Wednesday, December 8


In our hostile secular society, what could be more iconoclastic than Michael Coren maintaining a consistently religious perspective?

To his great credit, he works with a purpose: Michael Coren wants to make a better world. We have different approaches, but similar goals.

I am left, however, to pick up the pieces of the thorny crown of the non-believer--or the hopeful agnostic.

There I was, infidel me, in the belly of the beast at CTS on the Michael Coren Show, pronouncing my concern over the sexuality of Jesus Christ.

The week before, legions of so-called Christians were calling me on-air wanting to lynch gays for any number of reasons--mainly because they don’t like to play anal cribbage, or bum poker. That’s OK. I can relate to issues of taste and preference.

What always shocks me, though, is the attempt to corroborate an aversion by using the Bible to condemn, and the party line Christians who seem so definite about the sexuality of Jesus.

Here was a man who never categorically denounced homosexuals; who never led a heterosexual lifestyle; who never “healed gays”; who preached love and tolerance and thought nothing of having prostitutes as pals.

On the Coren show panel, I made the determination that “Jesus cares more about where you place your soul than your penis." As a quasi-Christian, I have always had a problem with a God--allegedly a universal being--who'd be concerned with my genitalia.

Well, blow me down. The ever-feisty Coren practically jumped out of his pants (or panties?), and took me to task.

I was dragged into the rhetorical woodshed, as Coren polemically pulverized me, again and again, about my relative lack of knowledge about Christian doctrine (he’s right), about my lack of understanding regarding scripture (he's sorta right), and about the consistency of the internal logic of the Bible regarding homosexuality, and how we do, in fact, have irrefutable and definite--indeed intimate--knowledge of how Christ, as a God-man, lusted.

Really? Did Jesus like blondes, then? Green eyes? Brown? My guess is that spiritual entities are beyond such corporeal musings.

Judge a man by what he does, not by what he says. But, in the case of Jesus, it is about an interpretation of what he says, not by actions or by categorical statements--however hard you try and slice it. Remember, much of the Bible has no problem being categorical about what to do and what not to do: “Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbour’s Ass ... or his donkey."

Coren pointed out that Jesus stated that he was the continuation of the Old Testament--a work that condemns Queer as Folk with fire and brimstone. Coren reminded that on his travels Christ had told an adulterer that forgiveness is not the equivalent of a Get Out of Jail Free card, and how the nature of forgiveness itself still involves adhering to, and observing, moral precepts.

What of the moral precepts of God? The one who made gays anyway? Please don’t try and tell me Liberace was a man-made event. And, if it wasn't for homosexuality, there likely wouldn’t be a CBC drama department either.

As one who cringes at the notion of anal sex, or even the suggested man-on-man action in that Alexander film made by Oliver Stone, I find it hard to reconcile the notion of Christ’s antipathy for such inanities with the love and tolerance that he preached. Perhaps the real question should be, will Christ ever forgive the Liberace Museum in Las Vegas?

Is the moral character of a person, and his capacity to love, really determined by where he parks his penis?

Michael will say that I don’t know my Bible as completely as he. To which I will respond that the question of the internal logic of one Star Trek episode is not determined by me seeing the entire series.

Now, beam me up--but, for Christ’s sake, don’t bend me over.