When I was small and would leaf through the Old Testament retold for children and
illustrated in engravings by Gustave Dore, I saw the Lord God standing on a cloud. He
was an old man with eyes, nose, and a long beard, and I would say to myself that if He
had a mouth, He had to eat. And if He ate, He had intestines. But that thought always
gave me a fright, because even though I come from a family that was not particularly
religious, I felt the idea of a divine intestine to be sacrilegious.
Spontaneously, without any theological training, I, a child, grasped the incompatibility of
God and shit and thus came to question the basic thesis of Christian anthropology,
namely, that man was created in God's image. Either/or: either man was created in
God's image—and God has intestines!—or God lacks intestines and man is not like
Him.
The ancient Gnostics felt as I did at the age of five. In the second century, the great
Gnostic master Valentinus resolved the damnable dilemma by claiming that Jesus ate
and drank, but did not defecate.
Shit is a more onerous theological problem than is evil. Since God gave man freedom,
we can, if need be, accept the idea that He is not responsible for man's crimes. The
responsibility for shit, however, rests entirely with Him, the Creator of man.
In the fourth century, Saint Jerome completely rejected the notion that Adam and Eve
had sexual intercourse in Paradise. On the other hand, Johannes Scotus Erigena, the
great ninth-century theologian, accepted the idea. He believed, moreover, that Adam's
virile member could be made to rise like an arm or a leg, when and as its owner wished.
We must not dismiss this fancy as the recurrent dream of a man obsessed with the
threat of impotence. Erigena's idea has a different meaning. If it were possible to raise
the penis by means of a simple command, then sexual excitement would have no place
in the world. The penis would rise not because we are excited but because we order it
to do so. What the great theologian found incompatible with Paradise was not sexual
intercourse and the attendant pleasure; what he found incompatible with Paradise was
excitement. Bear in mind: There was pleasure in Paradise, but no excitement.
Erigena's argument holds the key to a theological justification (in other words, a
theodicy) of shit. As long as man was allowed to remain in Paradise, either (like
Valentinus' Jesus) he did not defecate at all, or (as would seem more likely) he did not
look upon shit as something repellent. Not until after God expelled man from Paradise
did He make him feel disgust. Man began to hide what shamed him, and by the time he
removed the veil, he was blinded by a great light. Thus, immediately after his
introduction to disgust, he was introduced to excitement. Without shit (in both the literal
and figurative senses of the word), there would be no sexual love as we know it,
accompanied by pounding heart and blinded senses.