Transexualising Jesus?

“About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual.
The protest was held outside the Tron Theatre, where Jesus Queen of Heaven, in which Christ is a man who wants to become a woman, is being staged.
It is part of the Glasgay! arts festival, a celebration of Scotland's gay, bi-sexual and transsexual culture.” [source]

Though I’m officially a catholic – even though I’ve given the ‘roman’ prefix an irreverent boot for their playing ‘bourgeois socialist’ in global affairs – I’m not overly concerned about the portrayal of Jesus as a transsexual. After all, if God made man in his image, and if the overuse of ‘man’ and ‘his’ in biblical texts is due to the patriarchal state of affairs wherein it is made sense of, than it would be more true to say that God made WO/man in HER/is image wouldn’t it? Therefore, God might simply be a hermaphrodite, at least insofar as we are to literally appreciate the phrase, ‘God made wo/man in her/is image’.


Perhaps, in the above tale, its not that Jesus wants to become a woman, but is being used to promote the acceptability of the fluidity of sexuality. (pun unintended) Haven’t many across the globe been used to a blonde and blue-eyed Jesus? Or in other parts, a ‘black Madonna’, or a Rastafarian bong-sucking Jesus in some. Personally, I’ve always pictured Jesus as a bidi-smoking, tight jeans-wearing, anti-Zionist/Confucianist/Nazi/BNP/Fascist environmentally-aware rocker who doesn’t mind his Ps and Qs when it comes to seeking or speaking the truth. Don’t we all use icons to validate our significance? Don’t we personalise, nationalise, masculinise, feminise, localise, our Gods in varying degrees as a cultural boost for our own significance or so that we might identify with said Gods to some extent – be it in terms of what we are or what we can be? If we can have personalised coverings for trivialities and frivolities such as mobile phones, laptops, minis, etc to sort of validate our own significance, won’t we be inclined to enlist even Gods to validate us, and especially when it comes to disadvantaged groups?

Well, I’m alright with all of that so long as we don’t start attributing our own values to the Gods and thus make Gods out of the oversights emerging from our own fallibility – which is exacerbated by the belief that we are living in ‘modern’ times. The objective value of the Gods must always be maintained so as to serve as a check on such an occurrence. How is this to be done? Very simple. Just remember this, ‘the root of all evils finds its incubatory refuge in all that is perceived to be good’. With that formulae, we will always be close to God without personalising him to the point that s/he becomes little more than a contraceptive helping us to get through the consequences of our own fallibility.

Getting back to this issue, the failure to appreciate people in essential terms as opposed to, say, ‘dicks and pussies’, is, in this instance, seeing the degeneration of Jesus into a God with both whilst making Gods out of both. This is not really the fault of the Glasgay activists as they are simply responding to discrimination levelled from the vantage of the proper and traditional interrelationship between genitalia, i.e. pink for girls, blue for boys, dicks for pussies and vice versa. Perhaps when society stops asserting the traditional orientation of either, the gay movement can disappear and people can start focusing on seeking out a definition for Gods that requires not appropriately-contoured undergarments.

I suppose it is only when we stop defining ourselves in terms of ‘career’, genitalia, sexual orientation, nationality, race, amongst others, that we are going to cease remaking God in our image and begin to realise God in us.


according2,

ed