I was on a recent facebook exchange with some people who were discussing Jennifer Knapp. Knapp is a Christian music artist who left the biz. a decade ago and has been hiding out in Australia. She says she left because of the strain of the business, perhaps disenfranchised and disillusioned. However, it also turns out that she is a lesbian, which would have been a difficult thing to deal with a decade ago. It still is, of course; but Knapp is recording a new album in the States, and she is fully disclosing her sexual orientation.
When I was in college, I liked Knapp's first album, but shortly thereafter I kind of lost all interest in Christian music. I liked Knapp's style, and I'll probably try to find that album and listen again. She always struck me as kind of raw and real.
The aforementioned facebook discussion was a long battle between those who were sympathetic to Knapp's sexual orientation and those who said that the Bible condemns homosexuality. The discussion quickly turned into a debate on what-does-the-Bible-say-about-homosexuality. Here was my brief response:
Many Christians on the issue of homosexuality are looking to turn to the Bible for an "answer" to the question "is homosexuality wrong/sinful, or is it okay?" But why do we use the Bible in this way?
Perhaps the Bible was meant to guides us into the tradition of the sacred faith, to demonstrate the differing and diverse ways that people of faith have dealt with their humanness and with God's God-ness and with the world's world-ness.
Maybe the Bible wasn't meant to be an answer key. Why do we feel such a pressure to "justify that position biblically!"? I think such an attitude is mistaken from the start. It cuts us off from the heart of faith, which is a spirit-led life. In my opinion, the New Testament was meant to anchor us in Jesus (the Gospels) and in the early church teachings and praxis (the rest of the NT). These stories and teachings are diverse. Early Christianity was very diverse.
The faith needs to be reinvented by each generation, by each person. It always has been this way, and it always will be.
So, I suggest that we both dig into the scriptures but also use the wisdom, love, and discernment of the spirit as a guide...all of this in dialog with each other.
What are your thoughts?
How does religion or Christianity relate to one's sexual orientation?
Do you agree with my thoughts on how the scripture texts should be used in the debate about sexuality?
Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party’s sexual Puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party’s control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war fever and leader worship. The way she put it was:
“When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour….”
That was very true, he thought. There was a direct, intimate connection between chastity and political orthodoxy.
From next month's novel of the month, 1984 by George Orwell
I just finished my reading of Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita. It was better than I had expected, more powerful and even (dare I say it) redemptive, in its own way.....more on that later.....I thought I would post some extended thoughts from Herman (my future brother-in-law), who has a very thoughtful blog. His perspective is Christian, but Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern view of faith is quite different, and for many in the U.S. (particularly from evangelical backgrounds), the Eastern take on faith can be so unfamiliar as to even seem non-Christian.
So, here are a few of Herman's thoughts on sin, atonement, brokenness, and grace that might remind me of my readings of Lolita:
Let's say there's a murder, and we know who committed the murder.
We human beings didn't know it was going to happen before hand. We can't do anything about it afterwards. We can't raise the victim from the dead. We undo their relatives' exerience of sorrow. We don't know if the murderer will ever do it again. We don't know if the murder was overcome by an uncontrollable rage, or if he plotted for months. We are all fragile human beings, who could be murdered ourselves, and we are afraid.
And given those facts, it's actually pretty logical that human beings tend to react by punishing, imprisoning, or even executing the murderer. That is the only thing we can do. We're pretty powerless in the situation otherwise.
But God isn't. God knew it was going to happen. He knows what is going to happen in the future. He was there. He knows what it's like to be murdered. He can raise people from the dead. He knows the person's motives, state of mind etc. He can prevent the murderer from ever doing it again. God cannot be murdered as God, and as a resurrected man, Jesus can no longer be hurt. His approach to wrong-doers, whether murderers or shoplifters is radially different to ours.
We re-act. God is. I can't express strongly enough my horror and dilike for the western idea that God is angry with us, in the same sense as humans get angry. Yes, we have to use metaphores from human life to express truths about God, but the truths cannot be contained in our metaphores. God is, he does not get angry.
Or, as an Orthodox priest once put it (I may have already said this, but it bears repeating): "Orthodoxy is the lack of one-sidedness."
I think that whatever suffering we experience now, or after death (hell), is the product (like a chemical reaction, or a law of nature) of our own opposition to God. All death, sickness and sorrow here on earth are the product of our collective sinning because we sin when we are hurt.
Or, but another way, our turning away from God, on its own, is a sufficient cause for all suffering, whether now or later. God doesn't need to interfere, or subject us to something more than the direct results of our own actions. We're doing that just fine on our own.
We are wounded by the fallen world, and in our woundedness we contribute to the ongoing fallenness. All suffering is suffering at the hands of each other and ourselves, not at the hands of God. God is.
So grace, on this account, is the process where we learn how not to contribute to the fallenness, and where we can become healed from our wounds. Grace is God teaching us how not to be hurt, and how not to hurt.
The Girls Next Door is a reality television show that takes viewers behind the gates of the Playboy Mansion and into the lives of Holly, Bridget, and Kendra, the three girlfriends of the iconic Hugh Hefner. The show is sexy and sensual, taking the audience into the bedrooms and behind the scenes of nude photo shoots (with all “unmentionable parts” blurred out, of course); and yet the show is not the typical flesh-hawking reality tv. Far from it, actually. The show is actually quite, funny, and adorable.
The appeal and focus of the show is on the lives of Holly, Bridget, and Kendra. “Hef”—the girls’s nickname for the gracefully aging Hugh Hefner—is often seen on the show. He interacts with the girls, conducts business, and generally lives a life of leisure; but mostly the show centers on the personality of the girls as they live their lives and pursue the various things that interest them.
In short, even though the show is sexy, its appeal is not sex. Most of the show is not about sex. Most of the show is about beauty and personality. The girls are interesting and adorable. Holly is ambitious and holistic, taking initiative to spearhead various projects and photoshoots. She also makes no secret of the fact that she has a maternal instinct and wants to have a baby with Hef. Bridget has a master’s degree in communications and a deal with the Travel channel for a new tv series. Kendra is a carefree tomboy who loves to play sports and party.
The girls live a charmed life. Accordingly, they talk about how “blessed” they feel to “live such a special life.”
What makes the show unique and worthy of discussion at Theos Project is that The Girls Next Door subjectifies the sexuality of porn stars. The girls are not objectified as sex objects. They are not merely flesh for the consumption of the lustful; rather, their sexuality is linked to their subjectivity—they are first people. Their career is sexual—one might call it their “calling”—but there is no sense that their sexuality degrades them or holds them back from exploring their full potential as people and as human subjects.
Briefly, I think The Girls Next Door illustrates three mergers. These mergers represent things that have been traditionally separated and dichotomized.
First, there is a merger of porn with pop culture. We now live in a porn culture. It is part of the electronic evolution of humanity: porn is now quick and easy and not "dirty." One need only log on to the internet to find a world of whatever entices desire. This merger of porn with pop culture is perhaps not as integrated as places like Hong Kong or Japan, but still a reality. I remember hearing in the last year about a Japanese baseball player who recently came to the States to play in the MLB. He casually began publicly describing to reporters his extensive pornography collection. For all intents and purposes, it appears that it is not uncommon for reporters and ballplayers in Japan to discuss pornography and even to exchange dvds with reporters! Pornography is no longer a back-ally activity with an exclusively negative connotation.
The second merger is porn with art. Regardless of how one feels about the moral ramifications of pornography, the fact is that porn is now artistic and may even be "beautiful."
Third, porn has been integrated with authentic personal expression. Not only is porn generally considered an authentic form of personal expression for those who view it, but porn is now also a form of self-expression and perhaps even a “calling” for the porn star. This is similar to the merger of porn with art, but in this case, the suggestion is that being a porn star is a vehicle to achieving occupational fulfillment. Porn is not just a badge of shame for girls who are looking to make money—it’s not just an economic exchange—there really seems to be something deeper and self-authenticating.
I see all of the above mergers and integrations when I watch The Girls Next Door. The show is porn in pop-culture, an artistic production, and the girls of the show live a charmed and fulfilling life.
Traditionally, both those on the right and the left have vehemently opposed pornography. On the right, the religiously conservative, concerned with the morality of sexuality. On the left, those concerned with the degradation and exploitation of women.
Noam Chomsky expresses his objection.
Chomsky brings a black-and-white perspective: pornography is degrading to women, therefore pornography should be eliminated. “Women are degraded as vulgar sex objects,” says Chomsky, “That’s not what human beings are.” Chomsky finds this to be even beyond discussion, kind of an axiomatic given.
I certainly find a lot in Chomsky that I resonate with: degrading women—or anyone—is something that is worth fighting. I would certainly agree with Chomsky and others who oppose porn if pornography is embedded in a social context where those who produce the porn have very little (if any) other options and therefore reluctantly resign themselves to degradation and humiliation in order to survive. Such a system is sick.
What makes the 21st century discussion a bit unclear, however, is that pornography has merged with pop culture, art, and personal self-authentication. The girls from The Girls Next Door don’t have to shoot porn. They could walk away at any time, and at some time they probably will.
So, if the conditions for exploitation has been eliminated, is there still an objection to porn?
An argument might be made that human beings, by nature, are degraded by participating in pornography. That is, porn is degrading, even if it may feel self-authenticating to be a porn star and even if the porn star is unaware of the fact that they are being degraded. Similarly, those who participate in watching pornography degrade themselves, regardless of any personal satisfaction they receive. Pornography cheapens sexuality. Human beings were called to something “higher,” and pornography holds us back from something “more noble.” Such an argument, I think, might be difficult to prove. I think it would have to come from some sort of inner sense. This does not make the argument less potent, but perhaps such an argument really isn't an argument but rather an internal sense that sexuality is cheapened if it is made available for public consumption.
At this point, we are entering the murky waters of speculating on morality and nature. Pascal said that custom is our nature. What is “human nature”? Something we inherit, something intrinsic? Or is “nature” more closely related to the societal and cultural matrices within which we are embedded? Perhaps one of the great intellectual and cultural wars of our day is over human nature. How do we define ourselves as sexual beings? Is it based on something in our nature? Or are we defined sexually based largely on the cultural and society norms/morality that we are taught?
In any event, I find that The Girls Next Door provoke an important discussion of sexuality. It reflects many of the unique realities of sexuality in the 21st century.
I have recently realized that I'm kind of scared to use the new ipod Nano. Even though I have had it for a few weeks, I have only run with it once. But my new ipod and I are not off to a great start. For one thing, my old arm band (that set me back thirty bucks) is not shaped for the new, 3rd generation ipods. There is an arm band that I could buy, but I'm not excited to shell out another $30 and I'm not convinced that it is a very good arm band.
My experiences with my ipod Nano's over the last year have made me think. I believe that the emotions that I have experienced in my relationship with the ipod Nanos is analogous to dating the hot girl. The hot girl (like the ipod Nano and the Nike+ running system) is very sexy. She makes you think, "Dude, I want that." And when you date the hot girl everyone thinks you're cool and assumes you've got the goods. So, heck, you naturally think you are cool as well because, after all, 100% of the people can't be wrong! Hence a boost to the self-esteem.
But there are certain disadvantages to dating the hot girl, and these disadvantages also mirror my experience with the ipod Nano. The hot girl may be sexy but she usually isn't reliable. She can get what she wants and always monopolizes the attention of other guys. As such, you are never quite sure where you stand with her. Is she going to jump ship and date a better guy with a better car or more money or better looks? Similarly, the ipod is sexy, but it just hasn't been there for me: Is it going to work on this run? Reliability is a problem.
Another problem is high maintenance. Hot girls are usually very demanding, each in their own way. Because you know she can go out and get a better guy at any time she chooses, it is imperative to cater to her whims. Similarly, the ipod requires maintenance. It is important to keep it in prime condition or it may just conk out on you at anytime.
Such has been my experiences in dating the hot girl and in owning an ipod Nano.
Somethings do NOT belong together. I like cake - it is sweet and good on my birthday. I also like mushrooms - they are good on pizza and salads. But I don't like mushroom cake.
In our culture there are violinists and there are Playboy models. But only in our culture could there be such a thing as a Playboy Bunny Violinist. Any more these days it's hard to find anyone who has not modeled for Playbody.
Dr. Claude Mariottini has an interesting post on Miriam. Here are a few clips:
Feminist hermeneutic has made an impact on biblical scholarship because it has demonstrated to interpreters that the biblical text reflects the patriarchal views of the society which gave birth to the text. In addition, feminist interpreters have shown that some of these same patriarchal values and concerns have affected biblical translations...
...Reading and interpreting the biblical text is not easy. At times, a translator, in order to make sense of a text, applies methods of interpretation that may reflect cultural and theological biases.
The NIV diminishes Miriam by omitting her name twice. Furthermore, the addition of the word “also” by the translators of the NIV and TNIV gives a slant to the text that serves to undervalue the role of Miriam as a leader in Israel. I do not know whether this addition to the text was intentional. However, the resulting translation has a strong theological overtone, one which may reflect an undercurrent of patriarchy.
In my judgment, the translation of Micah 6:4 in the NIV and the TNIV is not acceptable.
Living in a porn-saturated culture naturally produces a larger proportion of addicts. It also, perhaps, produces quite the opposite - a general populace for whom porn is simply no big deal. Sexuality becomes akin to a desire for an afternoon snack or the need to sleep 6-8 hours in a night. Hence the following point:
Therefore, I don’t accept “the thesis of an increasingly pornographic logic of social relations and poltical conditions.” To the contrary: there is nothing exceptional, central, or privileged about pornography and the “pornographic” today. Pornography simply conforms to the same protocols and political conditions, the same commodity logic, as do all other forms of production, circulation, and consumption. Porn today isn’t the least bit different from cars, or mobile phones, or running shoes. It embodies a logic of indifferent equivalence, even as it holds out the thrilling promise of transgression and transcendence — a promise that, of course, it never actually fulfills. [from The Pinocchio Theory]
Getting online Porn is the equivalent today of getting a value meal at the drive through. Then comes along we Christians. We project the immorality of our culture through the megaphones and denounce and decry the degradation and depravity. But would we have just as much luck proposing the immorality of a trip through one's local McDonald's?
What is the latest count on the amount of customers served at McDonald's? And is this any longer a staple of its success? McDonald's used to use it's volume of customers served as a marketing tool. The number of customers served displayed prominently somewhere below the glowing golden arches. Anymore may regard the billions of people served as a badge of shame. And the folks at McDonald's marketing know it too. What's one of the first things you will see these days on the McDonald's website? A link to the page on corporate responsibility.
I have no moral objection to the McDonald's corporation, it's food, it's folks or it's fun. (Remember that old jingle, "Food, folks and fun. You know the one, its McDonald's. For food, folks and fun.") Heck, I worked at McDonald's for a whole year in high school. But while I don't renounce the corporation I do know that food was not meant to be McFood. You don't have to have a job at McD's to realize that the "fast food" at McDonald's is more "fast" and less "food." A steady diet will lead to an early grave, and there's a reason for it.
So, that brings us to McSex. Fast food, cyber-sex. Quick and easy. Get it on the go. These days you can even find it advertised for about the price of a value meal, and there's a meal-deal for every taste and appetite. This brings us back to the moral question. Whether we produce it or serve it or consume it we are now all a part of a McSex Machine, which either produces addiction or boredom. In this scenario mystery and beauty are gone. We know we ought to eat less junk food, but to break out of a fast food diet is greater than a diet, it is a complete counter-cultural change of lifestyle. This kind of a break is too either too radical, too inconvenient, or just too different. And even if we break out for a while we'll be back. Back to the same routine. Back to the familiar old drive through window.
In our recent discussion on Cyber Sex I referenced Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) saying that on my reading one of the major points of Qohelet is that there is no absolute connection between fulfilling one's desires and living a meaningful life. That if we pursue our desires we may or may not grasp them, and if we do satisfy desires that this may or may not result in a feeling of fulfillment or the sense of having lived a meaningful life.
If there's no discernible connection between desire and meaning, then why not accept that disconnect? Eat, drink and be merry if you feel like it; it doesn't have anything to do with meaning anyhow. You could make a case that Judeo-Christian sexual morality attempts to impose meaning where it doesn't belong, that it makes to big a thing about it. After all, there's no law against chasing the wind, and it can be kind of fun and relaxing to do so, even if it doesn't really mean anything.
Paul says he wouldn't have known sin except through the Law, that he wouldn't have known about coveting if the Law hadn't said "Thou shalt not covet." The sinful passions were aroused by the law, the commandment not to covet created the desire to covet. Doesn't this suggest that prohibition creates corrupt desires? That if the prohibitions were eliminated the desires would find their own way without being forced into the darkness of bad conscience? Die to the Law, live unto God, who regenerates the desires without reference to prohibition and self-discipline?
This brought to my mind the movie Leaving Las Vegas: An avowed alcoholic, Ben drank away his family, friends and, finally, his job. With deliberate resolve, he burns the remnants of his life and heads for Las Vegas to end it all in one final binge. On the strip, Ben picks up a street-smart hooker named Sera in what might have been another excess in his self-destructive jag. Instead their chance meeting becomes a respite on the road to oblivion as something connects between these two disenfranchised souls. (Yahoo plot summary)
Here is a scene from Leaving Las Vegas where Ben (Nicolas Cage) completely breaks down in a Las Vegas casino. At this point Sera (Elisabeth Shue) and Ben are together and out for a night of fun.
The movie is brilliant in its raw and authentic look at human nature and our potential for self-destruction. Two souls find each other, Ben and Sera. Separately they were destructing and destroyed. Having intersected into each other's world we now sense that a meaningful relationship is possible. No, more than that - that a meaningful life is possible. We are filled with a sense of potentiality. Something meaningful is within their grasp.
But the relationship is twisted and perverse. Sera is a prostitute and Ben is a dying alcoholic. Sera keeps working the streets and Ben's binging is killing him. Their lives destroy them and warp them such that they get close to love, close to a meaningful sexual encounter, but they never quite get there. The ending is authentic: Meaning is lost.
My response to Ktismatics and to Ben/Sera is the imago dei, the image of God. That humanity searches for meaning because it is in our nature as a reflection of our Creator. Fundamentally we are needy beings. Our needs drive us to something more meaningful. Our needs for relationships, for example, can provide meaning and deep fulfillment. But our needs can also lead us into cycles of self-destruction, like Ben. Need and desires can easily become frustrated, repressed and chaotic.
Ktismatics says, That if the prohibitions were eliminated the desires would find their own way without being forced into the darkness of bad conscience?
Our desires are pure but our desires are also dark and evil. And for most of us there is a jumbling of them all together such that one cannot discern what motivates them and what desires are pulling us along at any given moment. Ultimately, I think that Ktismatics is on to something. We were created for light, to be exposed.
We were created for light and authenticity. To live the genuine life: This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. (I John 1)
As such the Psalmist pleads in Psalm 139 for God to search and expose. That the Creator and Knower would reveal the depths of the soul - to somehow bring light to darkness:
Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
The above video graphically illustrates contemporary internet porn statistics. I don't know for sure how accurate they are, neither do I know how one would measure these things without allowing for a generous margin for error. However, from surfing around it appears as though these stats are fairly consistent with other statistics.
I highlight the following: 12% of all internet websites are porn 25% of all searches are pornographic Every second 28,258 are viewing porn 2.84 billion U.S. revenue from internet porn 89% of porn is produced by the U.S.
Also interesting is a discussion on the countries that ban porn. These are countries that commentators sometimes call "backward," "medieval," or "barbaric." Ironically enough, their ethical standards are significantly higher than more "civilized" countries.
To answer the first, most pressing question: Why would I post such an obscene video on a God-blog? Why promote porn and/or subject viewers to such a provocative show of skin?
This is the point: This kind of a video is no longer provocative or even obscene. This is tame, and commonplace. The above stats back it up. Porn is mainstream. Admittedly, if I knew that my parents monitored my blog on a regular basis I would probably not have posted the video. They raised me in a very conservative and isolated Christian environment.
Here are two statlines from familysafemedia.com: 53% of Promise Keeper men viewed pornography in last week 47% of Christians said pornography is a major problem in the home
Porn is the norm. It may be little talked about in many Christian circles, and as a result it is one of those things that I would argue most Christian men struggle with in secret. Ashamed of what happens in the dark.
Interestingly enough, this post comes on the heels of Jerry Falwell's death. Falwell represents the effort to win the culture back for righteousness. But this is a new and weird world. What other culture in the whole of human history has had such widespread access to pornography? All social groups, from the least to the greatest, have instant access to instant gratification. Anything you want, at your fingertips.
We have no template for this. There is no handbook.
I recently asked my high school small group what is wrong with cyber sex? After all, I argued in the form of the devil's advocate, one can experience sex these days with a cartoon image or anime video. So, what "wrong" has been committed? This is an ethical question. This is a moral question. What is the harm with virtual sexuality? Is it addiction? If so, then what if the "addictive line" is never crossed? Clearly the majority of men are into internet porn, and our society seems to be getting along allright. Or are we on the road to Sodom and Gomorrah?
From an ethical and moral perspective I think cyber porn necessitates a Christian exploring the effects of porn on the human being and upon the soul. This is a deep existential and spiritual questioning. The Law and the Prophets do not address virtual sins, but they must be discussed by the 21st century women and men of faith or it will continue to be a taboo issue that is part of a life of secret shame for the majority of church goers.
And what about the non-believing culture? Here the issue isn't even one of shame. It is simply common place. We tell "the world" that cyber sex is wrong. Why? On what basis? Nobody is getting hurt, right? And we can't find any Bible verses.
It is a new and weird world. I would argue that we now make the majority of our most important ethical and moral decisions in the virtual world and in a fantasy land. But, then again, maybe that's the way it has always been, and only now do we have the technological capabilities to truly bring it into realization. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been replaced by a screen and by so many cascading images and sounds.
Gere is the subject of arrest warrants in India after a resident in the city of Jaipur filed a complaint about his public display of affection for Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty.
The two shared a platonic embrace at a public function, which the complainant called "an obscene act" that offended local sensibilities, reports said.
Judge Dinesh Gupta issued the arrest warrants after subpoenaing footage of the event last week.
It's unclear what punishment Gere might face, if any. He's since left India but is a frequent visitor to the conservative country as a promoter of health issues and a supporter of the Dalai Lama, whose headquarters is in the Indian town of Dharmsala.
I'm not sure about what follows below because I know from experience (well, not that kind of experience) that not all Africans seem all that adverse to kissing...anyway, here is the excerpt from the above link:
Kissing is by no means a universal human behavior. Some ethnic groups kiss and some don’t. Take greetings for an example. A lot of the European cultures use some sort of kiss to greet someone. But in African culture kissing is a totally strange activity...In most of Africa, kissing is an imported activity. Kisses are not used for greetings nor is it an intimate activity between lovers. In ciNyungwe there is no word for kiss at all. So the word we use in our Bible translation is -mpsompsona which means suck or breastfeed. So Judas’ betrayal of Jesus in Luke 22:47-48 comes out sounding something like: “Then Judas went to suck on Jesus. And Jesus said, ‘Judas do you betray the Son of Man by sucking on him?’” If that sounds strange to you, imagine how weird it sounds to someone completely unfamiliar with Biblical culture! In such situations translators have a couple strategies:
1. Be more general: “Judas greeted Jesus.” 2. Explain: “Judas greeted Jesus by kissing him” 3. Translate as directly as possible and use a footnote.
Thanks to Brazilian soap operas, Mozambicans are learning about the practice of kissing as a form of intimacy between lovers. But a man kissing another man as a form of greeting is still pretty foreign to them.
A brilliant psychiatrist provides us common folk with some enlightening thoughts:
"It is very hard for people to understand," said Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and TV talk show host, "but these are feelings that cut across all social barriers. They cut across how accomplished you are at work. When affairs of the heart are involved, people sometimes tap very primitive and primal unresolved issues in their psyches and those come to the fore."
Really??? Wow! What a fascinating analysis! She lost perspective. These feelings cut across all social barriers. My gosh! How thankful I am that Dr. Ablow has helped us to see what is so "hard for people to understand." Where in the world do they get these people....
Ok, for most normal, average people like myself the reality of love is really kind of obvious. Love can be the best thing in the world or love can rip you apart. Us common folk just know this.
But what is true love?
True love crosses a line of vulnerability that is very hard to define and explain. At some point we find ourselves so captivated by a person that we want them all to ourselves. We can't share them. And we can't share ourselves with anyone but that one person. There may be a million people out there cheating on their significant other, but if the person you love cheats on you it's like a knife in the heart.
How does this happen? Why does it happen? I don't understand it. But it is encoded in our hearts and souls that when we cross the love line we want to have something exclusive. But there is no logic to this - no rational explanation. That is why we need a warning label on love: MAY BE HAZARDOUS
Of course there are those who spread their love around, so to speak...the song, "Papa was a rolling stone" comes to mind....but I would argue these are folks that have never really crossed the line, at least not completely. To cross the love line makes you vulnerable and completely exclusive. Some of us, for a variety of reasons, can never cross that line. However, I think that under "normal" circumstances for the "normal" person it is the MO to fall in love and cross the love line for life. This is the natural order of things.
But as much as we can talk about the ideal and the "normal" person the fact is that most of us are skewed or otherwise messed up by things that happen to us or that we are just plain defective. Strong language? Perhaps. But the Scriptures speak clearly that this is a messed up world that is cloaked in darkness. No surprise that most of us have a hard time getting the love thing right. For the majority of us pure love gets mixed up with self-centered desire. I will give to you if you give me what I want. There may be traces of pure love, but it gets confused with a quid pro quo, give-and-take game. The quid pro quo thing can work, of course, as long as a couple is on the same page about how they are going to play the game.
I wonder if there are any really thoughtful works that develop theological thoughts on sexuality. I am thinking particularly from a conservative Christian position. To clarify, I am not talking about easy reading stuff that repeats the same old belief systems with a few biblical proof texts thrown in for good measure. I mean someone who has engaged with Scripture, contemporary psychology, sociology, and especially culture (pop culture and sub-cultures) and has developed accute and insightful thoughts that wind up still being conservatives. (Conservatives tend to write masses and masses of books, but many times if a conservative "deals with" a topic like sexuality they all just basically say the same thing and its stuff we all already know anyway....)
Where would one begin on such a topic?
In our American culture there are many very relevant issues and questions. The most obvious is the homosexuality issue. But this, as far as the greater culture is concerned, is already settled over and against the conservative perspective.
There are, of course, other issues that hit closer to home. For example, why not experiment with sex before marriage? Why not have live-in relationships with a serious boy/girlfriend? What is the real harm of an extra-marital fling if its all in good fun? How can there be any real moral consequences to getting some (or all) sexual needs fulfilled in cyberspace? It seems so perfectly harmless, right? Just a boy and his computer? Just a girl and a screen?
Are there really sexual norms that apply to all people at all times? Or is sexual im/morality tied to culture and changes over time? If we believe there are rights and wrongs that apply to all then what about instances of polygamy? Multiple wives by King David? Abraham sending Haggar away?
Where would one begin in developing a theology of sexuality? Something that engages the biblical texts in a serious and honest way. Something that is equally engaging with the current culture as well as with some of the stuff being put out by psychology and sociology, and even philosophy....
Where would one begin in developing a theology of sexuality?
This continues on my blog sampling of journal articles after I binged on periodicals at the library this weekend.
This article was interesting: "The Social Matrix of Women's Speech at Corinth: The Context and Meaning of the Command to Silence in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36" by Terence Paige (Houghton College) published in the Bulletin for Biblical Research 12.2 (2002) 217-242.
1 Corinthians 14:33-36 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
If you are like me then you have probably always viewed these verses a bit suspiciously - they just seem very odd! Well, Terrence Paige has a new proposal for these verses. Here is the abstract from the article:
A reexamination of Greek and Roman culture highlights women's positive role in religion, as Paul also grants, as well as the nuanced but guarded interactions between the sexes. Paul's injunction to women in 1 Cor 14:34-35 was meant to prevent casual interaction between married women and non-family men in the context of worship, not to prevent sacral speech. This behavior was seen as sexually aggressive, bringing shame on these women and the church in society's eyes. (217)
It is a good article, and I appreciated Paige's interaction with the culture to which Paul is directing his comments - particularly the Greek culture. Paige's project is to demonstrate that it would not be proper for women to be interacting/speaking in public because it was socially unacceptable in that day. He particularly focuses on married women, who were to be seen and not heard (and not even seen all that often) in the ancient Greek culture - and he also suggests that this is still the case in modern Greece. Says Paige:
To speak with a man was almost tantamount to making a sexual advance on him; it crossed the social boundary set up around modes and virtuous women, especially married women (227)
Paige cites Plutarch, second century AD:
Not only the virtuous woman's forearm should be withheld, but not even her speech should be public, and she ought to guard her voice from [being heard] by outsiders, regarding this with the same shame that she would if she were stripped naked before them, for her emotion, character, and disposition are seen by her talking. (228)
Paige applies his thoughts to the specific situation in Corinth:
One can see Paul's concern with behavior at the worship meetings in Corinth. Everyone in the neighborhood of the house that sponsored the church meeting knew that something was going on there...The behavior of the women in the assembly was being observed and noted, not only by their fellow believers, but by neighbors and all to whom their gosspi should come, including in some cases the non-Christian husbands of these women (cf. 1 Cor 7:13-14) (240)
What would the conclusion drawn by these nosey neighbors???
Conservative Mediterranean society would surely have labeled the behavior of these women "shameful," like that of an adulteress or a "loose" woman. Paul is concerned for the honor of the women, the women's families, the church meetings, and their host-patron (in whose house the assembly met), and the reputation of the gospel itself. Some gossip-provoking elements may have been unavoidable - such as the hours at which they met - but other elements of the meetings could be controlled so as to fit with societal norms for honorable behavior. (240)
Paige concludes:
Women's leadership is not the issue; rather, it is modesty and honorable behavior...Whatever the intentions of the Corinthian women may have been, Paul sees the effect as dangerous. They are violating the cultural boundaries between married men and women, and this is about to bring shame on them, on the church, and on the gospel. (241)
Good article. For sure.
One question that I have, however, is why does Paul direct women to talk with their husbands? If Paige's thesis is correct, then women's Bible studies would probably be one of the preferred outlets of discussion. Why doesn't Paul say something like, "It isn't proper for women to speak in church, so they really oughta get together and hash things out amongst themselves...oh, yea, and maybe run some things by their husbands every once in a while." Get the idea? If Paige's thesis is correct then why does Paul introduce the whole idea of submission? If the issue is simply one of the context, then why does Paul bring up the hubby?
Despite my questions regarding Paige's thesis, there is no doubt that this is a well argued and informative article. And I certainly hold that Paul's command about the "properness" of women speaking in the church at that time was a culturally directed command.
So, Justin Timberlake is bringing “sexy” back. Apparently our society is running on a shortage of sexy these days, and J. Timberlake is just the man to bring it back for us. Of course, this poses the question: What is sexy? This is the same question that floats across the screen of my tv during a Victoria Secret commercial.
“What is sexy?”
It’s the unresolved question hanging out in the void like the various body parts of the models who are displaying their various….er, well, anyway, it’s their version of sexy.
The other night I was playing basketball and blocked my good friend. (I won’t mention that his name is Mike, lest he be embarrassed or otherwise humiliated.) But for me this isn’t really that big of a deal. I mean it is always nice to be able to trash talk each other while we are together as a group of guys, but it has happened so many times that for me it is becoming somewhat routine. This, of course, is due to the Law of Diminishing Returns.
The Law of Diminishing Returns: In a production system, having fixed and variable inputs, keeping the fixed inputs constant, as more of a variable input is applied, each additional unit of input yields less and less additional output……All righty, then….basically what that is saying is that the more of something you have the less enjoyment you get out of it. Or, the more you do something the less pleasure that it will bring you… So, let’s go back to “sexy” and Justin Timberlake. Do we really need to bring “sexy” back?
Well, actually this time I’m going to agree with Justin. I think we have completely lost the true sense of sexy. We have sex, but not sexy. We have more sex than we know what to do with. It’s everywhere. Every body part. Every movement and motion. We’ve seen it all. It dominates the visual.
Sex is in our language, too. It saturates our conversations and vocabulary. It finds its way into every comedy routine and into seemingly every sitcom story line.
We can download anything we want in just seconds. Any fantasy world that we want to enjoy is ours for the taking. Imagine, right at our fingertips. It is literally unprecedented that humanity would have the kind of access to sex that we now have today.
But for all the sex there is no doubt in my mind that we have lost the sexy.
The sexy is deeper than sex. Sex is cheap, but sexy is not. Sex for us is about indulging, but sexy is about intrigue.
The truly sexy is a rare thing. It is a stimulation of the physical senses that finds its origins in the intangible and undefined portions of our being. Sexy cannot be completely defined because it starts from someplace so deep that we don’t even recognize where it came from. When sexy is genuine it isn’t something you can completely suppress. It takes a hold of you and it won’t let you go. You may be able to tame it. You may be able to control it within certain parameters, but you can’t suppress it. It is deeply wild and untamed.
Sexy cannot and will not be mastered. To master sexy simply means that you never had it to begin with.
Of course, at this point it is clear that sexy is something that we very rarely find in our lifetime. As I said, it is about intrigue, not indulgence. We can market and sell gratification. We can package and distribute sexual satisfaction. But no one can give you sexy. You can’t buy it at any price. It finds you, but only if you’re lucky.
But what happens if we have it and then lose it? I think this is the easiest thing in the world to do. One reason why it is so easy to lose is because we think that sexy is about sex. We mistakenly think that our sensual stimulation is just another urge to gratify. And hence we can lose the sexy because we have mistake it for another object for our own consumption. But to make this mistake is to lose it.
The sexy is not about gratification.
It is easy to lose the sexy because we have no idea what to do with it when it comes. We confuse indulgence with intrigue. We have become so accustomed to using sex as gratification that we simply don’t know what to do when sexy finds us.
Sexy must be cultivated. To control it is to lose it. To indulge it is to lose it. But to respect it is to enter into the world of intrigue.
As my grandfather would say, “Leave a little to the imagination!” This is a lost cause in our age, and I doubt very much that Justin Timberlake is, in any way, bringing sexy back. The pop, mass-marketing media that has absorbed simply him wouldn’t let that happen. This is a world of immediate gratification and physical self-satisfaction. It leaves little room for the kind of intrigue and stimulation that lights up the heart, the mind, as well as the eyes.
NEW YORK - A woman who found out that the man who proposed to her was married can keep the $40,000 engagement ring he gave her, even though she was the one who broke off the relationship, a judge has ruled. Parker, a mortgage broker, dumped Callahan after finding evidence on his computer that he had been trolling for women on the Internet and after learning he was married, her lawyer, Kevin Conway, said Friday. Callahan, who works in the financial services industry, sued in July 2003 to get back the ring — or alternatively $40,000 — and his personal property. While the judge allowed Parker to keep the ring, he ordered her to return Callahan's personal property. Callahan's lawyer said his client had not decided whether to appeal. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060708/ap_on_fe_st/engagement_ring
I wandered across an excellent article on the status of women today in Christianity written by Rebecca Groothuis. Regardless of your position on this issue this article is of immense benefit for two reasons: 1 – There is a primary focus upon the biblical text as the grounds for arguments. 2 – The arguments are clear, logical, and rational.
The view expressed below is very close to my own. Here is an excerpt from the article:
What is Biblical Equality? Evangelical egalitarianism, or biblical equality, refers to the biblically-based belief that gender, in and of itself, neither privileges nor curtails a believer’s gifting or calling to any ministry in the church or home. In particular, the exercise of spiritual authority, as biblically defined, is deemed as much a female believer’s privilege and responsibility as it is a male believer’s. Biblical equality does not mean women and men are identical or undifferentiated. Biblical egalitarians recognize average differences (both learned and intrinsic) between women and men, and affirm that God designed men and women to complement and benefit one another. Although it shares with feminism the belief that unjust treatment of women should be remediated, biblical equality is not grounded in feminist ideology, which is derived from cultural factors and philosophies. Rather, biblical equality is grounded simply and solely in the properly consistent interpretation of God’s written word. On this basis, biblical egalitarians (a) affirm that the gifts and callings of the Spirit are distributed without regard to gender, and that all believers in Christ stand on equal ground before God, and (b) repudiate the notion that the Bible grants to men spiritual authority and other religious privileges that it denies to women…..
"Theos" is the Greek word for "God," making this blog something of a God Project........A project that we all collaborate on, that we all share in, saying what can't be said.......different faith traditions in dialog, believer and nonbeliever in conversation.......Please feel comfortable joining the dialog, each perspective is valuable and beautiful in its own way, because all of us "know in part."
I was on a recent facebook exchange with some people who were discussing Jennifer Knapp. Knapp is a Christian music artist who left the biz. a decade ago and has been hiding out in Australia. She says she left because of the strain of the business, perhaps disenfranchised and disillusioned. However, it also turns out that she is a lesbian, which would have been a difficult thing to deal with a decade ago. It still is, of course; but Knapp is recording a new album in the States, and she is fully disclosing her sexual orientation. 
