What They Think of Us: Margaret Cho on Jesus

Margaret Cho (b. 1968, California (USA) is a comedian, singer, and writer who is an outspoken advocate for LGBT issues.  Here, she gives her views about Jesus.

(Some videos will not play properly when you click on the triangle.  Instead,  click on the title line in the picture and the video will begin .  When the video is completed, close the You Tube pop-up window to return to this blog.)

LGBT means lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual.

Shocking Information About the Roman Empire

Here is one reason why the Jews and early Christians viewed the Roman Empire as hopelessly corrupt. This has nothing to do with the fact that the wheels of the Empire were greased with bribery.  It has nothing to do with the rampant ruthless ambition of many (possibly most) of the military and political leaders.  It has to do with the Roman attitude towards household sexuality.  A Warning: Do not read this if you are easily shocked.

http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-household.html

A Christian Discussion of Sexuality

Just as I predicted, my post about the .XXX internet domain brought searches from pornographic sites.  Though you and I may not subscribe to every idea expressed in the interview (and Christians are not required to agree on every issue *) the link below is very interesting.  It is a question and answer session with two sexologists on the Christian sexually-oriented website Intimacy4us.

http://www.intimacy4us.co.za/fifteen-jawdropping-questions-sexologists/

*

"I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that." 1 Corinthians 7:7

"If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing." 1 Corinthians 7:36, 37.

"A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:39

In all these verses, Paul uses the word thelo (wish), which carries the idea of personal preference or opinion. 

I Urge You to Think Carefully About This

Few issues are more contentious in the modern church than homosexualty.  The readers of this blog probably fall on both sides of the issue with many falling somewhere in the middle.  My intention here is to get you thinking.  I don't want to argue with anyone; this is one of the issues where everyone's attitudes may be already set in stone. I don't intend to tell you what to think, but I will tell you what I think.  I just hope that everyone will think about why they think what they do think and seek to conform themselves to the will of God as expressed in Scripture.  Too many people, on both sides of issues, take stances which they can not intellectually explain or defend.  The link below contains a lively discussion on the issue.

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2011/05/to-hell-with-gays-the-bible-and-homosexuality.html#tp

It is clear that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior and that Jesus, himself, never mentioned it.  Your attitude toward the Bible will determine what you make of this.  My belief is that Jesus never mentioned the subject because He was an observant religious Jew and considered the issue to be settled by the Scriptures.

In my understanding, homosexuality is merely a sin like any other sin. Any sin, no matter how small, is a missing of the mark.  If you do not believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, at the very least, know the reasons why you have this belief.  God will not look on sin.  How wonderful it is that when God sees his saints, he sees Jesus!

Many homosexuals insist that they have not chosen homosexuality, that is is inborn.  Are beastiality, or necrophilia,  or sexual coprophila, or sexual urophilia, or pedophilia, or sexual masochism, or sexual sadism, or, for that matter, asexuality, inborn?  My understanding of "nature vs. nurture" is that it is the sexual impulse which is inborn and that the object of sexuality can be determined by many factors from a very early age.  The object of sexual desire need not even be alive, it may be shoes, or money, or power.  Many believe that the feeling of power over another person is the sexual release which serial killers experience.   The current state of knowledge provides no definitive answer to the question of the origins of sexual orientation and it is not likely to in the future.

Some will bring up recent anatomical studies which suggest differences in the brain structure of homosexuals and heterosexuals.  Though these differences are real, they have not been shown to be present in all examined brain specimens.  It is an unwarranted intellectual leap to declare that they are causative. They also do not take into account functional magnetic resonance studies which suggest that functional brain anatomy changes in response to behavior and learning.  The current state of brain science provides no definitive answer to the question of the origins of sexual orientation and is not likely to in the future.

Yes, of course, there are homosexuals in the organized church.  I know some of them.  Some are closeted and others attend churches which accept their sexual orientation.  A few practice celibacy, which may be the best course of action.  It is not the sexual orientation which is condemned by Scripture, but the behavior.  No one sins by being tempted. We are all tempted by something. Jesus was tempted.

Can a homosexual be saved?  Can a thief be saved?  Can a murderer be saved?  Can a tax cheater be saved?  Can a church pastor be saved?  Of course, and we all do still sin after our conversion but we must not consciously chose to continue to sin.  We are to allow the Holy Spirit to lead us into holiness.

After Jesus shamed a group of sanctimonious men who were about to stone an adulterous woman to death, he asked her who was there condemning her.

"She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." John 8:11

Failure of the Church Can Have Disastrous Effects

Recently here in Birmingham we had a little child die from injuries to his face and head.  His unmarried mother and her live-in boyfriend said that his injuries came when he fell off the couch.  The doctors said his injuries came from repeated blows from a blunt object, probably a fist.  Momma's alibi was that she was at a prayer meeting at church when it happened.

If the church had been doing it's job, the child would still be alive.  "What!!!????" you say.  I meant what I said.  If the church had been doing it's job, the child would still be alive.

This church was apparently tolerating a situation which it should have challenged.  Single, unmarried mothers and their children definitely belong in the church, but single, unmarried mothers who continue to have children by a series of men to whom they are not married, or single women who persist in living with men to whom they are not married, must be challenged if they wish to call themselves Christian and to remain in the Church.  Otherwise, the Church is giving tacit approval to their behavior.  If sexual immorality can be allowed to continue within the Church, what else can also be tolerated?

In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses the Corinthian church which was apparently not alarmed that one of its men was living with his mother (or possibly his step-mother) as if she was his wife.  Even the pagans viewed this as incest and Paul adamantly insisted that the situation could not be allowed to stand.

The Church must perform its prophetic (speaking God's Word), teaching, and nurturing duties.  The young Birmingham mother could have been challenged about her behavior, counseled, and encouraged to repent and adopt more appropriate and biblical behavior, and sheltered if she and her child needed protection from the abusive boyfriend.  It seems that none of this was done.

Jesus, in Matthew 18:15-20, even gives the Church instructions on how to lovingly carry out it's corrective instruction and nurturing and what to do about it if its attempts at reconciliation are rebuffed.

Some readers of this blog are already itching to say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  Yes, Jesus said that, then He turned to the woman and said, "Go, and sin no more."  John 8:1-11.

Book Comment: A Song for Lovers

A Song for Lovers, by S. Craig Glickman, is a new take on The Song of Solomon. There were over 500 known commentaries written before 1700 Ad/CE and no one has stopped yet. In 1657, The Westminster Assembly said that all the commentaries served mainly to increase the cloud of obscurity surrounding the book. Glickman says that this may be because most of the commentaries work overtime to avoid a literal reading of the book, which would provide a Biblical affirmation of sex.

The interpretations include:
1. The book is a collection of unconnected love poems, with no coherent story or moral teaching.
2. The book is a liturgy for an unknown fertility cult.
3. The book is a piece of dramatic fiction about Shulamith's faithfulness to her shepherd lover in spite of Solomon's advances..
4. The book is a spiritual allegory with God as the groom and Israel as the bride; this is the traditional view of Orthodox judaism. Christian versions of this view substitute the Church, the New Israel as the bride. A few have said that the book is a pagan allegory about the deities Baal and Astarte.
5. The Syrian Wedding Feast Theory says the book is a collection of wedding songs for a seven-day festival. One objection to this idea is that the groom is crowned but the supposed queen is not.

Glickman prepared a new interpretation of the Hebrew text and noted especially that that Hebrew has a clearly defined male "you" and a female "you" so that it is possible to tell who is speaking to whom. He says it shows a chaste but intense courtship, a marriage ceremony, and a consummation, described enthusiastically and without flinching.

As Howard G. Hendricks, a professor of Christian Education at the Dallas Theological Seminary says in his introduction to the book, "Sensuous love with erotic overtones is God's intent for the marriage relationship.'

So, is The Song of Solomon an affirmation of chaste but highly sexual married love or is it an allegorical description of the relationship between God and His people?
Maybe it is both. God's ways are not our ways and His mind dwarfs ours. Regular readers of this blog know that, while not convinced, I am at least open to the possibility of the existence of the Bible Codes in, at least, the Torah. This would require a mind able to imbed phrases in seemingly unrelated material using complex mathematical formulae which can best be discovered using super computers. Perhaps God thinks on multiple levels at once. I would be willing to say He does.

Not True

"Baptists are only funny under water." Neil Simon.

We do, in some quarters have a reputation for being dour. When I was a child many Baptists I knew didn't watch television or movies, didn't smoke or drink, didn't dance, didn't play cards, didn't gamble. It was a long list. Some of these proscriptions are gone, some need to come back. It's not true that we're only funny under water. See below.

Why don't Baptists have sex standing up?
Someone might think we were dancing.

Coakley vs. Brown

Saints on the Loose! is not a political blog and I don't intend for it to become one. I will comment on political issues only when they shed light on a point that I'm trying to make. As a traditional Baptist, I have a very HEALTHY distrust of politics and politicians. Though some have forgotten, we have always strongly believed in the separation of church and state. Sometimes though, you just have to say something.

Martha Coakley, a Democrat, and Scott Brown, a Republican, are engaged in a very intense race for the US Senatorial seat vacated by the death of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. As the race has tightened, Ms. Coakley seems to have become abusive and derisive toward Brown. She recently referred to him as an extreme right wing teabagger. The term has also been used by leftist poliltical commentatotrs such as Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Anderson Cooper.

"Teabagger" was a reference to the 2009 Tea Party protests which arose to oppose the tax and spending policies of the Democrat-controlled United States government. "Tea Party" was a reference to the Boston Tea Party in which a group of men stormed a ship and threw its cargo of tea into Boston Harbor to protest King George's excessive taxation policy.

Using the word "teabagger" as an insult exposes what radio and television commentator Glen Beck spoke of on 15 Jan 2009. This is an offensive word and is so, especially, since some conservatives have adopted it without knowing its origin, which Beck declined to elaborate upon. I think adults can handle the truth so here is the explanation.

"Teabagging" is a slang term referring to a sexual act in which a man repeatedly places his scrotum into the mouth or on the face of another person, like dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea. In pornography, the act is a form of sado-masochism stressing male dominance and erotic humiliation. In its political usage, the term is an insult because it implies that those against whom it is directed are too stupid or innocent (read as "naive") to know what it means. Why, some of them even use it of themselves.

Recently, I had to tell an Indian co-worker why others were quietly giggling as he ran around searching and saying, "I lost my lunch! I lost my lunch!" When conservatives proudly declare, "I'm a teabagger!," progressives are silently giggling.

Intimacy4us

I have added the website, www.intimacy4us.com, to the list of blogs and websites which I check regularly. Each of the websites and blogs on the list contributes to the theme of this blog that Christians should be and are represented in every legitimate human field of endeavor and are “on the loose;” “ακωλητοσ” (“unhindered”).

www.intimacy4us.com  is a site for married Christian women which is dedicated to fostering and enhancing their experience of physical, emotional, and spiritual intimacy with their husbands.

XXXChurch

A little talked about problem within the Church is sexual addiction and/or addiction to pornography among Christians. Some Christians can barely say the word. Others wish it would just go away and leave them alone. Others can't believe that their beloved deacon might secretly spend hours on the Internet trolling for free pornography, feeling horribly guilty the entire time, but unable to stop.

The website, http://xxxchurch.com is a ministry to persons addicted to pornography and to persons in the sex industry who wish to get out. The site makes available free pornography filters for computers, support for those trying to break their addiction, and online classes for teens, men, women, spouses, parents, pastors, and churches.

Secrets

Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA (2009), ran afoul of pageant judge Perez Hilton (a gay activist) when she answered his question about same-sex marriage by saying she supported traditional marriage. A firestorm erupted in which she emerged as a defender of traditional Christian morality. Then "the biggest mistake of my life" was exposed, a sex tape from years before.

In November 2009, Radaronline.com reported that there are an additional seven sex tapes and thirty nude photos of Ms. Prejean.
If the tapes and photos really exist this is greatly embarrassing for Ms. Prejean but also for the Church. Prejean presumably knew about all this and she should have known this would eventually come out.

“For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither [any thing] hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.” Luke 8:17

“Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.”
Romans 2:22-24

Young Christians must remember that everything they do reflects not only on themselves but on the Church. Christians are forgiven but their pasts can still cause damage to the reputation of the Church. If there are damaging secrets hiding in the past it may be best to expose them preemptively, acknowledge them, accept the consequences, and move on.

A Christian Sex Magazine from Africa

Intiem, an Afrikaans language magazine was begun in 2006 in Africa and, in 2009, has begun an English language version entitled Intimacy. The target audience is married Christian women from strict religious backgrounds which have often left the women with an unease about physical intimacy. The magazine insists that sex is a gift from God which married Christian women can rightly claim without guilt about not being "good girls."

The magazine endorses strict monogamy and is opposed to same sex marriage or relationships.

"We believe that if a sex act stays within a marriage, is shared by only husband and wife, and both of them are comfortable with and enthusiastic about doing whatever they are doing, it can only be beneficial to the marriage. And this is what God wants for us."

Film Comment: Satan: Prince of Darkness

Satan: Prince of Darkness is a 1998 Arts and Entertainment Channel documentary which is ultimately unsatisfying because it attempts to be non-controversial. It rightly points out several modern understandings of the demonic; that the ancient fear of witches and the devil in part stemmed from a fear of women and sexuality; that the Salem witch trials were the result of rampant human fear and ignorance; that in the Eighteenth Century, Satan began to be seen as a rebel against authority and that in the Nineteenth Century he became an object of ridicule as science began to explain away God and Satan; and that, in the modern era Satan is seen as an interesting myth, the BOOGEYMAN.

The Bible clearly declares the Devil and his demons to be real, dangerous beings who seek to hinder or invalidate believers. Ephesians 2:1,2; 1 Thessalonians 2: 8, 3:5; Acts 5:3; 1 Corinthians 7:5; Revelation 2:10, 12:10; Matthew 13:38-3.