There is strong precedent in the works of Maximus the Confessor for a literal understanding of human nature as originally intended to be asexual. Maximus believes that the originally intended logos for human nature is asexual, and that our life should anticipate the eschatological transfiguration of humanity into its intended asexual nature. In this paper I defend this literal interpretation and consider some ethical implications.
One of the strongest advocates for a ‘metaphysical’ rather than literal reading of the abolition of sexual difference in Maximus is Costache (2013). I respond to Costache’s argument firstly by indicating that he relies on a static understanding of human nature that is incompatible with Maximus’ position, and secondly by demonstrating that he fails to address the full implications of Ambiguum 41 on sexual reproduction. Costache’s strongest point is the extension of metaphysical rather than ontological difference from division one to division five in Ambiguum 41. However, I demonstrate that this point is successfully countered by Mitralexis (2017).
I then go on to argue that, if the spiritual identity of persons is not tied to gender or sex, then we must consider the theological challenge this mounts to perpetuated gender norms in society. The strict categorisation of male and female is thrown into disarray, since under both interpretations of Maximus such a distinction has no importance in a conception of the holy life. This in turn demands a response not only to gender norms, instances of gender fluidity, and non-binary identity, but also to sexuality.
No comments:
Post a Comment