The Hippopotamus

It is well known that the word hippopotamus comes from the Latin and means 'river horse'. It is unsurprising that, when faced with this creature, people likened it to a horse that lives in a river. Such a comparison surely stretches the imagination, but it was the best that people could come up with at the time. The advent of DNA sequencing has revealed a number of previously unknown relationships and has clarified the tree of evolution. The hippopotamus is related to other creatures and those creatures are not horses but whales. At some point in the evolutionary journey, a creature gave rise to two different branches of its tree. One branch moved into the water and became whales. The other branch grew legs and became land-living and those creatures were the hippos.

Another modern day discovery is that dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor. That discovery changes our perceptions. It gives us new insight into both dinosaurs and birds. The two types of creature no longer fit neatly into two unrelated boxes. They share a commonality. They belong together.

In terms of human race, a study of genetics reveals that we are all within about 0.1% of each other in genetic makeup. We have such a history of racial antagonism against anyone who seems different, whereas the truth is that we a share a common genetic base, which is that we are all human. The fact that we only vary about 3.5% from the African great apes adds another perception as to our unity with the rest of the created order.

When we consider human sexuality, I wonder whether we build constructs of perception as to who is 'us' and who is 'them' when in fact we are all one. Apart from a tiny minority, who might be described as asexual, to be human is to be sexual. Why do we, who are heterosexual, speak of lesbian and gay people as having a different kind of sexuality? Can there be a perception of human sexuality that finds a common denominator, so that human sexuality fits into one box, regardless of orientation? I believe that the-quest-for-intimacy lies behind human sexuality and that that is the common factor (the box) which encompasses the whole experience of what it means to be human. Intimacy brings with it vulnerability, which means that the risk of intimacy brings us to a place in which some will find deep healing and fulfilment, whilst for others it will have been a place of traumatic wounding.  Regardless of orientation, our sexuality can be a place of brokenness and pain. If that has resulted from others exercising power over us in an abusive way that has wounded us at the deepest level of our being, then it might be the case that we live out our subsequent lives is a way that is driven to overpower others and abuse them. Yet, if we can grow beyond the wounding of growing to maturity, we may find a delight and joy in another which brings the deepest of joys. The commonality of human experience, regardless of our sexual orientation, lies in the desire for an intimacy that can be both creative and life-giving.

There are yet more aspects of human living that we so readily place in different boxes, whereas they ought to be in the same box. Take ‘love’ for example. Eros, agape and philia are three words for ‘love’ which each has a different and distinct meaning. Eros might be deemed to be sexual love, whist the others are not. The problem is that we end up with a dualism that separate sexuality from love, so that what concerns our relationship with God ceases to have any sexual content, whereas (as has so often happened), sexuality is split off into a box marked ‘the world, the flesh and the devil’. Yet, if we can see the different pictures of love, that are expressed in the different words for love, as belonging in the same box and so sharing a commonality, then something of our human sexuality is taken up into our relationship with God. He loves us in our entirety and seeks to redeem the totality of our being.