Another Reflection on Homosexuality

So, I recently started translating through the Didache, mostly just because I haven’t really done it before. The Didache was written between 70-80 C.E. and it is essentially an early church catechism used for teaching new Christians. The thing which intrigues me most about the Didache, and probably confuses most modern theologians, is that it is entirely practice and not theology based. There is no exposition about God, the nature of Christ, or justification. All the things we deem so important in the modern Church weren't even in the basic catechism of the late first century. Instead, it was all about how to follow the path Jesus taught and repeats His teaching from the Gospels, especially the Sermon on the Mount, almost verbatim from the start, calling it the “Path of Life.”

When I’ve been going through it,one of the things which has caught my attention in this work is in the first chapter or so where among the "you will nots" which it repeats is found a word which means "you will not corrupt boys." Given the widespread Greco-Roman practice of pederasty, I think it's pretty clear as to what it is referring, that is, child molestation. However, there is no mention of any word which we would normally translate as "homosexual" such as “arsenokoites” or “malakos.” This, in my opinion, does lend credence to the idea that the homosexuality to which Paul was referring in 1 Corinthians 6 was of the pederasty kind when he used those terms, as within 20 years of Paul's execution, this and not what our society would consider acceptable homosexual relations was what was warned about. This being said, the religious practice and standard within the early church was still chastity or celibacy outside of legally recognized marriage.

It seems to me that the churches would not have ousted someone for their sexual preferences, but for expressing them in any other way than what was sanctioned by the church, being marriage. Within marriage is the capability of the sacrificial love and the expression of Christ lived out towards one another. It isn't about one's happiness or self-fulfillment, but about one's identification with Christ in His death, being co-crucified with Him. The seeking of multiple uncommitted partners, regardless of sex or gender, is all about one's own pleasure and personal happiness, and is incompatible with the Path of Jesus Christ. I think there is still much discussion to be done on this topic, but the goal and guiding principle to our Christian practice must always be remaining in Christ and shedding those things which are impediments to this.

The only sexual relationship recognized by the church since the beginning is a marital relationship. As I have written, marriage within the church is a devotion to Jesus Christ and it is a special focus of surrendering and sacrificing yourself for your spouse as Christ did for the church. It is, in effect, a church sanctioned special dispensation from the rule. Otherwise, the standard within Christian practice is total celibacy. Any kind of promiscuity, regardless of sexual orientation, is an impediment to remain in Jesus Christ. As Paul recognized, there are two or three reasons for this special dispensation. The first mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7 is that "it is better to marry than to burn", presumably referring to one's natural sexual drive overtaking a person. Otherwise, there were family duties and obligations to consider to produce children and heirs. But it is this first one which I want to consider here, as it is clearly a legitimate reason for Christian marriage according to Paul, and even Jesus said not everyone can accept being made a eunuch for the kingdom of God.

We now know through various studies that homosexuality is more than a person's choice of lifestyle. There are real differences when comparing a homosexual person's brain with a heterosexual person's brain. And, from what I understand, among these people, it is either very difficult, or simply not possible for them to become sexually aroused or interested by the opposite sex in the same way that it would be difficult or impossible for a heterosexual person to be. This does not mean, however, that they do not have a sex drive, or that they will not struggle with that sex drive. But laying out for them that the only way they will be able to resolve that struggle in a way which does not form an impediment to remaining in Christ is to be joined with someone of the opposite sex to whom they are not sexually attracted does not solve this problem and only creates far more. I am thinking of a recent story I read where a homosexual man who was a Christian married a woman, had children with her, but struggled so much that he ended up divorcing her so that he could go be with men romantically. This story is, to my understanding, not unique, and this situation could have been avoided completely if he had been permitted to enter into a marriage with someone of the same sex, and applied the same understanding of Ephesians 5 to that marital commitment.

These are questions that pastors and theologians who are sincere and want to teach the Path of Jesus Christ with compassion and truth need to be able to address honestly. We cannot, as followers of Jesus Christ, embrace promiscuity on any level, regardless of sexual orientation, as it is clearly not about remaining in Christ but about fulfilling one's own fantasies and desires. But neither can we honestly set a person up to fail like this either. This is not compassion, and certainly not loving these people as Christ taught us. 

A Ramble About Freeing My Mind

I was rewatching the Matrix tonight. Where philosophical concepts are concerned, this particular film is the gift that keeps on giving. But what stood out to me tonight is when Morpheus tells Neo, “Free your mind.” In the context of the film, Morpheus was testing Neo on how much he had absorbed in his training in terms of martial arts, and Kung Fu specifically.

At first, regardless of Neo’s obvious mastery of the art, he keeps ending up on the floor, defeated by the seemingly faster and stronger Morpheus. The older man asks him, “How did I beat you?” To which Neo replies, gasping for breath and sweating, “You’re too fast.” To this Morpheus replies, “Do you really think that my strength and my speed have anything to do with my muscles in this place?” And then he asks, “Do you really think that’s air you’re breathing. Free your mind, Neo.”

Neo was still operating under the experience of reality that had been programmed into his memories all of his life. Reality was supposed to be a certain way. Even when exposed to the truth that what he had assumed was reality was in fact a computer simulation, Neo continued to operate as though it weren’t because that’s what he had always done even though he knew the truth.

After Neo realizes the truth of what Morpheus is saying, he takes the lesson to heart and becomes faster, stronger, and eventually able to pin Morpheus to the wall, his fist inches from Morpheus’ face. But even then, he still cannot seem to let go of his prior experience and “programming” in order to be who he truly is at that moment.

Today, my wife confronted me with a truth that was very similar to Morpheus’. I have trouble with making and keeping close friends. This is no mystery to anyone who had met me. This holds doubly true when making friends with older men who might become mentors or “father figures” to me. But the reasons why I have trouble stem from my past and the memories and patterns of thinking and behaving I have which were formed prior to my neurofeedback treatments. Even though I can generally read people now (when I’m not stressed or overwhelmed), and emotions come in real time, I am still operating as though I had not had those treatments in many cases. This is unconscious to be sure. I don’t intend to do it any more than Neo intended to forget he was in a computer program and he wasn’t actually winded or breathing air there at all. I have the same problem Neo did. I have the neurological or “hardware” capacity for more and deeper relationships, but I am not going there because those experiences and memories with which I was initially “programmed” are still calling the shots.

I have been thinking on this since. And my thought is this, all of that prior programming which is still affecting my thinking and behavior is essentially fiction at this point.

What do I mean by this? Do I mean those events and experiences which reside in my memory never happened? No. But they do not exist now. Right now. In this moment. They are as true in this moment as the events of the Matrix movie. I am no longer the same person. Those people I interacted with are no longer the same people. The situations and circumstances of those experiences lodged in my memories are only as real now as my memories of them which is like watching old movies of my life.

Using those events to predetermine and place limitations on the outcomes of new experiences and circumstances is just as erroneous as Neo sweating and breathing hard on the computer construct dojo mat. He had to confront the truth that the dojo and even the air he was breathing so heavily weren’t even real. And so also I have to confront that the memories of those experiences which still cause me to physically shudder, or cause panic attacks, or send me into a sadness or anger, are no longer real either.

Another image which stood out to me is the final fight between Neo and Agent Smith. Smith never addresses Neo by that name. He always addresses him by the name the Matrix gave him, “Mr. Anderson.” Agent Smith is the personification of Neo’s prior programming and past trying to force him back, torturing and beating him relentlessly and sadistically. In Agent Smith, I saw my own experiences and memories doing the same to me, keeping me from making new relationships unaffected by those that came beforehand, relentless trying to force me to submit to that original programming.

It is the easier thing to let my mind operate on the prior programming. It is the easier thing to allow that prior programming to determine the limitations of future outcomes, whether or not it is erroneous and I know it. As Morpheus told Neo, “knowing the path, and walking the path are two very different things.”

In this things, I am also reminded of what Jesus taught when He said, “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” And also, “Don’t worry about tomorrow, sufficient for the day is its own trouble.” I am also reminded of what Paul wrote to the Philippians when he said, “Forgetting those things behind, and reaching forward to those things in front...” It has also occurred to me that freedom from Hamartia in Jesus Christ is also freeing one’s mind from the prior programming of Hamartia through union with Him and being a vessel and vehicle for Christ.

In the end, Neo had to die and resurrect to fully realize who he was. It was only after his resurrection that the projectiles fired at him from those agents trying to force his submission could not touch him. There is a great truth here for the Christian as well. In the Scriptures, Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:16, “above all, taking up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one.” (WEB) It took Neo’s death and resurrection for him to finally believe the truth, and in believing that truth, those bullets were harmless to him. So also it takes our submission to the death of Jesus Christ, recognizing His death as our own and that it is now Christ who lives within us, that such projectiles of the prior programming might become harmless to us.

Finally, there is the “candidate” boy who tells Neo, “Don’t try to bend the spoon, that’s impossible. Rather only try to realize the truth, and you will see that it is you who bends.” To which Neo asks, “And what is the truth?” The boy replies, “That there is no spoon.” Just like the memory of the experience which haunts me, torments me, and screams at me to act in a certain way is in fact, right here and right now, a total fiction. The experience which is dictating my behavior simply doesn’t exist, and rather than trying to impossibly change that experience over and over in my head, reliving it needlessly, I must realize the truth that the experience which torments me does not exist any longer and only has life because I continue to hold onto it in my mind.

I think I’m going to hold onto the following words for a while and let them remind me of these things.

Free your mind. Do you really think that’s air you’re breathing? There is no spoon.

A Short Ramble About Suffering

"Suffering is bad. Why does a good God permit suffering?" This is "the" question for many people that can either make or break their faith. The unspoken part of that question is however, "when it happens to me or those I care about or identify with."

We have this thing in our heads that informs us that those things we like are "good" and those things we don't are "bad" and consequently should be stopped in some way. We cling to those things we call "good" and we push away those things we call "bad." We're afraid of losing those things we call "good" and we're afraid of gaining those things we call "bad." This fear ultimately leads to suffering. Suffering then is a result of whether or not we cling to or push away the things that come into our sphere of interaction or experience.

The reality is that painful or contrary events happen to everyone at some point. Whether those events are "good" or "bad" is heavily dependent on whether we like or dislike them. This is also why, many years after the event, we can look back and label a painful event "good" because the consequences of the event may have produced an outcome we find desirable such as a new outlook on life, new relationships, or a positive direction. In the same way, if the event does not produce a result we consider positive, we continue to label it "bad."

Painful events are a part of being a human being just as much as they are a part of life for any other animal on the planet. Consider the deer which is hunted by the pack of wolves. Consider the lion cubs that are killed by a rival to their father to stimulate their mother's reproductive cycle. Consider the cat or dog that is hit by the car trying to cross a busy street. These too experience painful events for no other reason than this is simply what happens to living beings and trying to isolate yourself from such events is futile, selfish, and useless.

But why does a good God permit painful events at all? God is good, and He permits "life" to happen to us. Those painful events are a part of living, and the only persons that don't experience them are non-living and in the grave. Painful experiences teach us far more than pleasurable ones and they keep our eyes open to the realities of life as opposed to the illusions we tend to create for ourselves. Much of the time it is this disillusionment which causes the most pain to us as those things we fear happening come to pass. A good God could do no less than to permit this to happen for our own good, regardless of the pain it brings.

This does not mean He is without empathy for our pain, He knows it very well and can feel it just as much as we do. He mourns and weeps with us, and is right there with us as we experience it. But He does not always heal the illness. He does not always shrink the tumor. He does not always allow the job you want. He does not always prevent death. These things are a part of being a part of this creation.

He would not be a good God if He did prevent you from experiencing suffering.