Against a Partialistic Anthropology

 

I've written a lot about the LGBTQ+ movement the last year, and for good reason. It is one of the most divisive and sensitive issues facing Western civilization. I think all people want to be on the right side of history with regard to the issue or rather issues that abound. I will continue to explore the nuances of the subject matter, though I certainly don't want to beat a dead horse. 

For this article, I will be going back to early Christian thinker Origen of Alexandria, who lived in the late second into the third centuries. Origen presents a strange anthropology (the study of humans and their origins). His ideas were often novel and philosophically (rooted in Platonism) driven. Some of his ideas were considerably orthodox and in line with historic Christian teachings. Yet, one of his ideas was that humans existed as pre-incarnate souls, which was at odds with most of Christianity's understanding of people and their nature. 

For Origen, the soul came into physical form and the body was largely a vehicle that became part of a person. Nonetheless, the wholeness of identity was rooted in the spiritual part. In short, identity potentially existed before our bodies; therefore, our characteristics, behaviors, interests, proclivities, and so forth could be argued to be rooted in our pre-incarnate immortal souls, affecting who we would become physically. Translated into contemporary thought, if you are gay or lesbian, it could be (but not necessarily so) that you are who you are and always have been. This would mean that being gay or lesbian would be your literal identity rather than just a part of your experience.  

It seems to me that many on the LGBTQ+ side of things do identify with their sexuality as the whole or predominant part of their being. I get it. Sexuality, being hormone-driven, is potent. But that's misleading in my opinion. Plus, the majority of Christianity rejected Origen's pre-incarnate ideas on biblical grounds. We might be the sum of our parts together, but we did not pre-exist with them all. 

Let me explain.

In Scripture, we are told that there will be no need to marriage in heaven/the future with Christ (Mark 12:25). This doesn't mean there won't be male or female personifications, but rather that the crux of sex and marriage, which directs toward procreation, is unnecessary in eternity. Sex -- male or female, which our bodies typically display, is certainly a part of who we are, because to be nefesh (ensouled) is to be a unity of body and spirit. The body is restored, not rejected, in eternity. So, our characteristics may remain, but our parts do not act as the wholes of identity. Maleness and femaleness are reoriented away from procreation in eternity, and are simply parts of a larger whole of identity. To assume that sexuality is pre-existing is to suggest that we are simply the most potent of parts of our composition. That is partialism, not holism. 

If marriage and procreation were to be important in eternity, then we might assume that it is more instrumental than it is in revealing who we are sexually as primary to who we are as people. But sex is only a portion of one's life and person-hood. If I have one big disagreement with the LGBTQ+ side of things, it isn't about two men loving one another or two women. The bonds of friendship encourage that. But that the focus is on the tactile expressions of deep love to the point of defining one's identity and orienting one's life around only their sexuality. To me, the error is in its narrowed focus, not the idea of love and relationship.