Clarifying Gender Identity

So, probably like a lot of you, my Facebook feed has been filled with various perspectives on bathrooms. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation about various statuses related to what transgender really is. Much of it seems to be related to our sex-obsessed culture that seems to see sex in everything.

Gender identity simply has to do with whether someone identifies as male, female, both, or neither. When one's gender identity doesn't match their biological sex, that is when the term "transgender" starts to be used (although it's more complicated than that, as well, such as genderqueer, but we'll keep it simple here). Also, know that there are not necessarily just two genders--other cultures around the world have more than one gender that does not necessarily correlate to biological sex (Samoan culture is one good example).

To be clear, transgender has nothing to do with sexual orientation. People make this mistake a lot, likely in part because "T" is part of "LGBTQ," although it's one of the most misunderstood of the letters. Sexual orientation/sexuality has to do with who you are sexually attracted to.

People who identify as transgender can be considered heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. The orientation is defined by their gender identity rather than their biological sex. And again, don't assume sexuality has anything to do with gender identity.

Transgenderism also is not the same thing as masculinity or femininity. These latter two concepts are related to cultural-specific expressions of gender. Masculine women and feminine men are not transgender. Again, biological females who have a masculine tendencies who still identify as women are still women. They're not transgender. And they're not necessarily lesbians. I've seen posts going around confusing masculinity/femininity with gender identity. They're not at all the same thing. Boys who play with dolls are not necessarily either gay or consider themselves to female. They're just expressing behaviors that our society labels as more feminine.

Transgenderism is not the same thing as transvestite or cross-dressing. Some people, for a variety of reasons, like to dress as the opposite gender at times. Despite the appearance, this has nothing to do with gender identity. It's closer to the masculinity/femininity discussion above. Cross-dressing also does not necessarily mean anything about sexual orientation. Biological men who are heterosexual sometimes dress as women. They never actually identify as a woman nor as gay.

It's interesting to pay attention to research on transgenderism. Discrepancy with one's gender usually starts very early and causes significant distress. More masculine or feminine expression doesn't solve it because it's not as much about expression as it is identity--being able to considered male or female. Transitioning to the other gender relieves that distress, which I think conveys something significant about how real it is. (Of course, we cannot understate that transitioning also adds a whole lot more due to societal non-acceptance. Transgender populations have one of the absolutely highest suicide rates because of this.)

I find it quite interesting that people of many faiths are increasingly able to accept non-heterosexual orientations, but are quick to reject transgenderism, which has to do with identity more than behavior. Morality is fundamentally about behavior rather than identity. Identify informs behavior, and when we have identity conflicts, bad things happen.

The only argument I've heard against transgenderism is that God creates everyone and doesn't make mistakes, so therefore transgenderism isn't "real." One only needs to scratch the surface of birth defects to undermine that argument, which is also extremely poor theology.

So if you're going to make arguments for or against policies and laws related to transgenderism, please be informed with fully accurate information. It's also important to listen to real people's stories and stop sexualizing everything. Accurate knowledge allows us to have adult conversations rather than promote ignorant fear mongering.

Faith, Gender Identity, and Suicide @DavidOlson11

Back in November, one of our local freeway interchanges was shut down after a man suicided by jumping off the overpass. I recently discovered that man was a transgendered woman, Kaylee Johnson, who also struggled with her faith because of gender identity issues. David Olson's article about Johnson stated:

Johnson had a hard time reconciling her faith in God with her gender identity, after leaving the Mormon faith she grew up with and relied on for support, because she didn’t feel accepted by the church. 

She was stung by rejection from people she loved and whose acceptance she desperately wanted, especially some members of her family, Chambers said.

I didn't know Johnson, so I can't speak to what influenced this final attempt. But as Olson's article states, many transgendered people struggle with faith and consider or attempt suicide. A lot of focus has been on the impact of religion on homosexuality and suicide, as I've written about before. While this awareness is wonderful, anyone familiar with LGBT issues know the T usually gets the least attention. And those falling in the T category are often even more misunderstood than non-heterosexual orientation. Greater misunderstanding=greater persecution.

Regardless of one's beliefs on LGBT issues, I hope all can agree that suicide is tragic and not a desirable outcome. Everyone, especially those of us from faith communities, need to act in ways that prevent such destruction, not contribute to it. People of the Christian faith need to remember that Jesus loved, supported, valued, and spent almost all of his time with the people who were misunderstood, rejected, and devalued. That sort of action positively changed lives, unlike the condemning and criticizing and judging of the Pharisees.

We have the opportunity to literally save people's lives by how we treat them. And even for those who value the next life more than the current one--we can't save someone if they're dead. So please, remember our faith-based priorities when encountering those who are different from and those we don't understand. It could be the difference between life and death. Literally.

Romance Sans Sexuality

Related to yesterday's post about celibacy and romance, I've noticed that a lot of romance is rooted in sexuality. Taking a holistic, incarnational perspective that values the body and not create a dualistic mind-body split, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Ultimately, can romance be separated from sexuality? How would you define romance? What is different about romantic love than friendship love or family love?

Marital Problems

I have posted several times about marriage and how we have a romanticized perspective of it. Science and Religion Today hosted a challenging (and I would argue controversial) post on considering if we should change our expectations about spousal sexual faithfulness. The author argues that by loosening the reigns on sexual fidelity, relational faithfulness can increase. He states:

But even as we allow for less fidelity, we may find our relationships enriched with greater faithfulness. When an occasional casual sexual adventure is no longer an existential threat to a marriage, it may become something partners can choose to share openly with each other, thereby increasing their own sense of intimacy and trust.

I'm not sure I buy it, but it's interesting to ponder, especially if we take the same process of managing anxiety to increase religious faith. Perhaps what we need to do is not necessarily lower our sexual standards, but put less emphasis on them so we are less anxious about them.

The same blog also summarized another study that found divorce clusters in social networks. Does that mean divorce is contagious? Or socially more acceptable when there are other divorcees? Or perhaps there is a lack of relational health in groups. It will be interesting if other pick up these findings and explore the possible causes more.

Polarized Thinking in the Church

Last year, when I was running group on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), we would often discuss polarized thinking (also known as black-and-white or dichotomous thinking). In exploring how this can be damaging, people often discuss how it hurts ourselves. But I also think it's important to point out how it hurts others.

When we view people with our dichotomous thinking, we often thinking of them as either perfect or horrible (this idea is known as splitting). While it can feel good to be thought of as perfect, it is also anxiety provoking and setting others up for failure.

A perfect example is clergy. As a society, we often view clergy as perfect (or supposed to be perfect). A perfect example of this expectation of perfection is when people make mistakes. We've had several big-name pastors "fall" in the last couple of years.

We're never shocked when an actor has an affair (or even a politician), but a pastor? What makes them so special that they are free from temptation and sin? Really, they're more susceptible to such problems because of how the church community uses and abuses pastors.

So we hold this view of perfection, then the person doesn't meet that expectation, and so they move to the opposite extreme. This is not healthy, helpful, or biblical. Jonathan Brink wrote a nice post regarding Ted Haggard and the shock people have that he could start a new church. He also has nice, but sad joke about the situation.

But seriously. Why can't he start and led a church? He should not have been kicked out of his last church, in my opinion. He's human. He's made mistakes. That's what would make him a GOOD pastor! But then again, he moved into the area of sexual sin, the black hold of evil...

Sex, Porn, & Marriage Redeux

On the heels of last week's series on unmet marriage needs, focusing on sex, I read two articles from two separate Christian magazines relating to this issue.

The first is from Christianity Today, reporting on a New York Times article on gay marriage and how many gay male partnerships are open relationships. As they point out in the article, this situation has ironically strengthened the endurance of the relationships. Again, I'm not advocating for open marriages, but the facts should make us think about our assumptions.

The second is from Relevant, discussing the idea of emotional pornography. I love the line the author wrote, stating "Just as there is sexual excitement surrounding the mystery and allure of what flesh might be seen in a movie known for its racy reputation, so too are we drawn in with an anticipation for the emotional and physical high of a romance film." I recommend you continue to read the article. It brings up some excellent points, including how emotionally relationships media often encourages can actually be counter-productive. I thought of Shakespeare in Love in particular...

Unmet Marriage Needs, Part 3 of 3

So continuing from the last two days, sex is a need at some level. If it's not being adequately met (and it's not met in many marriages), how can that need be met without destroying the marriage?

One option is masturbation, with or without porn. Christians have a lot to say on both masturbation and porn, often with passionate arguments on both sides. My supervisor recently gave a lecture to a group of female nurses on sex addiction. He started by asking them if their husbands were masturbating to an image of a beautiful nude woman on their computer screen, how many would consider that cheating. Only about 1/3 raised their hands. Adjusting the situation, the woman is now in the room, while the man is doing nothing different. Now the whole audience thought it was cheating. Sure, there are dynamics as to why the man would be in the same room as the nude woman. However, the action itself is the same, under slightly different circumstances.

This emphasizes the very fine line between what is considered cheating and what is not. Affairs are a clear example of being on the cheating side (that's the definition of affair). But what about blow-up dolls and other anatomically-correct tools to self-stimulate?

So then there's the option of an open marriage. Both parties agree that sexual needs are not being met within the relationship, so they agree to let them be met in other ways.

Interestingly, most people are more appalled at the idea of an open marriage than affairs. We are not shocked to hear spouses straying. We're not even shocked by pastors having affairs. Yet a couple has found (what they believe to be) a mutually satisfactory solution to a problem in their lives in which they can protect their marriage. The couple in House brought up this point. I think it's an excellent one and shows the hypocrisy of much of our societal judgment on sexuality.

This reminds me of a point a friend made about a group he knew of that attempted to "help" homosexuals. In the group, the people were encouraged to discussed ways they "slipped" into having a one-night-stand or anonymous sex. But talk about a meaningful relationship, and you're out of the group. Interesting approach that is very similar to this topic.

How can we approach the topic of unmet sexual needs without condemning and while finding a satisfactory solution. Open marriage and affairs are not particularly satisfactory on a theological, psychological, and emotional level. Masturbation for most people is not satisfactory on a physiological level (or emotional level due to the lack of emotional intimacy).

Many marriages have unmet sexual needs due to relational, physiological, emotional, and psychological reasons. As I provide therapy to these couples (or an individual), I would not be sure what to suggest. There does not seem like a good solution about ways to get these needs met.

Of course, to complicate and at time negate this whole conversation, it's also important to remember that sexual desire is also a symbol for other desires within a relationship and may, in fact, have nothing really to do with sex...

Unmet Marriage Needs, Part 2 of 3

Yesterday, I introduced the topic of unmet needs in a marriage and how they can be met outside of the marriage. At least this is true for most needs. The problem is in the area of sexual needs.

The reason I put the spoiler alert yesterday for House is that last week's episode had open marriage as a central topic (and got me thinking about this topic, so hat tip to the screenwriters! :)). For those who don't know, an open marriage is one in which the partners are free to have sex with other people without it being considered cheating.

The physicians were largely appalled by the idea of an open marriage. However, the woman (the one who had asked for the open marriage) said the reason she wanted the open marriage was because she loved her husband. Huh? That's surprising to most people. But let's follow her logic for a moment. She said her husband meets 90% of her needs. The 10% can be draining and can take away from her appreciation of that 90%. And she doesn't want to let that go. I have to say that's a very valid point, although the solution of an open marriage is still questionable at best. But let's explore this a bit more.

Maslow puts sex as a fundamental, physiological need. It's more fundamental than relationships. It's at the same level as food, sleep, and breathing. Now, I would argue that we can survive without having intercourse, but sexual arousal will occur whether or not we like it (ever heard of a wet dream?). We can argue how fundamental a need sex is, but many theorists have emphasized the importance of sex. So I would say sexual need is something that needs to be legitimately looked at within a marriage.

The difficulty is the complexity of sex. There is the "pure horniness" factor, which solely deals with physiologic arousal. Then there's the sexual intimacy, which includes a relational element. Maslow puts that much higher on his hierarchy (meaning, it's not as fundamental to life).

Unmet Marriage Needs, Part 1 of 3

Due to the controversial and sensitive nature of sexuality (the point of this 3 part post), I feel the need to remind readers that the purpose of this blog is bring up questions and struggles many people may have. Playing the devil's advocate is a very effective and good way to combat group think, which I believe is a major threat to authentic faith. I am NOT advocating for a particular position here, but rather pointing out an area of life that we, as a society, have not adequately addressed.

I also need to add a spoiler alert if you watch House and haven't seen last week's episode (the spoiler really won't affect much, though).

As I have mentioned before, marriage is not necessarily meant to meet all needs for individual. It hopefully meets most, but no individual or relationship is perfect, so not all needs will be met. This can create a variety of problems due to the modern romanticized marriage in which we expect all needs to be met in that single relationship. I think that's part of the reason the first year of marriage is so hard: It's beginning to debunk that myth.

In truly traditional marriage (not the false traditional marriage that is really based on a model of the 1950s), a person's needs were met in community. That takes pressure off the spouse to be everything to an individual. It's also useful for when one individual is incapacitated in some way (illness, death, etc.).

Now most needs if not fully met can be met outside of the marriage. For instance, (and again, I'm not saying my wife does not meet any of these--my phrasing is for the use of argument) is not emotionally available to me. Well, I can go to friends. Frankly, most spouses are not always emotionally available (they can't be), so we NEED friends. Or if my wife is not available to do hobbies with, then I can do that with a friend. Even for chores around the house, I could hire a housekeeper.

All of these are socially, religiously, and psychologically acceptable means to getting needs met. In fact, they can help prevent divorce and affairs. Many affairs begin when one partner is not getting all of his or her (yes, her) needs met. It could even be 90%, but when we are missing something, we focus on that. So we find someone who meets that other 10%, feel filled up by them and think they're the solution. Then you have an affair, followed by divorce. And the cycle repeats. Recognizing the limitations of marriage and finding ways to get the needs met in a healthy way can help prevent this breakdown.

But how do we deal with this when sex is the unmet need? More on that tomorrow...

Article Round-up

It's done! I took the EPPP this weekend. Now I have to wait for the scores... Interestingly, I'm more afraid of the shame of failing than having to study more and spend the money again (although I really don't want to do either of those). That could be an interesting topic for another time.

In any case, here's some articles I've found interesting over the last week or so.

Starting off with a devotional, Day 28 of Dr. Larry Crabb's Lenten devotionals is particularly good!

This is a great article on depression and the church and some of the weaknesses of the church in affecting depression.

Who Are the De-Churched. This is a REALLY good article. I feel quite similar to the relationally de-churched. It's stuff we've discussed a few times on this blog.

Elemental Preaching. This is a great article on the purpose of preaching written by my pastor from my time in Berkeley. He's a great guy with great ideas.

3 Lies the Church Tells About Sex. Pretty self-explanatory article. And VERY accurate, with significant implication.

Breaking Through Workaholism. I need to internalize several of these. :)

How (and How Not) to Bring Christ to Work. I like the Incarnational emphasis on this. Very relevant to other discussions on evangelism on this blog.

When It's Good to Get Mad. Another article with some topics that we've hit on here before.

Accountability Partner or Parole Officer?

I was thinking recently about the ideas of accountability partners. I've never liked the idea of them, and I think I finally know why.

The theology of accountability partners is in many ways rooted in the moralism my friend discussed on here yesterday. It's about being morally holy all the time. Avoiding doing bad rather than encouraging to do right (there can be that, but really the point of these partnerships is avoiding sin).

From this perspective, accountability partners are almost more like parole officers: You were just released from prison (saved from Hell by Christ), but you still need to check in with your PO regularly because if you do something wrong, you'll just go right back. The goal is to keep you out of prison rather than building you up and growing you.

While it can be good to have someone help keep you away from doing wrong, there is so much more to life and our spiritualities than that. Really, moving away from sin is part of moving towards Christ. So spiritual formation partnerships more along the lines of spiritual directors seem a lot more biblical and helpful.

Additionally, accountability partners are often thrown together and expected to be totally honest with one another. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If anything, it would lead to more denial, which just causes more problems. And further, from what I hear, accountability partners usually give overly simplistic answers to complex problems. Not that they are honestly trying to help to the best of their abilities, but it just doesn't seem to be all that great.

It's not great in part because it's so shame-focused. "How did you screw up this week?" is kind of the theme of accountability. I think a better question is "What did you do right?" And rather than giving an simple answer to screwing up, we should ask, "How can I help you?" Just reminding other people to not do certain things is rarely helpful. And frankly, temptation is not always indicative of spiritual weakness; it can be a sign of something deeper going on.

An example of this is sexuality. And let's be honest, when people talk about accountability partners with regards to men, it's about sex. The list of no-nos for men who are in accountability partnerships are likely to include: lust, noticing another woman, thinking about another woman, dreaming about another woman, and the biggest sin: masturbation.

While these things could be problematic as an addiction, they can also indicate that there are relationship problems going on. Just as I talk about with symptom management in psychology, these "sins" may actually just be the symptom of something else and only focusing on the symptom ignores the problem, making it come out in another way.

Accountability is an important thing, but it should occur within the context of a supportive, encouraging, trustworthy relationship. What do you think?

Gleaning Jellyfish from John Piper

This review of John Piper's A Sweet & Bitter Providence: Sex, Race, and the Sovereignty of God was made possible through receipt of a complimentary audiobook copy through christianaudio's Reviewers Program.

In having the opportunity to review, I thought it would be good to finally hear some of Piper's word directly since I have heard almost unilaterally negative things about him. It's much better to be informed about good or bad things about an author, speaker, etc. than just hearsay.

That said, this book met my expectations. And I have to say, Piper is not quite as bad as I had heard. It's an okay book, but one I would generally recommend not reading (or listening to).

First of all, christianaudio lists the audiobook as running 3.8 hours. All the files downloaded fine, but it only ran about 2.8. That was about 2.7 hours too long. I actually almost stopped listening a couple of times because I got so frustrated with Piper's writing and assumptions. He does not back up what he says, and he often repeats himself (not even phrasing his arguments in new ways). And then there's the metaphors. Random, non-applicable metaphors. Like Piper saying we should look to the snow instead of our statues in our Swedish home and that we should be dolphins in the ocean of culture instead of jellyfish. I still don't understand that one... However, I wanted to finish the book so I could give it an honest review.

I think the best way to break down the review is by breaking down the title.

First of the all, the title is misleading. It sounds like a bit of a devotional book: Seeing God's providence in one's own life. Piper states this is the purpose of the book. However, my wife, who listened to most of it with me, stated, "How does anyone actually get anything out of this? It sounds more like a linguistic, historical book." That's pretty accurate.

It really is an exegesis of the Book of Ruth that wants to be a devotional, but doesn't achieve either well. Each chapter starts with a chapter of the book of Ruth (Chapter 1 of Piper to Chapter 1 of Ruth, and so on), and then Piper analyzes it verse-by-verse. The problem is he does not explain his analysis well. He constantly cites Bible verses without explaining their relevance and his interpretation of them. This really distracts from the narration, particularly in an audiobook format. It would have been better to have the citations listed as footnotes. And even though he does not explain his analysis well, his citation of verses and absolute statements make it appear that he cannot deal with ambiguity well, but rather has to state that everything he believes is absolutely true with no possibility of error despite human frailties.

Piper also seems to base linguistic interpretations based on a modern English translation. I have not studied Ruth in depth, so I cannot speak to the original author's intent for sure, but I'm guessing Piper read into some phrases that were more figurative colloquialisms than literal declarations.

For a devotional text, whichever translation he used (not sure which) was not very friendly to associating with the text. For instance, my wife started counting the number of times the word glean (and its derivatives) was used in just a couple of minutes. While most of us know what it means, it's really an outdated term.

Piper focuses his analysis on three primary themes: sex, race, and God's sovereignty/providence. Let's look at each of these themes separately:

God's Sovereignty/Providence. I'm starting with this theme because it really is the predominant theme. Most of the book looks at this. I don't disagree with Piper that God is sovereign and makes all things work for good. However, Piper made me realize that I am not a strict or strong Calvinist. He seems to go out of his way to defend God's sovereignty and providence, again reading into the text things that really aren't there, or at least not meant to be as strong as he makes them out to be.

Also, he is clearly a strong Calvinist, advocating strict predestination to the point that everything is not only in God's control, but caused by God. He references a missionary whose wife and kid were killed by a single bullet. The missionary and Piper argued that God ordained the bullet to kill them. Piper argues if that's not the case, then God is not sovereign and everything would fall apart. God is sovereign (in complete control) and his providence is good (he works through all things to make them good) but that does not mean he causes everything bad. Sometimes he lets bad things happen because of our own sinfulness (or others' sinfulness) and because we are in a broken world. That does not mean he is not able to intervene; he just does not always. But that also does not mean he cannot or will not use the bad to create something good, which I think is what happens. John Eldredge would argue that a lot of the bad is not caused by God, but in fact by Satan. Piper has a de-facto belief in the absence of Satan by attributing all activities to God. It's a slippery slope (and that's not arguing for the existence of Satan as an actual entity).

Sex. This is the next largest theme for Piper. And it's a stretch. I agree with his value of saving sex for marriage, but he also promises that all will be blessed for doing so. A friend and I were talking recently that just because we may save our sexuality for marriage does not mean it all works out beautifully. And Piper goes into random tangential mini-sermons on sex, detracting from the overall narrative. Again, he just reads too much into things.

Race. This is the biggest stretch of all and the most minor part of the book. It should not be included in the title. Piper argues that the inclusion of a Moabite (Ruth) in the lineage of Jesus shows that we should not be racist. Okay, racism sucks. Agreed. But find a better way to argue against it. Seriously.

Finally, to the narration. Grover Gardner is the narrator and is an excellent narrator. He is easy to listen to, and he enunciates well. I've listened to plenty of audiobooks where it can actually be hard to understand the reader. However, the problem is that this books comes off in a very intellectual, lecture-like way. Piper says a main point of the book is to advocate for "radical, risk-taking love," but I did not hear any heart in the book. I don't know if that's because there was no heart in it or because Gardner read it more as an intellectual lecture than something from the heart. My preference is for authors to read their books themselves. John Eldredge is a good example of that. The author's intent and heart really comes through much better that way.

So if you're really into theology or are a strong Calvinist, you may like this book. Otherwise, don't bother.

Sex Offenders

Continuing from yesterday's post on sexuality, I want to make some comments about the way we treat sex offenders. I want to clarify that I am not excusing any of the crimes, but I also do not believe we treat the offenders fairly, in large part because of the taboo on sexuality.

One of my classmates allowed me to upload her presentation on sex offender housing. It includes some stats and background information on sex offenders, which you may find interesting. You may have also seen some articles on a recent law passed in Georgia that bans sex offenders from engaging in church volunteer work. Yes, you read that correctly.

The arguments for these bans and for housing restrictions on sex offenders usually rests on the emotionally-charged plea to protect our children. Fair enough. These people violated others, and children are vulnerable.

It's not that simple, though.

Most sex offenders did not do anything sexual to a child. Most are disgusted by the idea and would defend children against child predators. Yet the law makes no distinction between a child rapist and the college mooner. Both must register as a sex offender for life, cannot live near schools ever, and in Georgia, cannot formally exercise their faith doing church volunteer work.

Something is seriously wrong with that.

I understand and agree with the heart of these laws. However, I believes the laws are wrong. They need to be more specific and tailored to do what they actually aim to do. We also need to remember that sex offenders are still people. If we become a bit more informed as to what qualifies as a sex offense, we may not judge "sex offenders" so harshly right away because many offenses are not as high on our hierarchy of sin...

Dan Kimball & Sex

It looks like Dan Kimball and Vintage Faith are doing a good job of balancing a commitment to their values, accepting and loving people with open arms, and inviting and encouraging open and honest dialogue. Great question at the end of his post!

Taboo: Sexuality

This is a big taboo, particularly within American Christianity. The sexual sins are often considered the worst. Now, I'm not making any comments here about what is appropriate and not appropriate sexual behavior. Rather, I want to focus more on how we treat people who fall outside of our expectations of what is sexually normal appropriate, whatever our norms are. As a Church, we usually get caught up debating the rights and wrongs of behaviors (from a propositional Christianity standpoint) and forget that we still have to deal with the people who fall. Regardless of our judgments of right and wrong, I want to focus on the process of dealing with the people.

A perfect example of this was by someone who once told me, "I could be next to a murderer in church, but I could never stand and worship next to a homosexual." Wow. Again, regardless of perspective of homosexuality, I think this is just plain wrong. It's bad theology and bad relationships.

Where does the Bible state that sexual sins are the worst? My theology has always stated that all sins are equal, the "little white lie" equaling murder because all sins separate us from God. So where do we, as mere mortal humans, get off creating a hierarchy of sin? It's probably safe to say that all societies have a hierarchy of sin (put into other words), but why are the sexual sins so high up in our society?

This isn't anything new, for people who think our society is just prudish. Old Testament theophanies always avoid the genital regions, usually interpreted as occurring because the Jewish people did not believe God could or should be sexualized. God can have a full body, but not genitalia. The asexual perspective of Heaven is satirized in the movie Dogma, with a lack of sexual apparatuses in the angels.

And it's not even appropriate in most circles to think that Jesus may have ever gotten an erection, ejaculated (even in his sleep), or been physically attracted to anyone, despite Him being fully human. Gasp! I think that's why there was so much uproar over the idea that He may have married. That would mean that Jesus had a penis! Oh, my! How terrifying!! I don't think Jesus married, but it's not because of a lack of sexuality (this is another topic for another time).

The taboo on sexuality causes a lot of problems, not the least of which is sexual dysfunction and fears within the Christian community. The need for Christian counselors is huge, probably because people want to talk about sexual issues with someone who shares their values because it is unacceptable to talk about sexuality in the church. How sad. It's a major part of our lives. One could argue an entire book of the Bible (Song of Solomon) was dedicated to sexuality. Yet we can only disucss it in propositional terms. The church does not accept discussion about the mystery and journey of sex in all its forms.

I think we need to re-evaluate our taboos...