cutting across the other thread a bit, but the Victorian way of raising boys emphasised virtues related to courage, self-sacrifice and co-operation rather than to winning at all costs or outdoing each other. Despite the fact that “muscular Christianity” is identified with the sort of sacrifice of Christianity to cultural values that predominates in the sort of literature I’m talking about, it was a different thing. Not particularly Christian either, as the educational ethos of the time harked back to Roman virtues which were of course appropriate for a self-conceived Empire.
I didn’t really notice that at all… apart from Arwen and Eowyn’s expanded roles (which seemed to be more about creating more of a romantic sub-plot for Aragorn anyway… although she did also replace Glorfindel as the elf that rescued Aragorn and the Hobbits on their way to Rivendell).
Perhaps I should have said “lots more of the female characters”, Cliff. What was the name of the cool warrior chick played by Miranda Otto? Wasn’t she quite different in the book?
ObNarniaPedant: Susan got the bow and arrow, Lucy got the healing cordial. They both got told to stand back while the boys slashed with swords. Tcch.
* * *
Tilda Swinton really enjoyed chewing the scenery in the fillum, eh?
That was one reason I might have gone and seen it – the Goddess Tilda!
That’s Eowyn. I don’t have a detailed recollection of the books but I am certain that there was no romantic tension between her and Aragorn (could be wrong though). Apart from that she isn’t much different… she still disguises herself as a man so she can fight. Still slays the Witch King in the battle of Minas Tirith. One of my favourite pieces of Tolkien inspired artwork is the painting of that scene (you can see it here).
Oh, ok, thanks Cliff. I thought I heard somewhere she hardly got to say a word in the book. But I haven’t read any of the books since I was really young.
The role of Morgoth (Melkor) in the Silmarillion is analogous to the story of Satan to a limited extent (insofar as he is rebelled against the other Gods and corrupted the ideals of their creation). But the Gods are very much physical (Morgoth made his home in Middle Earth, not in some sort of hell) and operate within a pantheon…. and heaven (Valinor) is very much a physical place (such that the elves can simply sail there). Thus it’s more in the mould of pre-axial religion. Not to say there aren’t themes of Christianity. The role of Illuvatar as the benevolent original being differs from more pagan ideas of an original chaos against which the Gods battled and formed order.
Cool pic, Cliff, though we may have taxed its host server as it took ages to load.
Conversely, such themes are common to early Middle-Eastern religion, as you recognise in your comment about pre-axial religion.
Narnia Uncut
I bought a pirated copy of Narnia in Vietnam at CHristmas. When we got back into Australia i sent my kids downstairs to watch it, and took the opportunity to grab some zzz’s.
Some time later i asked them if they liked the movie and my eight year old just gigled and said there as a lot of really bad swearing. I didnt really believe him but on checking it seems the subtitles actually belonged to a very adult Spanish dog-fighting movie (with REALLY bad swearing).
There sure is nothing like seeing the Ice Queen advise the children to pimp their sister and tell their mother for F* off.
Staying on the theme of CHristians who say fuck, i actually find Nick Cave’s spiritual explorations incredibly interesting. His intro to the Gospel of Luke, and his Spirit Made Flesh lecture resonate quite strongly with this recovering baptist.
What exactly is Nick Cave’s spiritual position? Just wondering… Obviously, like Leonard Cohen, his language is resonant with biblical imagery and cadences but is it actually summed up by “I don’t believe in an interventionist God”?
Facelift:
Actually, facelift, to the ancient and medieval mind (and lurking behind the post/modern mind) the flesh *is* feminine. We still talk todat about Mother earth and Mother nature which derives from the sense that the spirit, the mind, the rational and the divine is the preserve of the masculine realm, whereas the body, the emotions, the passions, the material world is the preserve of the feminine realm. Consequently the medievals could refer to MOther Jesus because through the Incarnation the Son has come donw into the feminine realm of the flesh. Even the Crucifixion was seen as Jesus giving birth to the Church and feeding it eucharistically through his body and blood. His wounds were seen as analagous to lactating breasts. The association of Jesus with milk is very ancient. In the Odes of Solomon, a 1st or 2nd century Syrian Christian hymnbook the Son is referred to as the milk drawn by the Spirit from the breasts of the Father and then placed in the womb of the Virgin, who is then referred to as giving birth like a man
The ancient Christian imagery is far more genderbending than people realise, something that befits a relgion condemned then as a relgion of women and slaves. Ancient masculine norms were regularly questioned or inverted by the early Church
In Judaism too this gender model is behind the notion of the Immanent Deity as the feminine Shekinah
Kim:
I’m afraid the agenda of the Quest has been to find the philosopher, the Galileean Socrates behind the Christ. In that it has regualrly failed, including the most recent Jesus Seminar mob. Where theri success has lain has been to reveal a much more challenging, weird even alien Christ, to modern norms than even they are prepared to admit ( and they don’t)
As for the Assumption, yes, it is curious that this thread started then. I’m afraid the Roman church since Vat 2 has tended to play down Mary, probably out of ecumenical intent amongst other things. But she refuses to go away. I’m giving a paper on the Rosary at a conference at UQ this weekend and the one thing that it has reinforced for me is that in the Catholic traditions it is Mary who is the Christian prototype, the model for all believers, dare I say, the Christian everyman. You find this in traditional Catholic mariology, medieval theology and patristic theology
One final point, I noticed that in the aricle Kim linked to re the ‘feminised’ Church that there is a complaint about the love language addressed to Jesus in much of contemporary evangelical/charismatic worship, often as not sung by young men as by young women. This is one of the problems of an exclusively masculine (imaged) divine, especially if it is linked to a rigourous heteronormativity. If the central revelation of Christianity is that God is Love and that one must cultivate love of God and love of Jesus as the Incarnate Divine then are we really encouraging homosexual relgious sensibilities amongst the male believers. It’s an issue for all the monotheistic religions, but with the male saviour it is excruciatingly pertinent to Christianity
one of the more interesting things of Michael is when he ever challenged for any of his Spongian beliefs about Christianity he never goes to any biblical evidence.
one could talk long and hard about why god is known as the Father and Jesus is the son but I will leave that for another time.
The ‘assumption’ of Mary is actually a presumption, and has not a single Biblical fact to back it up. It’s as onerous a doctrine as the so-called ‘immaculate birth’ of Mary. Both are designed to attempt to deify the mother of Jesus, who (Mary) was in fact as much human and as much a sinner as any other person who walked the earth.
This attempt to bend the truth and fool the flock is evident in any attempt to raise Mary above the Son of God, against all scriptural doctrine, and here we see in Michael’s philosophical incorrectness an attempt to add a femininity to the Godhead which frankly isn’t present, by appealking to the cultic worship of the ancients who deified Adam and Eve under various guises against God’s will, elevating the woman to mediatrix.
I find your ideas interesting, but I’m afraid your hat just got bigger and more echoey on this one, Michael. What it shows is a tendency to revert to ancient cultic beliefs in an earth-mother, which was always anathema to God, as is well documented throughout the Old Testament, and is an attempt to revive Ashtart in all her aliases and forms as the ‘true’ ‘god/dess’ of all religion.
I don’t know how the Catholic Church is going to deal with the issue of the deification of Mary, which has become official dogma, but it is a major stumbling block to truth.
Your other reasoning that a masculine Godhead would tend to draw men into a homosexual relationship is pure religious blasphemy, old son. I have a great relationship with my natural father and my brother, but it doesn’t cause gay feelings towards them, any more than I have lesbian feelings towards my sisters or late mother. LOL, as someone has said!
Mark,
This Salon article has a good run down in Nick and his religious leanings.
Mark, to my knowledge, NC discribed himself as a Hammer and nails type of guy. HE wrote an intro to the Book of Luke a few years back, i’ll post the transcript:
http://www.geocities.com/badgerminor/ncmark.html
There is also an interesting article i’ve linked on my own blog where Cave talks about the divinty of CHrist and his own faith etc etc. I have no idea how to link a post if youre keen you may just have to scroll down till you get to the post with my ink portrait of cave.
I’m figuring you may have missed Bono’s sermon to BUsh at the US National PRayer Breakfast this year as well, posted on the sojourners site. (one of my fave Wallis quotes is that the key questions of this age is the choice between cynicism and hope)
Bono’s Sermon.
I was just posting on another site recently about interesting figures in the alternative/ emergent Xian scene. Did you hear Anne Rice (interview with a vampire etc ) recently re-converted to Christianity (faith of her childhood).
For the record, i’m a reluctant believer…though my own theology is messy, lazy and heretical.
oops i think i severely screwed up the links in that last post.
I was going to mention that i initially half wrote a paper about the resonance btween the Australian National Identity and the Da Vinci Code as playd out in the Beaconsfield mine disaster at the time.
I never did finish it so it went nowhere, but it did explore the masculaine /feminine anima/ animus spiritual/secular split in australia , and cast the two men as twin jesus’ in a feminised earthen vaginal womb/tomb and the Uniting Church minister Francis Seen as a Mother Mary archetype.
Tanja, did some editing for you on the links.
tanja is a reluctant believer whose theology is messy and heretical.
That is like being a little bit pregnant.
either one is or one is not one cannot be both except for some Anglican bishops
wow thanks..now i don’t look like a total twit, (even if i sound like one)…………….see, there really is a god…lol
BBEP i’m not sure what you mean? SUrely there is a spectrum of spiritual belief as much as there is a spectrum of sexuality and political ideology (whats the point of a faction then?).
Btw, does a hydatitaform pregnancy count as being pregnant or not? Is a hermaphradite a boy of a girl?
I like Kim’s point about the ‘liberal quest for the historical Jesus’ being suspect, though I’m not sure whether she means big L liberal or small l liberal. Either way, it’s correct.
Progressives and pacifists tend to see Jesus as an ancient embodiment of pacifism, despite the fact that he’s seen as a kind of ultimate judge, and apparently said things like ‘I come not to bring peace, but a sword’ and ‘you are either with me, or against me’. Not exactly a peacenik in the 20th century sense. C S Lewis, who of course bought his own prejudices and biases to Christianity (and visa versa) argued that Paul was the peacemaker and the man who emphasised forgiveness and mercy, while it was Christ who in fact most fond of the ‘fire-and-brimstone’ religion.
Conservatives and the right-wing, I’m sure, tend to see Christianity, and Christ in particular, as an embodiment of their ideology – whether that is pro-life, or anti-state. Or as an embodiment of ’strong’ masculinity, as pointed out here. The Old Testament makes their task significantly easier; not so much of the New Testament, except for perhaps ‘Revelations’.
So in general, you could say both sides use Christ as a figure of political convenience. More than a little bit tokenistic of them. If they were really going to use Christianity, or Judaism, or any other religion as a political touchstone, then it would require a much more full-blooded, encompassing approach to the religious texts and traditions than is currently the case.
tanja, I wouldn’t worry too much about BBEP. Basically anyone who doesn’t fit his very narrow evangelical brand of Protestantism gets called an apostate and a heathen by him.
FaceLift, what your comment doesn’t explain is the long history of patristic and medieval theological and devotional texts which refer to Jesus as Mother and of course to the BVM in much the same way the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Churches) tend to. Michael is quite correct historically, however much you wish to quibble with his theological interpretation.
tanja, heresy and Christianity are polar opposites that contradict each other only people who do not read the bible like Michael or Mark would accept such a definition.
mind you you probably are an Anglican bishop
Look, Mark, I dare say you and Michael are excellently well read in these areas, and I have acknowledged the interesting stance thrown up by Michael, which I’m in no way atempting to quibble with, except to say that, regardless of the strange writings of some patristic and medieval (mostly male and single/celebate?) persons, there is no possibility whatsoever that God the Father could be mistaken for a maternal Being by anyone who actually reads their Bible, or that Jesus, documented as, prophesied to be and widely accepted as a male, called the SON of God, The King of Kings, could be a mother (that’s even more stupid than saying he was married to Mary Magdelene and had a child).
However if these strange persons from yesteryear want to call him ‘mother’ that’s OK by me, I’ll just wonder if they spent too much time alone in a monastry, but please, please don’t even attempt to make it a worthy doctrinal stance or arguement to suggest he is any way effeminate or has feminine traits, or can at any time be sensibly addressed as ‘mother’! It just has no merit whatsoever, and makes a complete mockery of any attempt at establishing the truth for people who are seeking God and want to know how to go about it the right way.
I’m actually wondering if you and Michael are actually on the level here, or are trying to pull my leg!
But Jesus himself was male, single and celibate. Remember the bit in Matthew about “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven”, FaceLift?
Yes, a clever little irrelevant sideslip, Mark, but you wonder at the motivation behind their incredible deviation from truth to think Jesus could be called ‘mother”, don’t you, or don’t you?
And… I don’t think Jesus had much doubt about his position as the Son of God, and not, as these patristic and medieval persons seem to suggest, the daughter of God, which he would have had to be to become a mother!
Please tell me this is a joke! Then I can laugh with you and it will not be rude!
Good. You’ve taken the first step. The next one of course, is to extend this statement to Jesus himself. It’s not as hard as you think… I managed to do it when I was 14.
Jesus had his gear removed? No wonder he developed a Christ complex
I think the eunoch thing has to do with celebacy rather than mutilation, Cliff. Paul was such an one, but it is not a requirement for ministry.
As for your theory about Jesus being a sinner, I have to say that you were wrong when you were 14, and continue to be so. The whole point of the death, burial and resurrecction is that it had to be a sinless sacrifice of a man. Actually the first step is to acknowledge our sin and our need of Jesus the Saviour
I also worked out what circular argumentation was when I was 14
Facelift:
My comment was based on the follwoing text from the article on the feminised church that Kim had linked to. Here is the relevant section:
In fact, my point is not a original. The issues were addressed long ago by Jewish scholar, HOward Eilberg-Schwartz http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807012254/103-8221760-1845452?v=glance&n=283155
As far as feminine imagery for god in the bible is concerned, there’s plenty of it as is listed in the article here:
http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/970418/o1041897.htm
You talk about the ‘deification’ of mary and say
But you forget all the feminine imagery for Wisdom in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures not to mention that the Holy Spirit is counted as feminine in Judaism and in Syrian Christianity (the word for spirit is feminine in the semitic languages).
Deification is another word for theosis or divinisation which is the central theology of Eastern Orhtodoxy and is implicit in Western Catholic theologies and spiritualities as well. As Irenaeus is reputed to have said and as Athanasius definitely said, God became human so that humans could become divine. The Church Fathers (and MOthers) that you puzzle over are the ones that defined the doctrine of the Trinity, the Nicene Creed, the joint divine and human natures of jesus such that Mary is defined as Theotokos or Godbearer. They are the people who brought you the great 7 Ecumencial Councils which include Nicea, Ephesus and chalcedon which define the Christian orthodoxy to which I presume you subscribe.
You also say:
Jesus himself compared himself to a mother hen:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not (Lk 13:34-35, Mt 23:37)
This passage alludes in many ways to the Jewsih Wisdom traditions and evangelical New testament scholar Ben witherington III, (http://www.benwitherington.com/Index.htm) has argued that these Wisdom traditons strongly underpin the Christologies of the New testament and early Christianity. In fact I’m sure I have mentioned in a much ealrier discussion on LP that jewish Talmudic scholar, Daniel Boyarin has argued that John 1 is a classic piece of jewish midrash drawing on Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8. As I said on my initial comment on this thread, Wisdom/Hokmah and Logos are two sides of the one concept.
Jesus’ allusion to a hen was a direct quote from Psalm which refers to the parenthood of God, and the key word here is ”as’ a hen’. He doesn’t say, “I am your mother hen, chickos!” He doesn’t make himself feminine. He says he tried to gather Israel to himself but they continually went in their own direction, and out of his protection. Look, he’s a bloke, and that’s really that!
And it’s a nice thought, and I know these guys were really bright thinkers, and set the course for much of what we believe, but Mary could never be ‘Godbearer’ in the sense of fully forming God in her womb, since Jesus was already the Word who was God before he was the Word made flesh. He was the Seed/Word who was God. She carried the Son of man. Otherwise you essentially make her the creator of God in her womb.
This is where the patriarchs you cite began to cross over into error if you’re saying that the deification of Mary began at this point, with this logic which tends towards a female goddess entity, and, somewhere in the mix, the idea of ‘mother’ Jesus took hold. Can you see a pattern here? The feminisation of deity? Yet God calls the New Jerusalem and her future inhabitants, the Church, the Bride, now being prepared to be presented to Christ.
However, I can agree with your point that some modern worship songs are more geared to a feminine perspective, and the idea of Jesus or God being a ‘man of war’ and a Mighty God and Deliverer needs to be more emphasised in contemporary worship and praise. Which actually brings us to Baldwin’s point, really, that Jesus shouildn’t be so consistently regarded as an effeminate character, since he is, after all, the Lord of Hosts, and epithet which points to hos power and glory as Commander in Chief of the armies of heaven.
Biologically, every mother is the primary creator of her children, literally flesh of her flesh. The father provides one primogenitive zygote via his sperm – everything else that results in a live human consisting of millions of cells comes from the mother.
True, but the Word/Seed/Son of God existed before Abraham, let alone Mary! ‘Before Abraham was, I Am’ John 8:58, signifying his deity and eternal existence.
Facelift:
Goodness, so you reject the 3rd ecumenical Council. That makes you a heretic, Facelift.
Well, neither of them were my points and I certianly reject the notion that we should emphasise ‘martial’ imagery for jesus. My point was that the articel illustrated the anxiety caused by the strong affectional stress on a divine male figure ( a stress I obviously don’t feel). In fact, I regard that whole macho jesus thing as yet anohter abominable heresy from the US, along with dispensationalism (yeah I know it was invented in England by Derby, originally) and the whole Left Behind/Rapture rubbish
As I said he likens himself to a mother hen. He might be ‘a bloke’ but he is also Wisdom and Wisdom is a she. Just read Proverbs or check out Michelangelo’s creation of Adam which portrays God carrying female wisdom in his arm. Wisdom is the other side of the Logos and jesus is strongly identified with Wisdom and Logos.
As for deification
You misunderstand my point. We are all called to deification, Mary is the protoype of humanity fully divinised. She is also a type of the Church. BUt the feminsiation of deity began long before the ecumenical councils. In Christianity it began with invocation of Wisdom to understand Jesus which we find in the Gospels and before Jesus, in the Jewish traditions with Wisdom herself
Oh dear, FaceLift, don’t tell me that the words of the Lord in Matthew about becoming “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” aren’t to be taken literally? I thought we were take all scripture at its literal reading? Surely it wasn’t a metaphor or an analogy?
‘Goodness, so you reject the 3rd ecumenical Council. That makes you a heretic’
Well it might if I were a Catholic I suppose! And I’d probably be burned at the stake if we were in a different era. But all things have to be judged against the Word of God (I know you dispute the canon), not agaonst ecumenical councils.
Called to be New Creatures in Christ, eternal beings, sons and daughters of the Most High, joint heirs with Christ, partakers in the divine nature, but not God, and Mary was not born immaculate, sinless, nor was she ascended in a fleshly body as Jesus was, nor can we pray through her or statues of her.
Luther would have been stoking the fires, FaceLift – he and Calvin both accepted the Council of Ephesus.
A lot of the doctrines you hold in fact rest on the early ecumenical councils and the Fathers – it’s impossible for instance to read an orthodox doctrine of the two natures of Christ direct from the NT. Which is why of course it was so contentious before Nicea.
And I need to correct you on Marian prayer. Honour due to the saints is called hypotropia which is not worship. Catholics do not pray to Mary but ask her to join our prayers and intercede for us. That’s why, as Michael rightly says, she is the type of the Christian believer. Statues are just images, perhaps sacramentals at a stretch.
Yes, but that’s what Michael and the Orthodox Fathers mean by divinisation, really, FaceLift.
Another correction. Christ “ascended” into heaven – ie through his own will. Mary was “assumed” into heaven – ie taken up by God.
Of course, to deny those things is to make you a heretic according to the Catholic Church. But that wasn’t Michael’s point. To reject the doctrine of Ephesus in the sense that he’s suggesting you do is in effect to deny that Christ was fully human as well as fully divine (that’s a large part of the point of Mary’s role) and thus by any orthodox interpretation of what Christianity is, you’d be a heretic if you actually thought that.
I’m not suggesting you are, by the way. What I am suggesting is that you haven’t thought through fully what’s implied by the doctrine of two natures.
Thank God I didn’t live (or rather die) in their day then!
Nice talking with you! Appreciate your frankness, and good to see some fire in you, Mark! Have a good night.
You too, Facelift!
Oh, that 11:26 pm comment of yours came through after my 11:33 pm comment, so I’ll have to take you up on that some other time! Mostly, though, what I reject is the idea of the ‘motherhood’ of Christ.
Ok, but I’m really not sure why you feel you have to, FaceLift. As Michael says, the Logos/Sophia is definitely female in Hebrew.
I think something went wrong with your comment, Cliff.
And probably for the best, Mark. But here we go again (you kinda have to watch the movie “Dogma” to get this though).
Hmm… there’s supposed to be an image there. Oh well, it was a silly joke anyway.
I’ve seen Dogma, Cliff. I’ll email you the code for images.
Perhaps it’s a server side issue, here’s the link anyway… kind doesn’t seem worth it after all that http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m69/cliffphotobucket/buddychrist.jpg
As an aside..have any of you ever visited the SHip of Fools website? UK Xian site with some brilliant forums for the theological pedants to fight it out (and fight they do…), while the rest of us sit back and enjoy the satirical side of the site!
I think its just shipoffools.com but you may have to google it. Definately worth a look.
This the one, tanja?
http://ship-of-fools.com/
FaceLift, you might find this interesting on Michael and Mark’s points:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary#Divine_Motherhood
More here:
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos
That’s from the Orthodox wiki, and the entry relates the title of “Theotokos” to scripture.
It’s a bit odd that the Orthodox Churches don’t seem to be on the radar of a lot of Protestants (some Anglicans and Lutherans excepted…)
Yup, you got it!
I used to love the mystery worshipper concept..(like a mystery shopper).
You can just sign up, get the proforma and then secretly go off to any church on Sunday (or sat if youre SDA), evaluate them, and drop the little ‘you have been mystery worshipped – to see your evaluation visit…’ card in the offering plate when it goes past. YOu then post your evaluation on site for the while world to see.
Its not meant to be bitchy, just fair honest feedback, with good doses of humour if you are that way inclined. There have been quite a few Australian churches featured over the years.
I think i could almost bear to sit through a hymn sandwich* just to do this.
* song, welcome, song, song, announcements, offering, song, sermon, song.
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos#Testimony_From_the_Protestant_Reformers
Cool, I’ll rate Latin Masses!
I can just see it now – quality of incense, correctness of liturgical bows, pronunciation, use of Gregorian chant as opposed to mass settings, woohoo!
Heh.
Interesting links.
The thing with the quotes on the Orthodox wiki is that Pentecostalists and their ilk find it very hard to explain how their theology doesn’t even agree with the Reformers who allegedly had the same approach to reading scripture. It is of course explicable by virtue of the fact that these traditions are very new – a couple of centuries max – and impossible to bring into right relation with 1800 years of Church history.
i actually went to the non-Vatican II Latin catholic Midnight mass in Oxley about five years ago, just cause i was curious and had a Gregorian chant thing going on at the time. I didnt know you had to wear a head covering..luckily they had spare black doilies to plonk on my unadorned hair.
..and i thought the Sopranos was fiction.
Young priest was cute tho, had nice Doc martins…and was wearing a dress. What more could you want in a man. I couldnt help thinking of the time Samantha trid to seduce that priest in SATC.
I probably owe a few Hail mary’s for those lustful thoughts. LOL
Strictly speaking they shouldn’t enforce the head covering!
This relates somewhat to the debate between some in Melbourne Anglican diocese and Moore college about the trinity.
don’t have the time to go into but Melbourne as might be expected got mightily slapped bu not even reading the primary documents properly.
An inability to understnd the trinity often leads to heresy.
former primate Peter Carnley being a prime example.
Returning to Tolkien, what are we to make of the fact that Frodo – despite being tall and handsome by Hobbit standards, educated and articulate by Hobbit standards, very wealthy, and able to maintain his youthful good looks and physical vigour through the power of the ring – never married or had any kind of liaison with the opposite sex, and was closest in friendship to Sam, his male gardiner and travelling companion?
Sam was hetero… he married Rosie. As for Frodo, he was just a gentleman bachelor, like Bilbo. And we should remember that he is a fictitious construct – I don’t think Tolkien intended to suggest he was homosexual…
In fact, I reckon he had a bit of a thing for Galadriel. Although all the Hobbits seemed to be overawed by Elves, particularly the female ones.
As for Frodo, he was just a gentleman bachelor, like Bilbo.
I just think he wanked a lot. That’s probably why hobbits had hairy feet!
Thing is, Kim, you can’t just decide at a council, official or not, to grant Mary eternal virgin status, or an immaculate birth, or an assumption, just to suit your doctrine. Doctrine is derived from the Word, not separate from it, otherwise there are no absolutes, and no true foundations. Making Mary an etrnal virgin, immaculately conceived and assumed (assumpted?) is added after the written facts by peoploe who had a fixation on elevating a female deity. There is no foundation to this doctrinally in either the new or old Testaments. In fact Mary had subsequent children, Jesus’ half brothers and susters, so where does that leave her virgin status?
Actually, it’s one of the stranger twists in modern manners that the possibility of ‘gentleman bachelerdom’ is not considered. The reactions of some people are probably a bit like that of Queen Victoria when asked about lesbianism: “Such a thing is impossible!”
Promiscuity, however – in certain cases, at least, and of the homosexual or heterosexual variety – is something people are much more comfortable about.
So you could say manners are almost completely the reverse of what they were in Tolkien’s time.
Paul Norton:
As Cliff said, Sam ended up marying Rosie…. but he did end up going over the sea to be with Frodo and Bilbo. I first read LoTR when I was about 10-11 and was deeply impressed by the extremely close relationship between sam and Frodo. It was my first real exposure to a loving relationship between two males. I thnk it’s why I kept coming back to the book again and again. Tolkien’s world is extraordinarily homosocial something the film tried to downplay (unsuccessfully IMHO). The marvel’lous thing about the film was Elijah Wood as Frodo. I think I fell for him straight away
Re Bilbo and Frodo as uncle/nephew bachelors as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick has pointed out, the uncle/nephew andnindeed the aunt/niece relationship is a very old standard for same sex relationships. I think the squire and his faithful manservant might be yet another (nowadays a gentleman and his male secretary)
Facelift:
From the very beginning of Christianioty, councils have been used to decide doctrines. Acts records the Council of Jerusalem in whihc it was decided that Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised or follow the Mosaic law to convert to Christianity. And I think it was mark who pointed out that none of the central doctrines of christianity such as the Trinity, the divine huuman nature of jesus etc are clearly spelled out in the scriptures. If they were there would not have been the tumultuous struggles in the early church
I notice you have not responded to my points re wisdom who is clearly portrayed as female in the hebrew BIble and the Septuagint Greek scriptures which were the original Christian Old testament. I also thnk that you don’t read the articles that I or others link to whihc is probably why Kim quoted large slabs from orthodox wiki on the Virgin mary.
So I will now quote you the relevant sections from the article on feminine imagery for god in the bible that I provided a link to. It’s by Professor Margo Houts, professor of Religion and Theology at Calvin college in the US. She provides a detaieeld list of biblical references although I notice that she too overlooks wisdom
I’m not a huge fan of the LOTR – think they were one of the lowlights of the fantasy and SF genre in a time when a great many highlights were being produced – but I don’t know, Michael, about your assessment. Sam and Frodo may have been close, but were they close in that way? It seems like a bit of a stretcher to me. The squire and manservant relationship also featured in Tom Jones, and Jones was promiscuously hetero.
I’d just lean to the explanation that Tolkien valued close friendship, along with companionship, courage, adventure, and the old Tory values of tradition, etc, and that’s why these things feature in his novels. It wasn’t that odd to Tolkien, after all – think of his close friendship with C S Lewis and his other Oxford chums.
Mary was not important to the earliest Christians. Paul didn’t mention her at all.
Mary was alone when she uttered the Magnificat, so how can Luke have known of it? In any case, the Magnificat is an adaptation of the prayer of Hannah from 1 Samuel 2.
The bestowal of virginity on her, by Justin, was obviously an attempt to catch up with the virgin goddesses enjoyed by the pagans, e.g., Vesta, Artemis, Isis.
Justin’s error was based on the error of Matthew 1:23, which was in turn based on the Septuagint mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, in which the Hebrew word ‘almah’, meaning ‘maiden’, was mistranslated as ‘virgin’. The Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ is ‘betulah’. In any case the text of Isaiah refers to the continuation of the line of King Ahaz of Judah, not a prophecy at all.
Mary was given the title Theotokos (Mother of God) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE. Before that Ephesus had been the centre of the cult of Artemis.
Thanks Michael, I did know those things, and I love the way God illustrates the depth of care and provision he gives his people, which is the real context, and very powerful.
I also grasp the female reference to Wisdom, and I appreciate the meaning, although I hadn’t had time to put together a reply, and I don’t want to argue with you for the sake of it, since on many points I agree, but I still don’t know how it is possible to call Jesus ‘mother’, or how it is correct to deify Mary, consider her as a perpetual virgin, as immaculately concieved, or assumed into heaven (ie never dying).
For Mark, I have to say that I believe in the fulness of Jesus as man and God, but here I think it is a mistake then to attribute deity or perpeetual virginity, immaculacy and assumption (can you use those words?) to Mary, who was a chosen vessel, which surely, amongst women, is honour enough. In fact the Ephesiaan Council’s decision seems to have, in part, cause a division in doctrine through this decision to eleate Mary.
I suppose this movement is a corrective to images like this. Can you imagine that guy doing the hard manual work of a carpenter? No, me neither. Mind you, the above image and its subtexts etc has to be better than this.
TimT:
Oh yes, I quite agree. However, I don’t think that a deep passionate love/friendship between two people of the same sex would look all that different from a deep passionate *homosexual* love/friendship between two people of the same sex
As for Tom Jones, I’m not saying that all master/manservant. mistress/maidservant or indeed uncle/nephew, aunt/niece were invariably homoerotic only that they are common pattern of long-term homoerotic relationships over history
I largely gave away theological debates many years back.
I figured when i had a handle on Jesus summation of the law and the prophets as : to love god with all your being and love your neighbour as yourself….then i could go back and work on the rest.
Fraid i’m still wrestling with these undergrad concepts.
You get that together, tanja, and you’ve got about all the theology you need
Interesting that the militant atheist silkworm and the Protestant FaceLift have very similar takes on how they believe Marian doctrine originated.
FaceLift, no one has tried to “deify” Mary.
The point about Wisdom and also about the Spirit is that the Deity has always contained within it male and female.
On the Jesus birth thing – how come JC gets to be related to David and Abraham through Joseph?
In Matthew Chapter 1 – The book of generation of JC, the son of David, son of Abraham blah blah
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born…. y’know the ending….
And then it goes on with the “she was espoused before they came together” and then an Angel turned up before Jospeh put her privily (due to 2 timing him with God), and after the dream… he goes through with the wedding (shame about the white dress in church)
But how does JC get to claim David and Abraham as rellies, when Dad wasnt the old man, so the speak?
Bit convenient. Virgin Birth AND related to old King of Jews.
no doubt..
Anyways, I think i’ve had enough Xian debate to last me a lifetime. My uncle is a recent Uniting Church Moderator, my dads hard core fundie. I had read much of the unreadable Matthew Henry’s commentary by the time i was 12.
Having worked as a social worker, counsellor and therapist at differing points of the last 15 years, i have to concur with M Scott Peck et al, that the concept of forgiveness is still one of the most liberating psychological paradigm s one human can offer another.
My take on Marianism is more radical than a disagreement with doctrine. I don’t accept that she existed at all, just as I don’t accept Jesus had historical existence. All the gospel stories are fiction. This position cuts through all the theological nonsense.
I was referring to your claims about Ephesus and pagan cults, silkworm.
Which is why it would be inappropriate of us to infer any homosexuality in Frodo and Sam’s relationship. It may be that in real life bachelorhood was a cover for homosexuality, but Tolkien is describing an ideal model of what bachelorhood and fraternal love meant at the time. I find it difficult to believe he would want to smuggle homosexual subtext into a children’s book. Bilbo and Frodo are described as different and eccentric vis a vis hobbithood… but not in the sense that Paul was implying. Tolkien is rather trying to set up a dichotomy between Hobbitdom and the outside world. Bilbo has been changed by his adventure and thus cannot reintegrate into Hobbit culture… and Frodo has inherited his curiosity and adventurous spirit. They are alienated from Hobbit society for their cosmopolitan, rather rather than sexual, tastes. We should also take into account the length of the Hobbit lifespan… so although Merry, Pippin, Frodo and Sam are adults by our measure, they are not quite matured in Hobbit culture. There is more of a long overlap between childhood innocence and fraternity on the one hand, and maturity and adulthood on the other. From a higher perspective… Hobbits in general take on a childlike and innocent aspect. Compare the Shire when Frodo and co. leaves, to when they return. Tolkien’s intentions are quite clear.
I was more taken in by Sauron, Mordor and the dark side of the books.
Like Homer and Karl (or Smithers and Burns for that matter)
I think you kinda have to read these books before you hit adolescence in order to understand the relationships. After that… you contaminate the narrative with your own reading. Goes to show how much Freud has changed our understanding of culture. And of course, as TimT noted… in general, we live in a world where sexuality has become a norm, rather than the unspoken or the inconceivable. Perhaps you could call it liberation… but I suspect that because of this sex doesn’t pack quite the same punch as it once did.
The issue I think goes to homosociality not homosexuality.
And to the degree to which readers and viewers can “read” the subtexts in the novel and the film other than heteronormatively. As Michael said, his reading of the books affected him a certain way as a gay teen.
Understood.
I think it’s interesting to note that readers in Tolkien’s day no doubt interpreted Frodo and Sam’s relationship, and the bachelorhood of the Bagginses, as well within the bounds of acceptable male heterosexual identity, yet today both cases strike us as odd and perhaps evidence of homosexuality (refer to Paul’s post). If this is the case, it would seem that the roles and relationships acceptable within the realm of heterosexual masculinity have contracted and become more narrowly defined since homosexuality was “outed” as a distinct identity, so to speak. It strikes me as a bit sad in a way that it is possible that such a defensive manouver of redefinition against the development of queer identities may have deprived the institution male friendship of a depth and affection that was once accepted (albeit because homosexual identities were repressed. In that sense I am far from nostalgic).
Which makes me think that its quite possible that this recent attempt to redefine Jesus is also a result of such a contraction in the universe of hetero-masculine identity.
Cliff, I would have to say that I am strongly in agreement with your comments with the proviso that, even before homosexuality was outed as a distinct identity, the homoerotic reading was always possible and was performed (is that the right word?). As I said a passionate same sex friendship and a passionate homsexual same sex friendship look pretty much the same. And there are homoerotic/queer reading traditions going back generations/centuries of same sex friendships, including, of course, Jesus and John, David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, Achilles and Patroclus to name a few. Tolkien was writing after Oscar Wilde so I can’t believe he was ignorant of such possibiliites although I don’t think he was writing Frodo, Sam or Bilbo as queer characters. But that doesn’t make them any less ‘queer’. For me, as a protogay pre-teen the depiction of Frodo’s and Sam’s relationship made an incredible imprression. It was a kind of a validation.
I think was writing to capture a kind of ancient mythological heroic world a world which invariably included passionate same sex friendships (that might quite possibly have also been homosexual). But I have a very strong feeling that Frodo is also a kind of Christ figure. His way is not the way of the sword, he rejects all of that macho braggadacio, he knows he is probably going to his death, his way is also a way of suffering, struggling with the power of the ring. His relationship to Gollum is one of compassion. And he does undergo a type of death and resurrection while his departure over the sea is analogous to the ascension. There are other little Christian cues in Tolkien’s work but they are not laid on like in Lewis
But the Frodo/Christ conection further queers Frodo because Jesus likewise does not do normative masculinity but inverts/subverts it in his teachings and his atoning death – the last shal’l be first and the first last’ etc. That’s why the sacred heart image that someone posted a link to somewher in this thread is really more apropos than the othre of jesus with the rifle over his shoulder
Yep, I think there is incredible anxiety about maculinity in US (Protestant) culture and an associated homosexual panic but I also think the US’s imperial crusades might also have somthing to do with it. After all, ‘muscular’ Christinaity was part and parcel of the Victorian empire
I fell in love with Aragorn. Just sayin… Oh and Arwen!
Me too. Just agreein…
Well, I was quite taken with Galadriel and Eowyn. Arwen was always a bit too passive for my liking.
I read a lovely story in one of the English papers last time I was there (which was around the time the third LoTR movie was coming out). As already noted on this thread, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were good friends.
Tolkien was reading C.S. Lewis his first draft of the first book of LoTR. Lewis was evidently finding this all a bit interminable, and eventually interrupted his friend with “I say, Tokien old chap, not another fucking elf!”
(and just a note to tigtog regarding the Christmas gifts the girls got in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe – Lucy got a dagger as well as the healing cordial, so both girls did get weapons).
And Saruman came to an end richly befitting such an environmental vandal. My fellow bloggers be exhilarated that all members of Labor’s New Right Fifth Column such a death may find…
I heard that story about ‘another fucking elf’, but in my version, it was Charles Williams – who did a nice line in Christian schlock-horror – who said it, and Lewis was the defender.
C.S. Lewis was, occasionally, a superb writer. But his relationships with women were, well, problematic. Anyone who wants to get an idea of his views on women would do well to skip the Narnia chronicles, and instead read the final volume in his SF ‘Out of the Silent Planet’ trilogy. The final chapter in that is particularly revolting. (A pity – because it’s such a good book, otherwise).
I haven’t read anything by CS Lewis for about 15 years ago….but i’m sure I recall Surprised by Joy was quite an insightful book about his personal relationship/s. He was antiquated and a product of his time, (I think his Screwtape letters make some rather stupid assertions about women wearing trousers as part of an androdgenous conspiracy), yes, but just a british geek, who didnt have a clue about women. His marriage of convenience was certainly interesting reading, and quite radical for a man such as him. The movie was a tear-jerker. I thought Hopkins was an excellent Lewis.
Well, in his essays he does display a rather more open-minded attitude about sexual relations and feminism than are on display in his books. I think most of the things said in the Screwtape Letters are tongue-in-cheek (he made the disclaimer that it’s a book written from the POV of devils, and you shouldn’t believe everything that devils say). I think in his SF books he comes down heavily in favour of a rather ideological Christian view that women are part of a universal hierarchy, and exist primarily to serve. (His view of men is similar, but they appear to stand over women in the universal hierarchy.)
Still, these are just observations on my part – one shouldn’t judge Lewis’ philosophy from his novels, but from his essays and articles, and they can be superb; they contain some of the best arguments in support of conservatism that I’ve ever read; and he was (of course) an uniquely insightful literature critic.
In fact because the devil is the Father of Lies, the rule of thumb was that you shouldn’t believe the devil even when he spoke the truth.
Are you really that superstitious that you believe in the devil? University education was lost on you.
what, you mean the screwtape letters isn’t literal?
Ye gads.
I suppose next you’ll be saying Not all who call me Father will make the cut.
Just being rather huffily defensive of the Screwtape Letters!
You shouldn’t read every text literally, silkworm.
Heh.
The greatest lie Satan ever told was that the devil didn’t exist, silkworm.
I’m sure FaceLift agrees.
For silkworm it depends on whether he believes evil exists. I have no doubt there is evil in the world, or that there is an evil influence. The names for the Biblical devil, satan, etc generally describe the character of the dark one, such as ‘opposer’, ‘deceiver’, ‘liar’, ‘murderer’, or ‘adversary’, which implies a spiritual force which is against God, also known as antichrist, which actually would seem to pertain to silkworm, and of course one of the strategies of antichrists is to deny the existence of their own leader, a well prepared smokescreen of deciet.
I’m prepared to debate any of you as to my own existence. You’ll be trying to argue, I assume, that I don’t exist based on the application of reason to understanding human affairs, whereas I’ll be quite confidently deducing my own existence from my ability to think.
It’ll be a kind of Turing vs. Descartes stoush.
Am I right to conclude that Mark doesn’t believe in the literal devil, while Kim does?
You’re ethane with a hydroxyl substitution, me old C2H5OH. You can’t think.
Absolute concepts of good and evil are dangerous. In describing someone as evil… we not only deprive them of their humanity… but we describe their motivations tautologically (i.e. the terrorists perform evil acts because they are evil). We can of course, believe in good and evil insofar as they represent ideal types that are not actual properties of humans.
I’m with you on this Cliff, i’m partial to Jung and the shadow…
Holding in tension the Xian concept of original sin, when talking about the nature and manifestation of evil, I have taught my kids that the world is made of good people who sometimes make bad choices…and that sometimes those choices impact terribly upon others, that there are consequences etc etc, but that you always have the opportunity to make better choices, no matter whats gone before .
As simplistic and behavourialist as this may sound it is a liberating concept.
As an aside, denial of the shadow, almost always seems to manifest in repressed behaviour that occassionally explodes with violent consequences.
No, silkworm, I don’t believe in an interventionist personal devil.
The theological arguments on evil are interesting though – Augustine’s privatio boni isn’t very satisfying.
But that’s more theodicy than demonology.
And on the politics of evil, I’m with Cliff. And I don’t mind tanja’s Jungian take on the psychology of evil.
Hey! Look, everyone! It’s The Devil Drink!
I’m prepared to debate any of you as to my own existence.
Yeah, man, I’ll take you on.
*Picks up*
*Takes lid off*
*Glugglugglugglugglugglugglugglugglugglug …*
*Burps*
Ah, man, that was good!
Oh, you were talking metaphorically … damn!
And, um, hey, what was it that I just drunk?
Incidentally:
Holding in tension the Xian concept of original sin, when talking about the nature and manifestation of evil, I have taught my kids that the world is made of good people who sometimes make bad choices
Or sometimes evil people who can make good choices, maybe? I think evil and good are meaningful terms, actually. I draw the line at people who argue that sometimes you have to be a ‘little bad’ and embrace your ‘dark side’ to be ‘whole’. That just strikes me as moral complacency.
What a literalist interpretation, Zarquon. I remind you of that old chestnut; that those who treat individuals as compounds of chemicals are generally the ones who also want to use individuals as fertiliser. The principle applies to us non-mortals too—C2H5OH indeed!
Kim, what’s stopping you from belief in a personal interventionist devil? Note that belief in such a being/influence/tendency has little bearing on belief in a personally interventionist (or otherwise) God. Acknowledging the existence of a priori categories of things, of good and of evil, seems to me an act of faith in itself, something I think Jung recognised and dabbled in. Correct, tanja: the concept is liberating because it’s in itself a free act of faith. My question is, where’s the boundary between trendy Manicheanism and the superstitious evil-eye-prevented Satan of grandmothers worldwide? Or, for that matter, between orthodox humanist C-of-E/RC middle class Christianity and the wierd-shit made-up-on-the-spot-with-peyote occultism of Crowley et. al.?
The belief in the actual physical existence and influence of Satan, in my experience, is the skeleton in the closet of many many othewise rigidly rationalist atheists/agnostics. They can deny or doubt God and Heaven and salvation as much as they please, but to deny the palpable existence of evil? That requires superhuman blindness to the lived universe. Open the newspaper and see for yourself.
Augustine’s Confessions, since you mention it, is an exemplification of one of alcohol’s most curious side-effects. Physical pain, of course, shame for bad behaviour and disinhibition, mingled with a rather prideful remorse.
Was I really that bad? Cool.
“what was it that I just drunk?”
Something tasty, well-made and refreshing, I trust, TimT, though I note that you neither removed a cork nor a bottletop nor a ring-pull.
The poisons hotline in Australia is 13 11 26.
Wow, demonization from a demon.
I don’t deny that people do horrible things, but that’s a consequence of the way we are, not because there’s Lucifer Star of the Morning cackling on his throne and whispering in GWB’s ear. Much of the same behaviour is found in the rest of the mammal world, humans are just a bit more inventive. Are chimpanzees evil?
Figuring out why people behave the way they do and ways to deal with our tendency to take short-term advantage over long-term gain will take real research, not giving up and claiming it’s all the fault of an
Anthropomorphic Personification.Zarquon, who’s giving up, or denying the value of research? You’re the one carrying on half of this conversation with an anthromorphic personification—which neatly demonstrates that it’s very difficult for you to argue that somebody else doesn’t exist. It’s OK, you’re not the only one who belives, though I’m interested to know that I’m ‘Mister Devil’ to Anna. How do you know, AW, that my neat little Lee Marvin gravatar isn’t gender-deceptive? I presume you don’t think I actually am Lee Marvin.
He was an actor. He’s dead. I doubt, even if his soul resides interventionistically and contemporaneously with our own universe in a Judeo-Christian Heaven, that he reads this blog.
Chimpanzees aren’t naturally evil, incidentally, though you may be tempted to argue otherwise if one of them flings some well-aimed chimp shit at you.
I’ve tried whispering into GWB’s ear, but as you should know he took the temperance Pledge a while back.
Well sarcasm just moved you down a few notches on the list, D.
Would you prefer Comrade Drink? H.R.H Queen The Devil?
I’m arguing with a person, not a personification.
I have never been to Zanzibar
I always thought it was too far
You're not who you say you are
“The Devil Drink”, “Devil”, “El Diablerino”, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing…
</biglebowski>
And you believe him? Bwaaahahahaha
Personally, I don’t believe that evil, in itself, is a sufficient motivator of human action. Evil is a collectively determined category that does not, in my experience, correspond with the lived and inner experience of the “evil-doer”. To us… terrorists are evil because of what they do to us. But why do they do what they do to us? Why, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE WE ARE EVIL! Personally, I’d rather not play into their, or anyone else’s manichaean fantasies….
And to anyone who believes that I am depriving humans of moral responsibility by denying evil and the devil… I’d ask this. Are humans more or less responsible for their actions in the absence of some external and supernatural force of corruption and deception? I would agree that there is a deception involved in the formation of these categories… but it is a self-deception, and I would be cautious because I believe that such conceptual and categorical self-deception is more widespread (and even secularised) than it seems. Good and Evil are just obvious examples.
Terrorists’ opinions of others not of their ilk being evil doesn’t negate the evil means they use to further their cause.
If we were to set up a universal code of ethics wich identifies the difference between right and wrong for creatures of our level of intelligence and conscience, then we would have standards and values which indicate ‘normal’ behaviour and separate good from evil. Don’t we call this system ‘law’ or ‘justice’? Isn’t it generally organised and adjusted by the people we empower as law makers and law keepers. Therefoe we have a system in place which has identified good and evil. Mast nations on earth would judge the actions of terrorists to bee outside the law and therefore evil, regardless of their possiblee belief to the contrary.
The fact of systems of justice doesn’t indicate the presence of a devil, but it does demonstrate a high level of justice which shows that we are dependent, to a certain extent, on conscience and consensus, or, better, a consensus of conscience, as a foundational part of our law making system, whihc in turn throws up a value which demands a descriptor of what is generallyb accepted as good or generally acccepted as evil.
I don’t think the precepts and prohibitions of law and justice are at all equivalent with the categories “good” and “evil”. You are suggesting that politicians are the guardians and interpreters of moral absolutes. I don’t think any good Christian, let alone anyone secular, would condone that.
“They are evil because they do evil to us” pretty much sums up what evil, for all practical purposes, actually means.
So when a lawmaker says it’s wrong/evil to steal another’s property, or kill them or rape them, invade their homes, etc, they are not making moral judgements as well as legal?
Tsk, tsk Faithlift.
You have sinned today by failing to observe the requirement to rest on the Sabbath.
I don’t deny that lawmakers will often use conventional morality as a guide in the making of laws. Laws prohibiting murder, theft, fraud and for the enforcement of contracts are no-brainers… and if that’s all you were saying then all I can say is “WELL, DUH!”
I think your statement actually implied something more substantial and less obvious; i.e. that the State
definesmoral boundaries itself. This is far more contentious. The same state also sanctions abortion. The same state tolerates homosexuality, atheism, and even Satanism. Many would say that this is immoral… nay, even EVIL.Sure, there is a sense in which the State takes guidance from notions of good and evil… but not entirely. Modern states are also based on a different kind of ethical base from that which gave us the notion of sin, and good and evil.
You may wish, Facelift, in your wildest fantasies, that the State would put the full force of its power behind policing the boundaries between good and evil in their entirety… but the question will arise, “whose Good and Evil?”. The choice would yield a theocracy… or something analogous.