I am not sure how this whole blogging thing really works but I figure if other people can do it then why can’t I. There have been two thing on my mind recently. The first is the theological struggle I have been going through to reconcile my own beliefs with that of a book that I am currently reading for senior seminar. The book is entitled OMNIGENDER a Trans- religious approach. I will admit at this exact time I have yet to complete the book. Nonetheless, I think the author has presented some interesting points. Virginia Mollenkott argues early on for the abolition of our current binary system for gender identity. We are too exclusive about when are giving out gender roles of masculinity and femininity. Life is not as simple as male or female. Transgender people don’t fit our binary categories of gender and sexuality. As a result transgendered people have been silenced and oppressed in our society. This led me to think about those people that we leave out in society. Over Spring Break I went on a mission trip to Memphis, TN. The neighborhood and people I met there lived their lives in a state of poverty. It seemed ever apparent to me that these people where also being shunned and left out of our societal concerns. One major question for me was how does this happen? I also wonder how a Christian should reconcile his relation to those who are impoverished. Poverty to me became more than just a physical state that i saw people in. It was mindset, a lack of resources, an heir as if something was missing. It became apparent to me that fixing the problem of poverty involves much more than throwing economic resources at people (although I do believe expanding economic resources is a big part of it). I think that another way to fight poverty is through the giving of hope to those who have none. This hope to me comes through the hope that is given to us by entrusting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. So back to my earlier thoughts about Virginia Ramey Mollenkott I think she has misplaced her emphasis on what she considers a binary system of male female. The people she includes in her definition of Transgendered I would consider impoverished. So I have still left questions that remain unanswered. As a Christian what should I view all those who are impoverished/oppressed? I also wonder give the many forms of poverty what should be done fight it in those different forms?
Recently, the Metropolitan Community Churches located in Texas (a very socially-conservative Red State) has started a billboard campaign to start a conversation on the Christian position on homosexuality. It has stirred some controversy, but there has not been any really debate about the queer interpretation of this passage.
With an appeal to the key authority for Christians, the Bible, the billboards quote passages such as Matthew 8:5-13 or reading Ruth 1:14 along with Genesis 2:24. Since Matthew is pertaining to the Gospel in the New Testament, with a claim that Jesus affirmed a union between a man and a man, I have a question. If Jesus indeed does affirm the homosexual relationship between the Roman centurion and his young SLAVE boy, which, in the original greek the term for slave or boy used in the passage is pais, according to a queer interpretation, means a same-gender loving partner. However, the use of the term partner is questionable, indeed. It was hardly a mutual partnership; far from it, the term pais refers to a subordinate relationship between a master and his slave. I am just wondering that if Jesus’s miracle simply means an affirmation of the centurion’s and SLAVE’s humanity, that he also is affirming and therefore endorsing their human situation: the situation that I am referring to is the enslavement of a young boy. Question: Does that mean that Jesus, our LORD and Savior, endorses human enslavement ?