“And therefore while so many think it the only valour to command and master others, study thou the Dominion of thy self, and quiet thine own Commotions. … They who are merely carried on by the Wheel of such Inclinations, without the Hand and Guidance of Sovereign Reason, are but the Automatous part of mankind, rather lived than living, or at least underliving themselves.”
–Thomas Browne, Christian Morals (1716)
I wish I would have published this a few days ago, on the Feast of St. Teresa of Avila, because one of the most potent images of the spirit and flesh combined is focused around a vision she experienced. When a graduate class I was in was once presented with an image of Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s imposing sculpture The Ecstasy of St. Teresa, a fellow student of mine snickeringly remarked that Teresa “looks like she’s having an orgasm,” with the requisite leering about the room (the student, not the room… was leering… never mind).

After all, it’s common knowledge that cenobites are incapable of orgasm and the flesh and spirit never mingle, correct?
Before you censure me for building a straw man argument, 1 I’ll remind you that it is a common assumption that being a sexual creature and a Christian are essentially incompatible.2 Want proof? Just search “Christian erotic,” or, God forbid, “Christian pornography” in Google and see what you come up with (don’t do it now while you’re reading the article). Before you hit Christian screeds, you’ll find snarky bloggers and such reminding the Internets public once again that Christianity and sex just don’t mix.3
First, I think it’s important to understand that healthy sexuality isn’t sinful if it’s truly good. I mention this specifically because there seems to be an odd complex in most Western cultures that identifies “the naughty” (which once meant “wicked”) with the pleasing and healthful (i.e., sex). If I flip open to the murky back pages of my local alternative weekly, I find clubs whose names are designed to be mockeries of ecclesiastical terms for impurity and failure, like “Iniquity,” “Vice” and the like. If what we’re enjoying there is so good, why not call it good instead of bywords for evil?
Conversely, true sinfulness is really neither sexy nor desirable if we see our moral failings for what they are. If Christians at any point call that which is good a sin, then we have a definite semantics problem that must be corrected–sin in and of itself is at its core baleful ignorance, twisted goodness, and imprisonment in one’s self. If indeed sin is darkness, then, like its namesake shadow, it has no real substance of its own. Unfortunately, this can oftentimes apply to how people deal with each other sexually or with their own pleasure privately, thus necessitating the need for our term “lust.”
However, any Christian, no matter how pious, should be at a loss to explain away the naturally sensual qualities of those good things God gives us. Asceticism is only a means to the end of enjoying God more fully, not the Christian’s ultimate mission in life.
Though some more charismatic types may disagree with me, I also believe that simple moderation and balance are form one of the key planks of the Christian life. The Greeks knew this, the Romans knew this, the Buddha knew this, surely Lao Tzu knew this… like the Golden Rule, this seems like a principle basic to our common morality.
I also agree with the fine folks over here that Christ’s famous injunction against lust was not directed against admirers of the female form, but those who were scouting out an opportunity to homewreck, or worse. If admiration increases our faith in our Creator without trampling on any other virtues, I find it difficult to see the sin in rejoicing in our God-given sexual attributes (including the imagination). I know this seems quite vague, but that is the nature of trying to moralize on such a deep and wide aspect of our existence that is so frequently frowned upon or minimized.
So there’s my QED. For the Christian, life matters, and is thus to be lived circumspectly. And, despite what our culture may bellow around us, sex matters as one of the most powerful aspects of human experience. The crux of the problem for most secular erotic literature is its treatment of human sexuality as something random and inconsequential, yet incredibly powerful. It can change the protagonists’ lives entirely, and yet we’re asked to believe that our fleeting hope for two of them to stay together is a mere vestige of an antiquated belief system. In any case, if we believe our pains and pleasures have both been hallowed by Christ, then much of the rest of it falls into place.

If you’ll notice, Bernini’s work is part of an altarpiece. Some may cry Catholic syncretism or pagan resurgence or some nonsense, but I see a little bit of God-made humanity showing its redemptive colors. We are sexual beings who must relate to both humanity and a loving God, not misbegotten creatures of either primordial filth or mawkish sexlessness.

How fitting that, on the feast day of St. C. S. Lewis*, I post to this here blog. Now for you liturgy wonks out there, you know that acknowledging a saint’s day for someone as modern as Mr. Lewis here means only one thing: I’m a blinkin’ Anglican (or rather, Episcopalian). Or almost, anyway… I’ve attended several services and am quite excited about attending a more traditional one when I come home for the holidays.
As I previously considered myself somewhere in the galaxy of the Churches of Christ, or at the very least in the Restoration Movement that seeks (insofar as it is possible) to reconstruct the original first-century Church. Unfortunately, this has been tragically reduced to mean no imagery, ornamentation, or elaboration of any kind on the Christianity which we see a glimpse of in the New Testament. Even the witness of mere decades after the Church was founded apparently details apostasy only, with no light. Thus, we have no stained glass, no musical instruments, no choirs, no chancels, no liturgy, no prayer books, no healings, no speaking in tongues, no candles, no crosses, no pastoral guidance from anyone beyond your congregation, and no ladies in positions of authority. Granted, some of this may even be violating Biblical implications if we ever overstep our bounds!
Needless to say, the Episcopal Church is a huge jump to make from this, but as I grew up, I realized I was ready to make it. Perhaps it’s just a late-in-youth rebellion and a desire to extricate myself from my rocky last semester at my conservative college, but in the Episcopal Church I see a lot of what I hoped the Church of Christ would grow to become: a church that takes advantage of its founders’ desire for Christian unity and the “ancient ways” to open up new vistas of beautiful worship services, time-hallowed words, and ample room for disagreement. Ironically, I find that most of the things that concern me the most about the Episcopalians (nobody’s perfect, and I haven’t been confirmed yet either) are those that are least covered by their detractors, like infant baptism and the authority of the episcopate. And what their detractors love to harp on, I barely notice.
Consider:
Objection 1: THEY HAVE GAYS!!!
Note: There are gay people in your church, too. In fact, I guarantee it. I guess my ambivalence on this is based on my indecision on the precise moral status of homosexuality–nature or nurture? Does it really impede Christian service, regardless of whether they’re proud of it or not (a lot of Bible majors at my school actually admit to struggling with addictions like pornography and alcohol) ?
Objection 2: Women can’t be priests. And I should know, I’m a Baptist.
Maybe that was a cheap shot… but seriously, Mr. Non-Denominational shouldn’t stick his nose into the Roman Catholics’ business. We already know they disagree. I note that in the Bible, deacons, presbyters (“priests”) and bishops are described in male terms (I Tim. 3), although deaconesses obviously exist and are greatly lauded by St. Paul (Rom. 16:1-2). So could this distinction possibly be extended to include “presbyteresses” and “bishopesses” as well?!
Objection 3: They’re all a bunch of liberals.
Have you ever disagreed with anyone in your church hierarchy? If you’re from a non-hierarchical church, have you ever disagreed with anyone in your church? Also, remember this is usually coming from groups for whom everything is too liberal–even sundry opinions.
Objection 4: Their numbers are dwindling. Therefore, they must be wrong.
If I went by that assessment, I would have left the Churches of Christ before I had any disagreements with them whatsoever.
Objection 5: There’s too much variety in thought and doctrine! Somebody tell me what to believe!
*phew* Thank God.
*Ah heck… as per these folks, why not just call him St. “Jack” as he was colloquially known…
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: failure, free speech, satire, sexuality, technical difficulties, the internet
I was a-pondering as I so often do, and I thought I’d share my observations with you all. You see, I’m at a rather conservative university, and much of the Internet’s terrible bounty is unavailable to us. Unfortunately, this often includes some relatively innocuous material like LastFM (user-built radio stations) or Gaia Online (roleplaying game bulletin boards, I think?). Here’s a handy-dandy chart–charts are always funny, right?
| SITE BLOCKED | THE BLOCKER SAYS… | THE REAL REASON | WHAT ISN’T BLOCKED, STRANGELY |
| Xanga | Social/Dating Site | Socialize somewhere else, socialist. | Facebook (It’s what the kids are into these days.) |
| Anthro subsection of deviantART | Nudity; Gay/Lesbian | Yiff in hell, furfag. | Disney |
| Russian musician OMFO | Pornography | OMFO (“Our Man from Odessa”) could be an anagram for mofo, which is a sexual term I believe. | Actual pornography, or so I’ve heard… through the grapevine… |
| YTMND [unblocked] | Tasteless | You, sir, have appallingly bad taste. Shame on you! | Fox News |
| Some manga site | Sexual Materials | At least it’s human… but it’s still not American. You lose. | The Fox News Sexologist (She’s not board-certified, fellas…) |
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: failure, manga, reviews, sexuality, surreal, the trap
Manga >> Ken Akamatsu’s Love Hina and Negima!: Magister Negi Magi
“What? Keitarou, you want to see my panties?!”
–A Caricature of a Thirteen-Year-Old in Love Hina
To be honest, I’m really only reviewing the first volumes of Hina and Negi, with a nervous peek at Volume II of the former. This was a powerful lesson to me: the first ten pages do NOT necessarily set the tone for the rest of the work… also, always order online if you can. That way, you can get Love Hina in a paper box tied with string to cover your shame. Seriously, everything I had heard heretofore about this series had been nothing but how life-affirming, yet raunchy, yet precious it was. It entranced female readers, and caused male ones to clap their hands with joy at the glory of it all!
Boy, was that ever crock of s**t.
Here’s the plot–no doubt you’ve heard it before if you are familiar at all with the ignoble harem plot. There’s this kid, Keitarou, who’s basically an unbelievably sad sack of a man. He’s not very bright, not very athletic, not incredibly cute2, nor is he assertive… and guess what, he’s not good with women either. When his parents kick him out of the house, he discovers his grandmother has decided to bequeath ownership of the bizarrely secluded Hinata Inn to… him. So he’s the landlord of an all-girls dorm!3 And you know what… that girl who promised him in kindergarten that they’d go to college together and get married and live happily ever after? She’s living there too! How can hijinks not ensue?!
Unfortunately, the much-lauded formula of Keitarou continually barging in on the girls in various stages of undress, falling on top of them, or having them fall on top of him gets repetitive to say the least. After a beat or so, the girls would punch him in the face or otherwise beat the snot out of him so he wouldn’t do it again. But, try as he might, he just can’t shake his bad luck… and thus it continues for fourteen volumes or twenty-four episodes, depending on which medium you prefer. Everyone has notoriously short memories (and tempers), so this cycle of love and loathing occurs quite often. Also, when he gets within a few feet of junior high students, he makes them weep with his propensity for sexually suggestive accidents.
But there is a modicum of sweetness, in a dystheistic sort of way: they’re just a bunch of people thrown into this crazy world, watched over by that malevolent Demiurge, Akamatsu Ken.
…You know, that actually makes me kind of sad now to remember that.
As for Negima!, for the last time: it’s not Harry Potter. Nor is it even a pervy Harry Potter. Nope, it’s about a ten-year-old boy who teaches English to fourteen-year-olds. But there’s only one problem… whenever he sneezes, it causes their clothing to fly off! And it only works on girls, apparently!4 Hobotaku gives a pithy value judgment on this less-talented sibling of the Love Hina franchise:
…Be forewarned, do not read this in a store. The last thing most people want is to stumble over someone in a Dragonball Z shirt that’s looking at middle school girls’ underwear. Trust me, it’s creepy, and you’ll end up dying alone.
Final Grade: D-. Revised: C-.
3Many of whom are underage! Are you giddy with joy yet?!
4If it worked both ways, that would just be gay (and sexually egalitarian).
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: art, christianity, free speech, freedom, libertarianism, sexuality, the trap, writing
Why start with this?
Well, firstly, it’s my half-assed attempt at a disclaimer, and secondly…
Why not?
I suppose what really spurred this commentary is the fact that, as a producer of fine (literary) art, the subjects of what I produce are often conflated with my own personal mores. For example, I’ve discussed with my aunt whether or not a work can be considered Christian and have, let’s say, a curse word or two. Or someone getting hurt. Or a reference to human sexuality. Furthermore, can one still be a Christian person and write such things?
Naturally, I came down on the side that any variety of things may be depicted in an artwork by a Christian–scribbling something on a piece of paper coming out of a character’s mouth doesn’t mean that you wholeheartedly approve of it. Once I mentioned that the Bible itself (which both I and her believe is true, mind you) contains a fair amount of deviant sexuality, gruesome violence and virulent imprecations, she pondered this for a moment and then responded: “Well, it’s still a catharsis of some sort.”
Do tell! 0_0
But seriously… the clothes don’t make the man, and neither should the parts absolutely define the whole. And now, with that said, I am hereby no longer responsible for corrupting your minds with whatever oddities I find and discuss in this weird and wacky world of ours. I promise to be fair, bal… make that opinionated, and somewhat entertaining. Now that you know what you’re in for… enjoy! ^^