Gut reactions

This post has caused a whole lot of responses in my timelines, mainly from people who seem to find a desire to gag at this whole idea. To summarise, the argument is that we should trust our gag reflex and the fact that we find gay sex "yukky" should be a clear indication to us that it is wrong, and that it is against Gods word.

I have to say, irrespective of your position on homosexuality, I think this is an appalling piece of writing and justification of a particular position. I want to explore why for me it is so poorly argued.

Firstly, the core argument that "this is yukky, so it must be sinful" is really poor theology. The reason is that "normal", heterosexual sex is pretty yukky. pre-teen kids are still, often, feeling that the opposite gender is "yukky", and, if you were to start discussing sexual activity with them, they tend to be "yukked-out". So surely this mean that all sex is sinful and against Gods laws? Ah no, of course, it is only certain peoples "yuk" reflexes that are divinely inspired - the conservatives, the traditionalists.

So secondly, the problem is that historically, all sorts of things have been considered "yukky". Women taking any place in society was once considered "yukky", so should we deny women the vote, the right to own property, the right to self-determination? At one time, the idea of coloured people being considered as equals would have been "yukky", so should we roll back the racial equality advances of the last 50+ years? Sadly, the answer from some of these people is yes, although they might not express it so. In fact, some of the conservatives would seem to want to roll back the whole of society by at least this amount.

That is a problem, because as a society, we have moved on - there is no "halcyon days" to hark back to, there is no point in our history where the imagined Christian society actually existed. Let me be clear about this - throughout our history, there have been people campaigning for various injustices, and there have been significant parts of society where what we consider today to be "Christian" were not observed.

Thirdly, and this is the core problem, our "yukky" responses, our gut reactions to ideas and events should not be a driver of our theology, because God does not inhabit our intestines. The thing is, a lot of the events of the book of Joshua especially - there are other examples, but the genocide and slaughter in Joshua is a prime example - make me feel "yuk". Should we therefore disregard these passages? The answer is no - we cannot disregard bible passages because they are difficult, and we cannot reject homosexual practices because we don't like them.

I can accept that the writer of this article does not like homosexual practice, does not feel that it is biblical, and finds homosexual activity "yukky". I have no problems with this, however much I may disagree with him. The problem is to argue that his gut reaction is an indicator of divine approval is wrong and misleading. That is bad theology.

Vikings

I have been watching this much-publicised (hyped) series on Lovefilm, and it does raise some interesting challenges - not least on the subject of a recent blog about sacrifice, because where someone was prepared to sacrifice in that context, it usually meant a slit throat. I should point out that the series is not for the faint-hearted - there is blood and guts, and nudity, all of which is, I should point out, in context, because it was a bloody and earth way of living.

One of the challenges was distinguishing the lead in Vikings - Ragnar - from the lead in Sons of Anarchy - Jax. They look remarkably similar, an behave remarkably similar too. More of this later.

What really strikes me, and is one of the underlying themes, is the exploration of faith or religion or belief. Without giving too much away, there is a constant exploration of the importance of the belief systems of the Vikings (Norse mythological system) and the British (Christian). These clashed, because there was a fundamental paradigm difference between them. The thing that I found interesting was that this was largely presented from the Norse perspective, not the more usual Christian one - that is, the starting point was the Norse belief, which the Christian belief system was then introduced to.

The really interesting thing was that the Norse belief system had a completely different attitude to life and death - especially death. Human sacrifice was a part of their system, and death in battle was an honourable death, the way that they wanted to die. At home in bed was the death of a failure. In truth, the Vikings did not fear death, because they actually believed the things they said, and that death and arrival in Valhalla was something to be sought, longed for.

Of course, the Christian belief adds to this the importance of living here on earth to the betterment of others. Life here is also important, but maybe the Vikings acceptance of death as a positive is something to be learnt from. Now I am not suggesting that human sacrifice is something to re-introduce, but, in one episode, the acceptance of sacrificing your life for others was clearly shown, and this was not seen as a negative, but as a great achievement.

The similarity between Ragnar and Jax was, to me, a way of bringing this up to date, a similarity that enabled the ideas to be also thought of in a modern context. Jax is the leader of a group who live by their own rules, who are prepared to kill and die, and who understand the gritty reality that death happens, and sometimes ensuring that someone else dies is the best way of protecting your own. I wouldn't suggest or promote SAMCRO as the ideal model for Christians, but the sense of identifying that other people are important, and fighting for them at all cost, is maybe something to accept.

The thing is, the Norse theology and the SAMCRO "theology" are both consistent and valid. Maybe not complete, but they are perspectives that are worth drawing from, understanding what is important - really important - and putting that at the top of the priorities list. They also serve, I think, to show that when you examine a different theological (or philosophical) perspective, you can see the downsides. It is much harder to see this with the perspective that you embrace, but Christianity also has its downsides. In truth, it is not entirely compatible with, say, a middle-class, western, capitalist philosophy.