Last week I sat squished on a red couch chatting with a gay pre-med student as we waited for the documentary For the Bible Tells Me So to begin. Our venue was the GLBT center at a local university, a cozy facility with student art work on the walls and a grand window looking out over the Redwood trees. About 25 of us were gathered around the center’s television set—GLBT students, a few staff, and a handful of folk from the United Church of Christ student club.

For the Bible Tells Me So was written and directed by Daniel Karslake, producer of the award-winning PBS newsmagazine, “In the Life.” After watching Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, Karslake reports, “It became clear to me that I could make a movie that reconciled homosexuality and scripture, by bringing the argument to a level normal lay people could understand.” He was encouraged to proceed with the project after meeting Robin and Bruce Voss, a couple who had been influenced by a five-hour seminar at their church entitled “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.” The seminar was conducted by Reverend Steven Kindle who appears in the film. Deeply moved by the seminar, Robin and Bruce approached Karslake about bringing the seminar’s gay-affirming theology to a wider audience.

The documentary starts with a jolting 1977 clip of former Religious Right activist, Anita Bryant, being smacked in the face with a pie by an angry gay man on live television (During our group’s discussion afterward, one insightful lesbian student commented that the scene distressed her. “I don’t like to see anyone humiliated,” she said, “The gay community cannot respond to hate with hate). From there, the movie expertly crafts together interviews, footage of fiery preachers, and even a cartoon. It is an engaging film and one that will likely have an impact on audiences’ views of homosexuality and Christianity.

Much of the focus of the documentary revolves around five Christian families who are forced to grapple with their views of homosexuality after discovering their son or daughter is gay. In this regard, the film became very personal for me. I particularly related to Chrissy Gephardt, the winsome daughter of 2004 presidential candidate, Dick Gephardt. Like Chrissy, I was a tomboy who liked sports. I also assumed that my lack of attraction to boys in high school was simply because I hadn’t met the “right guy” yet. And, like her, it was through falling in love with a friend that all the pieces came together for me.

The “coming out” stories of each family reminded me of when I first came out to my parents in 1995. I was so nervous. Just before they drove up to Oregon from California to visit me, I prepped my parents by saying I had something “important” to tell them. My stomach was in knots as we sat in a diner for lunch. I couldn’t bring myself to utter the words out loud so I finally pleaded, “Just guess. Tell me what you think it is.” Like Chrissy’s mom, my mom, too, guessed correctly. When I asked her how she knew, she said she could tell by the look in my eyes when I was with my friend.

Yet, despite resonating with the family stories, I also felt strangely alienated by the film. Ultimately, despite what one would expect, it did not represent me—a Christian with same-gender attraction. The only reference to me, and those like me, was during a cartoon segment that portrayed ex-gay ministry participants as repressed and depressed. Admittedly, I laughed during the cartoon. It was funny. But, it was also mocking. It mocked me and my story. That struck me as hypocritical given the claims of the filmmakers who say they want to help change myths and stereotypes about gay people. Ironically, For the Bible Tells Me So reinforces stereotypes of same-gender attracted Christians who decide not to affirm or act on their homosexual desires.

In fact, the documentary, despite how well it is done, resorts to the same propagandist tactics as the Religious Right. Those who believe homosexuality is not God’s design are portrayed as ignorant and primitive. This is done by focusing on antiquated clips of “fire and brimstone” preachers, allusions to 1950s simplicity, the mocking cartoon, footage of extreme anti-gay activists (as if they are representative of the norm) and even a subtle linking of conservative Christians to Hitler and the Nazi concentration camps. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary (an institution considered “liberal” by most fundamentalists), is given only a two sentence sound bite regarding his interpretation that homosexuality misses the mark.  And it appears he was only included in the film to categorize him and the school in the same camp as other “misguided” folk (i.e. in the end, Fuller is supposedly just like Bob Jones University).

Perhaps the discussion on homosexuality and Christianity is destined to be this way. Everyone wants to win, and winning doesn’t come easily by showing the validity of an opponent’s view. I just wish someone would actually put out a film that is representative of reality. The truth is the issue is not as simple as everyone would like to portray it. As someone who has a Master’s in Exegetical Theology, someone who researches the Bible extensively, and as someone who spent ten years sorting out my sexuality and faith, I am not persuaded by the documentary’s theological conclusions. While I strongly applaud its efforts to humanize gay people and to dispel myths perpetuated by the Religious Right, it doesn’t go deep enough. It doesn’t grapple with the hardest questions.

Kim Taehee and Han Yeseul of Kumiho waejeon (2004)

In East Asian mythology, the figure of the fox is somewhat ambiguous. Foxes are magical, alluring, but unreliable and dangerous. In China, Korea, and Japan, foxes take human form and trick real humans in various ways; classically foxes take on the shape of beautiful women and prey on young men, either draining their energy through frequent and irresistible sex, or by directly killing them in order to eat their liver. The role of the fox in the East Asian pantheon of the supernatural is thus somewhat similar to the role of the vampire in the Western supernatural. Unlike Western vampires, however, foxes in East Asia have long been complex figures, often conflicted between their animal nature and their human form, drawn to seduce human men from bloodlust but then truly falling in love with their victims. This aspect of Western vampires is relatively new–Bram Stoker’s Dracula was pure evil, as pure an evil as one can find in Victorian literature. In China, however, as far back as the collection of tales by Pu Songling (1740), female foxes (vixens) live out a tension between blood and love, and in some cases resolve them in favor of the latter, living happily ever after with their “victim.”

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that the 2004 Korean re-envisioning of the legend of the nine-tailed fox, Kumiho waejeon, should work so hard to make at least some of the fox characters appealingly conflicted, leaving the viewers to identify with them and root for them against both the more blatantly evil foxes as well as the cluelessly evil humans–and it is important to observe that the humans are evil because they are cluesless, not because they are fundamentally evil, because the primary conflicts driving the drama are between the foxes, not between the foxes and humans.

But let’s back up a bit. The scene is Seoul, present-day. Bizarre murders are taking place that appear to be linked to an organlegging ring that specializes in obtaining and selling black-market livers. A young cop named Minwoo (played by Jo Hyunjae), working undercover, discovers that 1) one of the organleggers seems to have superhuman strength, and 2) so does a comely, leather-clad woman named Shiyeon (played by Kim Taehee in a veil) who may or may not come to the cop’s aid. Of course, while attacking/defending Minwoo, Shiyeon discovers that he has a locket around his neck, and of course, later she opens a small box in her own bedroom and reveals that she, too, owns a similar locket. Shades of Thief of Bagdhad, except that–wait for it–his picture is in her locket, and vice-versa. Yes! They were next-door neighbors and close friends as little tykes, and then tragedy struck, leaving both of them orphans believing the other dead. Good thing Shiyeon always wears a veil when she’s out in her leathers, or Minwoo would have realized it was her immediately, and the drama would be over.

We quickly discover that the unknown organlegger, and Shiyeon as well, have superhuman powers because they aren’t human–they’re nine-tailed foxes (kumiho in Korean). However, unlike the classic nine-tailed foxes of Korean mythology, they don’t change shape, at least not into foxes, anyway. We also discover that there is a highly secretive South Korean government agency, the CIS, composed entirely of people who lost relatives when kumiho attacked them and ate their livers; the sole purpose of this agency appears to be to figure out how to tell the difference between kumiho and humans so that the latter can exterminate the former.

This is a Korean drama, so of course it has to have interlocking love triangles, and the protagonists have to be orphans. Sure enough, although Shiyeon loves Minwoo at first (well, not really first…) sight, she is loved by another kumiho (Muyoung, played by Shinhwa boy band member Jun Jin), who is, in turn, loved by fashion model Chaeyi (Han Yeseul) who is, in turn, loved by DJ Rang (Park Joonsuk in dreads) who, in turn, is loved by Minwoo’s younger (foster) sister Minjoo (Jung Hyeyoung), who is, in turn, dying of liver cancer. Shiyeon’s parents and Minwoo’s parents were all murdered in a home invasion when the two future lovers were little, Shiyeon being fostered by evil Chief Leader of the Foxes Shin Soojang (Lee Hwi-hyang), while it’s not clear who fostered Minwoo because his foster parents are also dead.

So anyway, that’s the setup. A little Romeo and Juliet, a little Thief of Bagdad, a little Highlander, a little Forever Knight, with foxes instead of vampires or immortals. The plot is complicated with subplots and counter-plots, many costume changes, and not a little in the way of brooding stares (Kim Taehee’s speciality, apparently–Han Yesul is much better at the coquettish sidelong glance, usually just before she knifes someone). The drama of the story arc is rather damaged by the director’s insistence on foreshadowing the final three minutes of the series starting about halfway through the episodes, and the scriptwriters apparently couldn’t decide what, exactly, differentiated kumiho from humans, at one point announcing that the DNA taken from Rang was “identical” to human DNA which, if they had thought about it for a moment, simply can’t be the case. Nevertheless, it’s an enjoyable little bagatelle.

I know I had some point in writing about this drama, but it seems to elude me. I’ll just post this and move on.

We’ve brought up this issue before on the site but were reminded of it again after reading the entire Lady Gaga interview in Elle magazine last night.

The world saw Lady Gaga first confirm her bisexuality with Barbara Walters on 20/20. She mentions it again in Elle but when asked to reveal a few of her female celeb crushes, she refuses—stating that throwing names of hot girls out off the top of her head would “trivialize bisexuality.”

Where has this woman been all our lives?? This has got to be one of the first times in recent history when a young female celeb (she’s only 23! God we’re old…) has talked about bisexuality in such a clear-headed, matter-of-fact way—and seemingly not to just titillate potential male fans.

The subject of bisexuality is a tricky one. Some people don’t actually believe bi-sexuality exists (grey areas are especially tough for our black-and-white world to swallow); some people don’t believe it exists for the female gender. We, of course, don’t agree with either of those beliefs. It’s a very small-minded viewpoint to take and potentially damaging for young kids coming up in the world, confused about their sexual identity, to hear.

However, we do think that those small-minded viewpoints are at least partly the result of girls who exploit the very idea of bisexuality. We have met FAR too many young women in our lives who claim to be bisexual but later admit that any physical encounters they had with girls were purely based on attracting guys.

In last week’s episode of Jersey Shore (if we keep referencing this show on our site, feel free to send us hate mail) “Snookie” is in the hot tub with some of her male roommates as well as her close female friend. Obviously there is drinking involved and all of a sudden, Snookie starts ferociously making out with her female friend. In her voiceover, Snookie explains that in that moment she really wanted to make out with someone so she figured she’d make out with her friend. Why, you ask? Perhaps she picked the person she’s the closest to or the most comfortable with? Perhaps she’s always liked her friend in that way and wanted to experiment in that moment? All fine answers. So why did Snookie choose to make out with her female friend over the other guys in the hot tub?

“Because guys like that kind of thing.” (This of course was followed by her second fierce makeout sesh with one of the guys in the hot tub.)

THESE are the kind of statements that taint people’s viewpoints on real bisexuality. These are the statements that make people believe it’s all an act when a female claims to be bisexual. And these are the statements that make us feel very badly for the kind of poor self-esteem this girl clearly has about herself, that she would need to pull these stunts in order for guys to like and validate her.

Not every “poser” bisexual is as honest as Snookie however but Lady Gaga’s quote made us suspicious of a few others. We’ve voiced our opinions about Megan Fox on this site before—we neither love nor hate the girl. In some ways, we think her fearless, “I don’t give a shit” attitude could be a positive force for girls. Other times we think her sex doll status takes us back a few decades. But besides those issues, we feel she might be another example of a gorgeous female celeb just throwing out scintillating quotes about her supposed bisexuality as a bone to all her drooling male fans.

When Megan Fox stated that there was “no question in her mind” that she was a bisexual and that she could see herself in a relationship with another girl, she was asked the same question that Elle asked of Lady Gaga. But instead of showcasing Gaga’s sensitive restraint on the topic, Megan ticked off Olivia Wilde and Jenna Jameson as two women that she would be with—Maxim’s #1 Hottest Woman and a porn star.

Are these women sexy? There is no doubt. Is it possible that Megan is genuinely attracted to them and other women? Of course. But it still kind of reeks of Hollywood’s fake brand of sexy to us. Megan’s core audience consists primarily of males, 18-34, and her “bisexual picks” would definitely satisfy most of those males’ ultimate sexual fantasy. It seems cheap and, in Gaga’s words, does kind of trivialize the topic.

We’re not judging Megan here at all. Perhaps everything she says is true and she’s just not mature enough to express those feelings eloquently. We are also not judging any woman who chooses to experiment sexually with a woman and maybe later ultimately ends up with a man. Those are personal choices.

We just agree with Lady Gaga and would like to see less trivialization of this issue by young girls and women who don’t seem to know better (which, in turn, then leads to men trivializing it). Bisexuality isn’t a tool for entirely straight women to use to attract Neanderthal men. While we are totally for celebs opening the discussion about bisexuality in mass media because we think it helps to open some people’s eyes on the topic, we also think that it should be done in a careful and thoughtful manner.

Hollywood being careful and thoughtful? Oh, who are we kidding? Still and all, thanks to Lady Gaga for caring more about being respectful than a juicy sound bite. We still heart you!

Subverting Heteronormativity in Japanese Shônen-Ai Manga: Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Tsuda Mikiyo’s Princess Princess and The Day of Revolution, Kôga Yun’s Loveless, and Earthian, and Murakami Maki’s Gravitation

I have uploaded my senior thesis. I can only hope that this has worked as I believe it has. This represents the culmination of my major, Gender and Sexuality in Japanese Arts.

“A Wink and a Smile: The Art of Burlesque” follows 10 students in the Seattle’s Academy of Burlesque as they progress through one academic year.  The school was founded by Ms. Indigo Blue, a professional stripper who decided to teach women the art of burlesque.  The film examines how the students feel about the art of stripping and various acts in the Seattle area.

This film is a remarkable look at how women feel about the art of stripping.  The director crosses gender boundaries by examining male burlesque performers too.  The film is interesting because the womens’ feelings about burlesque are complicated by their own body image and their various cultural backgrounds.  The woman’s feelings about their naked selves are influenced by cultural backgrounds, their family’s views, and their own idea of what defines sexiness.

One Chinese woman confides how she feels unsure whether burlesque is too “white” for her to practice.  She wonders if her family would see it as the equivalent of whites putting on black face.  One woman is a 51-year-old mother who as always wanted to try burlesque.  I found her to be very inspiring because of her body confidence.

I think every young woman needs to see this film.  It’s informative to see the difference between a strip bar and true burlesque.  What the film brings out is how much fun the burlesque performers have playing with their sexual identities.  Even from the outside, it’s easy to see how truly comfortable they are with their bodies. 

I also loved seeing the male burlesque performers.  Men’s sexual identities are somewhat ambiguous within American society.  Straight men can be stuck with stereotypes they despise.   Seeing a man performing burlesque reminded me of how much men can explore their own sexual identities. 

I would recomend watching this film.  I was able to watch it online at Netflix.

1. Recently I have been thinking about the differences between accommodation and relevancy. I read through some people’s blogs, and they demand new ways of thinking about God. They assert that our traditional ways of thinking about God and religion are no longer relevant, therefore (for the sake of relevancy) we must change the way we think. However, that is not “relevancy” as it should be understood. Relevancy, to me, is the shaping and changing of language concerning ideas that change, rather than the ideas themselves. Accommodation is when ideas change in order to fit the societal and religious norms or trends of that time. In defining these things for myself I think about where I am irrelevant, and where I am accommodating. Also, the tougher question is, where should I be accommodating?

2. Right now I’m working on a paper on sexual identity and development. It seems that the debate over whether homosexuals make a choice or are “born that way” is a drastic dumbing-down of a more complicated issue. Sexual identity doesn’t just consist of what your anatomical make up might be. It also consists of a ’sense of gender’ that a person has, societal assumptions and distorted ‘norms’, and the human desire for companionship and interrelatedness. Sexual identity and development is a topic that needs to be explored in more depth by the church. N.T. Wright, speaking about the debate over homosexuality in the church, said that he is waiting for the shouting to stop before he joins the conversation.  Maybe we should take a break from our arguing and start learning a little more about what is being argued about.

3. A friend whom I attend seminary with, during a conversation a few weeks ago, said that “God is weak.” It is powerful, and disturbing language. I’m just going to leave it there, because the ideas behind why he said “God is weak” would take a long time to write and I have a paper to work on so…in light of theodicy, suffering, and the cross…reflect on what it means when my fellow seminarian says, “God is weak.”

Perché ti insegnano a giocare?
A stare con i coetanei e con i non coetanei?
Ad ascoltare?
A dare piacere?
I “dottori della mente” hanno le istruzioni mediche e le somministrano.
Ti insegnano a vivere.
Figli. Tutti educati alle regole di comportamento.
È importante sottolineare che oggi educare è istruire.

Da parte mia, invece, posso affermare che non ci sono regole. Anche quando sbagli, la regola non è la chiave di volta. Non c’è prova che seguendo una determinata regola avresti dato piacere, o avresti vissuto meglio. Hai sbagliato. Punto. E l’errore passerà, con la vita che continua.

Ti fanno dimenticare il piacere del vivere. Il piacere del momento. Ti fanno credere che la progettualità consista nell’applicazione di regole.

Non è così.

Ti fanno sentire il bisogno di regole per vivere nel modo giusto.

Ma più vai avanti, applicando o cercando di applicare quelle regole, più ti rendi conto che non servono. E continui ad applicare le regole o a cercare di applicarle.

Il giusto è la tua morte, perché è il loro guadagno.

In effetti, hai bisogno di compagnia, della loro compagnia, non delle loro istruzioni. Questo ti vendono. In nessun modo la risoluzione della tua ansia.

Ti conviene imparare a vivere, lasciare l’educazione e magari farti degli amici.

NELL’IDENTITÀ SESSUALE NON CI SONO REGOLE.

Why do they teach you to play?
To hang around with your age group?
To listen for?
To give pleasure?
The “doctors of the mind” have the medical instructions and administer them.
They teach you to live.
Offspring. All educated about the behavioural rules.
It’s important to emphasize that to educate is to instruct now.

As far as I know, I can say there’s no rules instead. Even when you make mistakes, the rule is not the linchpin. There’s no proof that if you abided by a given rule, you would have lived better. You made mistakes. Period. Mistake will pass, through a life that continues.

They make you forget about the pleasure of life. The pleasure of the moment. They make you reckon that planning consists in the application of rules.

This is not it.

They make you feel the need for rules in order that you live in the right way.

Yet the more you go on applying or striving to apply those rules, the more you realize they are no use. And you continue applying the rules or striving to apply them.

The righteousness is your death, because it is their gain.

In effect, that which you do need is company, their company, not their instructions. This, they sell to you. In no way the resolution of your anxiety.

You’d better learn to live, quit the education and possibly make friends.

IN SEXUAL IDENTITY THERE’S NO RULES.

Sono io. Il momento è giusto per riprendere il discorso sull’identità sessuale.
L’identità sessuale, mio lettore, è fraintesa. Non credi che si sia inventato un mare di puttanate intorno all’identità sessuale?
Quanto i “dottori della mente” hanno complicato la vita della nostra identità sessuale!
I nostri dottori.

Scopare. Non scopare. Cioè soddisfare un bisogno di identità sessuale, o non soddisfarlo.

Milioni di parole dottoresche che portano lì. I “dottori della mente” te lo dicono in modo fumoso e intricato. E sembrano non volere che tu lo pensi. Sono ipocriti. Perché in realtà VOGLIONO che tu lo pensi. Vogliono che tu abbia BISOGNO di loro.

Non dimenticarlo. VOGLIONO CHE TU ABBIA BISOGNO DI LORO.

It’s me. The moment is fine for resuming the sexual identity theme.
Sexual identity, my peruser, is misunderstood. Don’t you think that a sea of bullshit got invented about sexual identity?
How the “doctors of the mind” have complicated the life of our sexual identity?
Our doctors.

Get laid. Get laid not. Id est to satisfy a need for sexual identity, or to satisfy it not.

Millions of doctorish words leading there. The “doctors of the mind” say it to you smokily and intricately. And they seem to want you not to think it. They are hypocrite. For, really they WANT you to think it. They want you to NEED them.

Never ever forget. THEY WANT YOU TO NEED THEM.

OK, so again its been a while, I have been posting a bit on my other blog but not a lot here, although readers of my regular blog will have been anticipating this post because I said some weeks ago that I might have something to write here.

It was about a year ago now, after I had been chatting to my mother, or more accurately she had been talking at me! Anyhow, that aside, she mentioned, as she had a few times before, about having been to our old house, this is the house where we moved to when I was 10 and I stayed there till I moved out, my mum stayed there after my step father left her, until she married her third husband.

It is still owned by my step father although he now lives in another country, Australia or America, not sure which!

He has rented it out a few times but it is currently empty, my mother was telling me about it being a right mess, all overgrown and going to waste.

As she spoke I felt that God was speaking to me saying that the house had been bound up and would never be a happy family house until I released the stronghold that had bound it up, I shared this with my wife and said that I felt I had, at some stage, to go there and pray around it, anyhow, we left it there and events overtook me a little.

So no more thinking about it until the other week when, by a chance number of things coming together I ended up in the car, on my own, in theory heading home from dropping our son into school late, with little to do for the rest of the morning, I went past the turn that took us to where I used to live, its a few miles from where we live now, in another village around here.

Anyhow, I suddenly realised that I hadn’t gone past the turning for where we used to live but had taken it! before I knew where I was I had arrived in the road where the house is, I parked in the lane, its a very quiet private road, the house is set well back off the road down a 100+ Yard drive, out of sight, I got out of the car and wandered down the drive, suddenly there it was, the house, standing jsut as it had always stood, except that the garden was rather overgrown.

I continued up the drive and stood on the front door, I knew it was empty but still rang the doorbell, which didn’t work, so I knocked the letterbox instead, just in case someone was lurking around inside I didn’t want to end up with the police taking me away!

So having got no reply I wandered around the property, the back is accessible without any problems, had a look in where I could, most of the curtains were drawn, but I saw enough to be pretty much drawn back in time, what I saw the place was still decorated with the same wallpaper, same carpets, same colours, same everything, that it had when I left over 20 years ago, and it needed decorating when I left!

Pretty spooky really, it was almost as if someone had shut the door after I left and it had just been left, but the garden was so overgrown, in places shrubs, some 4-6′ tall, had taken over about half the garden, the garden is, or was, about an acre in size so that’s a lot of shrubs.

Anyhow, the patio which went round 2 sides of the house (its a large 6 bed house so its a lot of patio!) was looking as if it had seen better days, sad really as I had laid most of those slabs.

And the grass, what was left of it, was so pitted and rough, it used to be a reasonable lawn but I am not sure how it goes from a normal well cared for lawn to resemble something you might see in a marsh land, really strange.

I wandered up and down the garden and all the way round the house, looked inside the garage, where most of the sexual abuse took place,  it was as frightening a place as it always was, I then begun praying, praying for the life to be breathed back in that place, praying for the evil that had been done and any spiritual forces that remained to be lifted and cast out, praying for those who had lived there since that time, praying for those who would live there from now on, praying for my step father, and my mother and siblings, I really don’t know how long I was there but as I stood there, by the window of the garage I suddenly felt as though something lifted, something lifted from me that is, I felt as though all of a sudden I had been released from some of the pain and hurt, I looked back in the window and realised that it didn’t look anywhere near as terrifying as it had done a few minutes ago, it just looked like a normal garage, OK a few cobwebs but then my garage has a few of them, except it wasn’t like a normal garage because it was nearly empty, I could see, what I hadn’t noticed before, a few toys in there, a bike, a scooter, a cuddly teddy, a box that I recognised from my childhood as containing some of my bits and pieces, suddenly it dawned on me that ALL the toys in there, there were not many, were MY toys! strange! then i noticed also, the lawnmower, the shear and a variety of tools, spade, gardening fork, rake etc, these were also the tools that I had used when I lived there, I had been expected to do a fair bit of the gardening and other work round the garden as a child, but the things in the garage were all things that I had used! how strange, 25 years on!

It was then that I felt that something was lifting from the house, that it was as if the weeds that had been choking the place were being liberally sprayed with weed-killer and was dying off before my eyes.

Anyhow, I prayed some more and had some tears as I remembered what had gone on in that place it was painful but the fear had all gone, I wasn’t afraid any more of being in that place, and the house had taken on a very different appearance, as I looked around it didn’t seem as grey and miserable as it had been, even the garden didn’t seem as bad as it had been when I first arrived, I looked around and thought well it only needs a little TLC well quite a lot of TLC actually, and it could be a lovely garden.

Feeling that my time there was over and I had done what I had come to do I headed back to the car, by this time I  was starting to get those ‘why did you allow this to happen?’ questions, referring to the abuse I suffered not the mess of the garden/house, getting back into the car I felt compelled to the parish church, strange place for me to go but there we go, as I was driving up there I remembered that I used to cut the grass in the graveyard when I was a teenager, not sure how I got into it I think the vicar was using it to keep me out of trouble, anyhow I rolled up at the church and wandered up to the doors, assuming it would be locked up, but it wasn’t so I went in and slowly made my way down the aisle to a pew at the front of the church, I am not usually drawn to churches as a place to pray so it was rather strange that I was this day, anyhow, I went and sat down it was as I sat down that I had a touch of de-javo OK yes I had been in there a few times, when I first became a Christian it was where I went until I fell out with the vicar over his theology (that’s a story for another day, and probably for another blog! but this wasn’t the reason it seemed so familiar, it suddenly dawned on me that when I used to cut the grass in the graveyard i would sometimes come into the church and sit right where I had sat this time, in front of the altar, and cry out to God, asking him, if he existed why was he allowing this to happen to me? I realise now how I had come to the conclusion at that stage that there is no such thing as God because he was being so cruel to me in allowing me to be abused the was I had been/was being, anyhow, today I felt as though God was speaking to me, he was drawing me there for a purpose, he started to unravel stuff in my heart that I am still not able to express very clearly at the moment I think there is more unravelling to do, more tears to shed and more healing to be done before I am able to vocalise some of it. What I can say now is this, a couple of years ago, when I was having nightmares/flashbacks, of the years of abuse, in each of the flashbacks/images I had this impression of someone else being in the room, another person being present, I had always been confused over this as I had no recollection of any of the sexual abuse happening in the presence of any witnesses, that morning I realised, probably for the first time, that the 3rd person there was actually God, he was there with me, not standing by allowing the abuse to happen but actively restraining my step father from doing worse, and taking on himself some of the pain and hurt that was mine.

I think I am going to stop here for now, there was more but I am not able to write or express it at the moment, suffice to say it was a very significant morning to me and I felt it has broken the demonic spirits that have bound up that house as well as breaking something in me.

My latest on RH Reality Check. It’s a devastating law and one with which the United States is more entwined than you’d think.

In Uganda, the blogger known as the GayUgandan is calling it “the final solution.”

Though homosexual acts are already illegal in that country, a new bill would penalize homosexuality with tougher penalties – along the lines of life imprisonment and the death penalty. Yes, you read that right. The “Anti-Homosexuality” Bill imposes stricter definitions for “homosexual behavior”, extending the definition according to the blog Box Turtle Bulletin, from sexual activity to “merely touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality”, and harsher sentences for what the Ugandan Parliament is calling “aggravated homosexuality.” It sounds more like aggravated, fearful heterosexuals with hate in their heart. But “aggravated homosexuality”? What is that?

According to the BBC, “aggravated homosexuality” would warrant the death penalty for “repeat offenders” and includes such “crimes” as having sex when you’re HIV positive, having sex with a partner who has a disability, or when your partner is under 17 years old.

Haute Haiku, writing on Global Voices Online, shares that, “The bill further prohibits adoption by gay couples; any person who aids, promotes, counsels any acts of homosexuality in any way will face up to seven years imprisonment, or risk a fine…”

These sorts of sympathizers include friends (who are required to “report” when a gay person comes out to them within 24 hours), NGOs that offer services to gay Ugandans along the lines of HIV prevention, producers and/or distributors of materials geared towards gay Ugandans and – yes – bloggers.

Read more.

Friends! Groundbreaking news! The United States of America Senate has voted 68-29 to send a bill to the desk of President Barack Obama to sign a bill to make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. 

The bill, named after Matthew Shepard, a teenager from Wyoming who was kidnapped and beaten to death,  and James Byrd Jr. ,  a person of color and tragically dragged to his death in Texas in the same year of 1998, is a HUGE milestone for our community.  It is unbelievable to imagine that this happens all too often; some of us have been victims.  However, once the President signs this bill into law, all who have been victims, all of those who have lost their lives, all of those who insist and instill the idea that this is nothing but in reality it has shattered the thousands of lives in our GLBT communities and households, will be at rest and at edge because it will now be a federal crime.

Friends, our cause for equality is soon to come.  When we all gather our minds and causes together, our front is unstoppable!  Please be encouraged by this.  It’s a step towards the liberties that we all deserve.

Please see the CNN article at: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hate.crimes/index.html

Also, Human Rights Campaign is a good source of information at: www.hrc.org if you want to find more information

We have a long way to go, but like I said, be encouraged!

-Enrique

The writer of this blog may be reached at enrique@queernetworks.com

[Private journal entry written on June 30, 2009]

It’s morning. I awoke before my alarm went off.

Last night, as I was trying to fall asleep, I kept trying to figure out exactly what it is I think would happen if I did initiate touch with someone – specifically what I feared would happen if I gave Matt the kind of “touchy feely” encouragement his mom wants me to use with him. (See previous post for details.)

Lying in bed, I tried to imagine myself touching him that way – how would I approach him? How would I hold my body? What would it be like to hug him tightly? What words would I use? What is the worst thing that could happen?

The Mountain View by Martin Chen

Anytime I run a video clip in my brain of me initiating touch with anyone, I get to the part where I start reaching out one hand towards the other person – and the video freezes right there. It just stops. I don’t know what I think might happen because I can never get the video to run past that point. In actuality, when I want to reach out towards someone in “real life”, I can never get past that point either.

Eventually, I faded off to sleep. Then, this morning, I woke with a start . . . my brain was still running the video . . . and my view of the outside world was still frozen at the same point. However, the video of what was happening inside of my head and body continued.

As I started reaching my hand out, a huge thing . . . I never saw it directly, but it seemed to be along the lines of a guillotine blade . . . sliced down onto my forehead, at the hairline . . . and continued down my face, removing my forehead, nose and lips . . . then traveled on down and sliced off my chest muscles.

The shock of the blow stopped me cold. I could feel the cold air hit the exposed tissue of my nasal and sinus cavities . . . and the exposed tissue of my mouth. It took my breath away. After a few moments, I started breathing a tiny bit . . . very tiny, shallow puffs of cold air.

Finally, I came out of the shock enough to open my dream-body eyes (yes, I know . . . how could I open my eyes when I no longer had eyelids . . . )

About 18 inches (46 cm) in front of me was a stone-gray slab of concrete. It blocked the tunnel I was in, so there was no way around it. It was very heavy and very thick . . . no way to move it. I could sense that this slab is what is blocking my ability to continue the video – there must be something on the other side I’m not allowed to access.

So, realizing I couldn’t move forward, I turned my attention back to myself. All the sudden, I thought, “My breasts! Did it slice off my breasts?” I looked down and remembered that there had been no breasts to be sliced off. I thought, “That’s funny, how old am I – that I wouldn’t have breasts? Oh, I’m ten. That makes sense.”

And that was the end of it.

It had the feel of a dream – but yet I was more awake than asleep. It had a surreal feel to it. Obviously, it cannot be taken as a literal memory – I am quite sure my face and chest have always been intact. But, I am sure that it has some symbolic ties to real experiences. I’m left rather baffled about what to make of it.

I do know that tunnels represent time in my dreams. I’m guessing that the slicing has to do with the “removal” of my personal identity and sexual identity. Beyond that, I’m still baffled.

To hear True Father’s prayer at the Blessing,

translated INTO ENGLISH,

please click on:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Z1-3uGTGk

——-

Dennis Prager

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution:
Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman’s disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies.

There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies — parent-child incest and seducing another’s man’s wife have rarely been countenanced — but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the “un-sublimated,” sex drive can lead to.

By and large, it is society, not the individual, that chooses whether homosexuality will be widely practiced. A society’s values, much more than individual tendencies, determine the extent of homosexuality in that society. Thus, we can have great sympathy for the exclusively homosexual individual while strongly opposing social acceptance of homosexuality. In this way we retain both our hearts and our values…

Even if the majority of men became incapable of making love to women, it would still not be normal. Men are designed to make love to women, and vice versa. The eye provides an appropriate analogy: If the majority of the population became blind, blindness would still be abnormal. The eye was designed to see. That is why I choose the third response — that homosexuality is unhealthy. This is said, however, with the understanding that in the psychological arena, “illness” can be a description of one’s values rather than of objective science (which may simply not exist in this area)…

——-

Russell D. Moore

Homosexuality, Racism, and
the Eclipse of the Gospel

——-

Henry Makow, PhD
Let’s Reserve Sex for Marriage

… Gay or straight, we are all becoming homosexual because we cannot achieve the spiritual union or permanent intimacy that we really crave.

Sex is mistaken for love and replaces it, thereby assuming a deceptive importance. We are obsessed with it. Because it cannot satisfy our real need, we continue to up the ante and become kinkier.

——-

Bae Ji-sook (South Korea/2008)
Primary Schoolers’ Sexual Abuse Shocks Nation

Elementary school students’ sexual abuse of their peers for more than two years in a southeastern city has gripped the nation. Administrators and teachers are blamed for not preventing such crimes while public concern over children’s easy access to pornography is growing.

On Wednesday, a committee of parents, teachers and women’s rights groups announced that several gang rape cases had taken place in an elementary school in Daegu involving more than 100 underage assaulters and victims since 2006.

——-

Carlton Johnson

Cultural diversity and Moral diversity are

two different constructs…

>(Dennis)
>
>While I am inclined to agree with you that
>the Christian tradition does not welcome practicing
>homosexuals (as opposed to former/repentant homosexuals), and while I agree
>that the recent elevation of an avowed homosexual to the bishopric of New
>Hampshire seems to reflect the Episcopalian church adapting to the culture,
>I am a bit surprised at your opposition to such a move.
>
>If, as we certainly have been led to believe, homosexuality has existed
>throughout time and in virtually all culture, should Christianity shun such
>people unless they disavow their practices? I had taken you as an advocate
>of cultural diversity — but do you draw the line at the active involvement
>of gays in positions of authority in Christian churches? Aren’t there
>Bible-based arguments against the elevation of women to the priesthood?
>Was that move also unacceptable?
>
>Dennis

(Carlton)
Hello Dennis,

Sorry to take so long to respond to your inquiry, here. But I did not want
to run-off any ole off-the-cuff answer to such weighty objections as you
have raised, above.

Rather, in order to answer your very reasonable concerns about my take on
this issue, I would first have to address some of the fundamental
assumptions, themselves, that seem to underlie those very concerns you have
articulated. Let’s see how far I can get in this sitting.

>(Dennis, repeated from above)
While I am inclined to agree with you that the Christian tradition does not
welcome practicing homosexuals (as opposed to former/repentant homosexuals),
and while I agree that the recent elevation of an avowed homosexual to the
bishopric of New Hampshire seems to reflect the Episcopalian church adapting
to the culture, I am a bit surprised at your opposition to such a move.<

(Carlton)
Lets consider, first, what the Christian Tradition does and does not
“welcome”:

The implications of this assumption–”not welcoming”–is (connotatively)
problematic; unless we consider in the same vain that the ‘Christian
tradition’ also does not welcome, ‘practicing’ adulterers who are
heterosexual. Or, could we go on to say, as well, that: the Christian
tradition does not welcome any one who is a ‘practicing’ violator of any of
the Ten Commandments?

Well, to be fair across the board: Yes and No…

The Christian Tradition ‘welcomes’ all of the above ‘practioners;’ but, in
doing so, it makes no provision for negating that very Tradition by which
its very identity is defined.

So I would say that the practicing Homosexual is ‘welcome’… but the
Christian Tradition would ‘traditionally’ expose such ‘practice’ to the
light of a higher standard–by which all those who ‘would’ come must ‘want’
and ‘hope’ to sanctify themselves. Should we, rather, put out the light of
the standard, so that we might live together in darkness, albeit in
peace–in a sub-standard, compromised peace?

>(Dennis, repeated)
If, as we certainly have been led to believe, homosexuality has existed
throughout time and in virtually all culture, should Christianity shun such
people unless they disavow their practices? <

(Carlton)
You have served up a big “If” here… Yes, some would ‘lead us to believe’
but many would not follow, have not followed, that lead: particularly not
buying the implication that: a) because it may have existed (however much or
minimally it may have ‘existed’ outside of the social, ethical, and moral
norm throughout the history of humankind); then: b) we should accept it as a
socially, ethically, and morally sound alternative life-style.

But, if Enlightened Humanity in 2003 were, in effect, conclusively led to
believe in the quite rational, ubiquitous presence of homosexuality
throughout the Ages of Man; then, even so, Christianity, by definition–if
it is to be true to its identity–would still require those seeking the
salvation of the Gospel to disavow adultery and fornication.

Should Christianity shun such people unless they disavow their practices?
Again, as I expressed in the first portion of this reply, Christians would
ideally ‘welcome’ any who would come sincerely seeking salvation. So I
would say Homosexuals should not be shunned, any more than a heterosexual
adulterer. But the Christian is exhorted to go only so far in tolerating
recalcitrance. More tolerance is expected for those who have not accepted
the call… But for those who knowingly accept the call and then seek to
undermine the sanctity of the sacraments through multiplying and justifying
their sins; a stricter accounting is required:

1 Corinthians 5
[9] I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
[10] Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the
covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out
of the world.
[11] But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is
called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer,
or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
[12] For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye
judge them that are within?
[13] But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among
yourselves that wicked person.

Such persons should decide, for themselves, to be faithful to the call, or
not. But if they seek to adulterate the assembly and compromise the
spiritual health of the congregation, then–with prayer and fasting in their
behalf–they should be shunned, apparently.

>(Dennis)
I had taken you as an advocate of cultural diversity — but do you draw the
line at the active involvement of gays in positions of authority in
Christian churches? <

(Carlton)
Cultural diversity and Moral diversity are two different constructs. There
are many Blacks who are offended by the notion that Gay Rights should be
equated with Civil Rights; and that Gay Rights Advocacy should be afforded a
legitimate claim to the mantle of the Civil Rights Movement. The politics
of Sexual Orientation and the politics of Skin Pigmentation operate on
historical, religious, social, ethical, and moral indices that are
fundamentally separate and distinct.

Until the Gay Rights Advocacy has more thoroughly re-constituted the moral
fibre of the nation (and world) and re-wired the collective conscience; and
re-written the laws in the hearts of humanity (a job which even God has a
hard time accomplishing); until such time as that make-over is complete; no
such equivalency can be made between the inalienable rights of a race of
people and the suggested inalienable rights of a morally questionable sexual
orientation/preference. The case for the former (Race)–relative to “The
Creator”–has been made, and was a long-time coming. The case for the
latter (Sexual Orientation/Preference)–relative to “The Creator”–has not
been made, on its own merit, and has yet a long way to go.

And for all my appreciation of the love, warmth, sensitivity, creativity,
and humanity of my friends and family who are taken by that
orientation/preference; I can not say that I wish their agenda God-speed.
For the total success of their agenda would so drastically redefine the
sanctity of Marriage, Love, and Holiness, itself; that the Church and all
divine aspiration, itself, would become obsolete. The final result of so
deep a ‘moral’ restructuring would be the complete obliteration of any
nominal restriction on any sexual taboos or prohibitions. What argument
would then stand against incest, bestiality, or any other such
orientation/preference?

>(Dennis)
Aren’t there Bible-based arguments against the elevation of women to the
priesthood? Was that move also unacceptable?<

(Carlton)
I do believe there are such arguments against women in the priesthood, but
there are also Bible-based examples of women playing pro-active, leading
roles in God’s providence… and in the Church. So Bible-based arguments
are not necessarily the bottom-line for settling this affair. Personally, I
would say that “receiving the call” and “being led by the spirit of God” is
key.

Actually, as a matter custom and traditions, I was more comfortable with
Women ministers in the Baptist and Pentecostal churches than I was with
women in the priesthood of the Episcopal Church. But hey, if they are
called of God, know they are called of God, and go forth led of His
spirit–rather than setting out with only a humanistic agenda of ‘pushing
the envelop–then Amen.

1st Corinthians 12
[27] Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
[28] And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily
prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings,
helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
[29] Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers
of miracles?
[30] Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all
interpret?
[31] But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more
excellent way…

1 Corinthians 14
[1] Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may
prophesy.
[2] For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but
unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh
mysteries.
[3] But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and
exhortation, and comfort.
[4] He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that
prophesieth edifieth the church.

I am not convinced yet, that this Episcopal Bishop is meeting this criteria
of being led of the Spirit of God–nor that he is answering the call of God
or is concerned about such spiritual gifts articulated in Corinthians, here.
Has he made any such claim? (I do not know?) In my own prayers and
soul-searching I get the sense that he is part of the agenda pushing the
envelop. Are you getting a particular reading, from On High?

(Previous Post)
==========================

carltonljohnson@… wrote:

As a son of a Southern Baptist Deacon, and a mother active in the Vestry of
the Episcopal Church (and as a baptized Episcopalian, myself); I find quite
cogent this Southern Baptist reaction to the recent development regarding
Bishop Gene Robinson:

===============

Homosexuality, Racism, and the Eclipse of the Gospel
by Russell D. Moore

http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=928

As the Episcopal Church splinters over the question of homosexual
bishops, Episcopalian liberals are telling us that they are the heirs of the
civil rights era of 20th century American history. And they are partly
right. The gay liberation movement in the mainline churches stands firmly in
the tradition of the segregationist churches of the Jim Crow-era South.

The latest skirmish over gay rights in the Episcopal Church has erupted
over the nomination of homosexual Gene Robinson as a bishop. The fractures
were evident in an Aug. 5 debate on NBC’s “Today” show between the
“progressive” bishop of Massachusetts and the “traditionalist” bishop of
South Carolina….

——-

Gene Robinson, the U.S. Espiscopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, speaks at the event, Clergy Call, about the gay-rights movement, in Washington, on Monday, May 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

. . .

The Gospel, as the African churchmen rightly attest, announces that Jesus
of Nazareth has been enthroned as the rightful heir of the cosmos. The
Spirit of Christ declares that racism, bigotry and partiality are grievous
sins against God (James 3:9-10). The same Spirit of Christ declares that
homosexuals can be forgiven and transformed by the Gospel of Christ (1
Corinthians 6:9-11).

The spirit of the age consoled bigots by assuring them that black people
would be better off “with their own kind.” And the spirit of the age now
consoles white liberals that homosexuals really can’t change and don’t need
the message of the Gospel of repentance and faith.

Whether to unrepentant racists or to unrepentant homosexuals, the message
is always the same — “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). . . .

Russell D. Moore is assistant professor of Christian theology at Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. He also serves as
executive director of the Carl F. H. Henry Institute for Evangelical
Engagement.

Note: This article first appeared at The Henry Institute
(http://www.henryinstitute.org/)

¨Ï 2003 The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=928

===========================

Peace, Shalom, Assalam Alaikum,

Towards a world full of families of true Filial Piety,
Inheritors of the New Heaven and the New Earth

Carlton, Mihoko, and sons:
Ch’ung-Guk Tadakuni (November 1990) Tad
Jae-Son Saizen (January 1992) Sai
Tae-Seong Taisei (December 1996) Tai

HT News (and other homeostatic truths)
http://www.geocities.com/homeostatictruths/030801.html
http://www.geocities.com/minjokhan/SocAnthro/welcome.html

Photo 1 of 10
—-Couples from around the world participate in the mass wedding ceremony at a Sun Moon University in Asan, south of Seoul, South Korea, Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2009. The Unification Church organized biggest mass wedding in a decade, a spectacle church officials said involves 40,000 people around the world. (AP Photo/ Lee Jin-man)

Rev. Moon marries thousands in global mass wedding

By HYUNG-JIN KIM (AP)

ASAN, South Korea — From South Korea to South America, the bride wore white for the Unification Church’s largest mass wedding in a decade, with some 40,000 people participating in dozens of cities around the world.

The “blessing ceremony” was the church’s largest since 1999, and may well be the last on such a grand scale officiated by the 89-year-old Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the controversial founder of the Unification Church.

More than 20,000 people gathered at Sun Moon University campus in Asan, south of Seoul, on Wednesday while some 20,000 more joined simultaneous ceremonies in the U.S., Brazil, Australia and elsewhere.

Some were new couples in unions arranged by the church; others were renewing their wedding vows. The brides wore wedding dresses or their national dress; the men wore black suits with red ties, with white scarves around their necks.

——-

‘We do’: 40,000 people tie the knot in the largest mass wedding in 10 years

By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 11:11 AM on 14th October 2009

The bride definitely wore white as 20,000 couples took part in the largest mass wedding in a decade in dozens of cities around the world.

The ‘blessing ceremony’, held by the Unification Church, was its largest for 10 years and could be the last at such a large scale officiated by 89-year-old Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the controversial founder of the church.

More than 20,000 people crammed into the Sun Moon University campus in Asan, south of Seoul, for the main event this morning, with another 20,000 joining simultaneous ceremonies in the U.S. Brazil and Venezuela.

Some of the 20,000 brides and grooms taking part in the Unification Church mass wedding ceremony at Sun Moon University, in Asan, South Korea, today

——-

Some were new couples who met for the first time in recent months in unions arranged by the church, while others were married couples renewing their vows.

The brides wore white veils and wedding dresses, or their national dress. The grooms wore black suits with red ties, with white scarves wrapped around their necks.

The mass wedding ceremony is meant to mark Sun Moon’s 90th birthday and the 50th anniversary of his marriage to Han Hak-ja, church officials said.

It comes as he moves to hand day-to-day leadership of the Unification Church over to his children.

Row after row of brides and groom – hailing from South Korea, the U.S., Japan, Europe and elsewhere – posed for photos, sang and practiced shouting ‘Hurrah!’ at a pre-ceremony wedding rehearsal.

Without a hitch: Brides wore traditional white wedding dresses or national dress and grooms wore black suits and red ties. Right, the newlyweds pray together during the ceremony

——-

During the ceremony, Moon sprinkled holy water towards the crowd before the couples exchanged rings. After blessing the newlyweds, he led them in a loud a cheer amid a shower of white confetti.

He said: ‘I pray that you become good husbands and wives, and men and women who can represent the world’s six billion humankind.’

Critics who accuse the Unification Church of engaging in cult-like practices say the mass weddings prove it brainwashes its followers.

In the past, Moon routinely paired off couples, many of whom met for the first time at their wedding.

Now, even arranged marriage couples have the chance to meet at least a few months before the ceremony, church officials said.

Controversial: Reverend Sun Myung Moon, with his wife Han Hak-ja, blesses the couples during the ceremony

——-

But none of them were being whisked off on their honeymoons. Couples are required to observe a 40-day waiting period before they cohabitate to prepare for marriage spiritually.

Moon, a self-proclaimed Messiah who says he was 15 when Jesus Christ called upon him to carry out his unfinished work, has courted controversy and criticism since founding the Unification Church in Seoul in 1954.

He held his first mass wedding in the early 1960s, arranging the marriages of 24 couples himself and renewing the vows of 12 married couples.

Over the next two decades, the weddings grew in scale. The first held outside South Korea, at New York’s Madison Square Gardens in 1982, drew tens of thousands of participants and protesters.

In many cases, Moon paired off many couples from different countries as part of his aim of creating a multicultural religious world.

In his recent autobiography, he said: ‘My wish is to completely tear down barriers and to create a world in which everyone becomes one.’

Special day: One of the brides smiles as she listens to Rev Moon during the ceremony

Traditional: Some of the 20,000 people in South Korea wore their national dress to the ceremony

——-

Lee Dong-seok, a 32-year-old computer programmer from South Korea, tied the knot with Japanese office worker Fumi Oshima.

He said: ‘I think my wife is the most beautiful bride here.’

In New York, 22-year-old Krystof Heller said his parents married in a 1982 mass wedding and he has known his new wife, 23-year-old Maria Lee of South Korea, for around four months.

He said: ‘It’s something you grow up with. It’s something you anticipate your whole life.

‘It’s not just about a mass wedding, there is the moral emphasis. The big crowd is just the perk.’

——-