Saturday, May 28, 2011

Intrinsically Sexual


. . .Sexuality is crucial to God's design that [we] do not dwell in isolation and loneliness but in communion and community. Through the incarnation, God not only participates in human sexual experiences but God is intrinsically sexual.

– Ng Chin-pang


Taken from Courage To Love: Liturgies for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community (compiled by Geoffrey Duncan, Pilgrim Press, 2002) and dedicated to my friend Anthony.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
It Is Not Good to Be Alone
Making Love, Giving Life
The Many Manifestations of God's Loving Embrace
Dew[y]-Kissed
Trusting God's Generous Invitation
Song of Songs: The Bible's Gay Love Poem
The "Ratzinger Letter" of 1986 as "Theological Pornography"
God is Love
Cherish
Just Now and Then
Getting It Right
Dreaming a Little Dream (on the Dangerous and Delightful Edge)
Lover of Us All
Our Memory of Eden
One Fearless Kiss
Liberated to Be Together
Charis
It Happens All the Time in Heaven
Love is Love
And Love is Lord of All


Image: Subjects and photographer unknown.

2 comments:

Ecce Homo said...

God is not intrinsically sexual. God is intrinsically a spirit whose essense is being.

Human sexuality is merely a symbol of the relationship that exists between God and His Church, which is itself a symbol of the relationship that exists within the Trinity.

Michael J. Bayly said...

. . . all of which to me sounds totally uninspiring and a load of old gobbledygook.

If this is the best the "official" church can offer, it's no wonder people are leaving in droves.

Maybe part of the problem is in different understandings of sexuality. If you limit sexuality to physical acts than, no, God isn't "intrinsically sexual." But if we understand sexuality as a powerful sacred (erotic) energy force that invites us to be co-creators with it of liberation, compassion and all manner of "new life," then, yes, I definitely think we can say that God is intrinsically sexual. Indeed, it's quite a beautiful, poetic and inspiring image.

You seem to be attempting to speak of sexuality and spirituality, EH, strictly in the language of doctrine -- and a very narrow doctrine at that. That's never seemed to me to be the best way to approach and talk about the connections between spirituality and sexuality.

And you've actually proven my point. Your words highlight a very limited and dismissive view of sexuality (it's "merely a symbol"). I would wager that for most people it's a way of understanding and speaking about sexuality that is woefully inadequate and meaningless.

I think that, as a Church, we can and should do better, don't you?

Peace,

Michael