I feel so accepted and edified by some key people in my life right now. A pastor and professor in my denomination just called to tell me they would love to come to my reception. They were so pleased to receive my invitation and so edifying of my worth and my journey.
And then I had the opportunity to tell some of my story to someone today over lunch. That's a pretty rare occurrence. And in the midst of it they said maybe someday I will come back and tell my story in this denomination of mine. I think that is more than I hope for right now. I am in many ways cutting ties to this church of my birth. But it felt really sweet that someone thought that could ever happen.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Poem: One square of soil
There is only one square of soil left.
It's not big enough for my roots.
Are my life's compost, worms, nutrients transportable?
Am I?
Whatev'!
I sprawl in the dirt.
Wholy messy, arms full of it, trying to take it with me
It's too much.
It tumbles down the front of me.
Then the sky cracks and goes dark
I stand suddenly wet, head back, mouth open
arms outstretched, choking, sobbing
I am undone
It is only this act that will heal.
I choose one type of love over another.
I choose one land over another.
I choose to go where I will be planted and tilled.
And where I can plant and till what is sustaining and real.
Good bye Chicago.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Today's class on sexual ethics...interesting!
Today's ethics class was very interesting so I typed out what I learned in case anyone wants to read it.
We started with a historical perspective because sexual ethics and morality actually comes out of history and our human desire to keep existing.
So in 1860 kids died a ton. Because of this society's goal was to continue humanity. On average if two people got married they had to have 6.5 kids to replace themselves. Infant death was the norm and child birth was also so dangerous that probably the most years you would be married was 14 years due to women dieing in childbirth or men dying due to heavy labor. Because of this sexual ethics was entirely created around having babies. It was called the "procreative ideal". The procreative ideal became a norm (which means, this is the way it has to because God says so) because of St. Augustine. Boo Boo St. Augustine!
The procreative idea/norm is this. Having babies is the only goal of sex and marriage. Therefore - Sex has to be: free, with another person, who is human, of the opposite gender, within marriage (to raise the kid) with your spouse - (so it knows who it's folks are), in a complete act (because other wise a baby wouldn't be made), that is open to procreation (no contraception). IN fact St Augustine went so far as to say that if you have sex and your motivation is not to have a baby, it's sin.
Now jump forward to the next century. In 1960 things were very different! 75 years ago a dude named Alexander Fleming figured out antibiotics, and therefore now kids don't die as much. So now days if you want to replace yourself on the earth and let humanity keep going, you only have to have 2 kids. AND people stay married (if they stay married until death) an average of 45 years.
What shocked me was that NEVER and I mean never in human history did people stay married more than 14 years before this era because they died sooner. So we actually have never known what it is like for people to stay married and average of 45 plus years. This is interesting because people still keep the "stay married forever" mantra in the church (which I do think is good) but they say this out of an 1800's ethic without realizing that being married 14 years with kids the whole time is a bit different than 45 years sometimes without kids.
So basically now all of Christendom has been trying to figure out what in the world to do with sexual ethics. In the last re-writing of cannon law by the catholic church they changed the definition of marriage. This I didn't know. They changed it away from this 1800's procreation ideal/norm to "the union of two whole selves." And they use this for deciding when a marriage can be annulled as well. eg., It used to be if you didn't have kids or sex your marriage could be annulled. But now if you aren't whole or able to commit due to drugs or mental illness etc. you can have your marriage annulled. So even the catholic church is changing their entire sexual ethic.
We discussed today two major players in a new sexual ethic. I think they are both Catholics. A dude named Richard Wesley and a woman named Margret Farley. They are part of a bunch of ethicists trying to write an ethic for christians for how do we decide what is good or bad sex/relationship/marriage in today's society where people are marriage for 45-60+ years and don't need to have 6.5 kids etc.
This is a bit of what they say. Wesley's ethics is all based on what is honest/true and what is communion. In the old days 1860's they said humans were animals with reasoning. Now we say (christians) humans are enfleshed spirits. The difference being what gives a spirit joy verses talking about animalistic impulses. And Wesley says what gives us joy and life is truth and communion. So he has this whole ethic around truth and communion/connection.
So you can respond to the old list of what was good and bad sex not through the lens of procreation but on the basis of what's better communion (eg. it doesn't do harm and is life giving) and what is true. So for example using Richard Wesley you could say rape is still wrong because it does harm, doesn't bring communion between two spirits, and it isn't true/honest connection. It's based on selfishness, not asking for that need to be met honestly, but stealing it. However, using Wesley you could say homosexuality can be good sex depending on how the relationship is structured because it can be communion/union of two whole selves who are being honest about who they are and what they need and are in whole life communion. Totally interesting. There's a lot more to this but that's what I found most interesting about Wesley. His reading is a bit boring, but the concepts are totally interesting.
Now Margret Farley is a catholic nun. She wrote a book that just came out two years ago called "Just Love". And she took the old school (16th and 17th century) virtues and turn them on their head. She uses the same old virtues, but puts sexual ethics in a new place. In the 16th and 17th century they said sexuality and how we were to be virtuous in sex./marriage should be understood as falling under temperance. (The four virtues are - prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude). She says putting sexuality under the virtue of temperance is a totally MALE understanding of sex. Sex for men in that day was something to control.
She says today sexuality should be understood/put under the virtue justice. So sexuality is understood as something that is not scary to be controlled or wielded. Instead sexuality is about justice and equality. About two adult equals communing in a way that is equal and life giving and "just love" as her book title says. I actually haven't read the book so I don't know if this is how she explains it but this is what I got from class.
I guess I share all this to say it's very freeing to understand sexuality this way for me. It allows me to still have a sexual ethic in a more spacious way. One that still has right and wrong, justice and injustice, but does not have the historical perspective of old.
We started with a historical perspective because sexual ethics and morality actually comes out of history and our human desire to keep existing.
So in 1860 kids died a ton. Because of this society's goal was to continue humanity. On average if two people got married they had to have 6.5 kids to replace themselves. Infant death was the norm and child birth was also so dangerous that probably the most years you would be married was 14 years due to women dieing in childbirth or men dying due to heavy labor. Because of this sexual ethics was entirely created around having babies. It was called the "procreative ideal". The procreative ideal became a norm (which means, this is the way it has to because God says so) because of St. Augustine. Boo Boo St. Augustine!
The procreative idea/norm is this. Having babies is the only goal of sex and marriage. Therefore - Sex has to be: free, with another person, who is human, of the opposite gender, within marriage (to raise the kid) with your spouse - (so it knows who it's folks are), in a complete act (because other wise a baby wouldn't be made), that is open to procreation (no contraception). IN fact St Augustine went so far as to say that if you have sex and your motivation is not to have a baby, it's sin.
Now jump forward to the next century. In 1960 things were very different! 75 years ago a dude named Alexander Fleming figured out antibiotics, and therefore now kids don't die as much. So now days if you want to replace yourself on the earth and let humanity keep going, you only have to have 2 kids. AND people stay married (if they stay married until death) an average of 45 years.
What shocked me was that NEVER and I mean never in human history did people stay married more than 14 years before this era because they died sooner. So we actually have never known what it is like for people to stay married and average of 45 plus years. This is interesting because people still keep the "stay married forever" mantra in the church (which I do think is good) but they say this out of an 1800's ethic without realizing that being married 14 years with kids the whole time is a bit different than 45 years sometimes without kids.
So basically now all of Christendom has been trying to figure out what in the world to do with sexual ethics. In the last re-writing of cannon law by the catholic church they changed the definition of marriage. This I didn't know. They changed it away from this 1800's procreation ideal/norm to "the union of two whole selves." And they use this for deciding when a marriage can be annulled as well. eg., It used to be if you didn't have kids or sex your marriage could be annulled. But now if you aren't whole or able to commit due to drugs or mental illness etc. you can have your marriage annulled. So even the catholic church is changing their entire sexual ethic.
We discussed today two major players in a new sexual ethic. I think they are both Catholics. A dude named Richard Wesley and a woman named Margret Farley. They are part of a bunch of ethicists trying to write an ethic for christians for how do we decide what is good or bad sex/relationship/marriage in today's society where people are marriage for 45-60+ years and don't need to have 6.5 kids etc.
This is a bit of what they say. Wesley's ethics is all based on what is honest/true and what is communion. In the old days 1860's they said humans were animals with reasoning. Now we say (christians) humans are enfleshed spirits. The difference being what gives a spirit joy verses talking about animalistic impulses. And Wesley says what gives us joy and life is truth and communion. So he has this whole ethic around truth and communion/connection.
So you can respond to the old list of what was good and bad sex not through the lens of procreation but on the basis of what's better communion (eg. it doesn't do harm and is life giving) and what is true. So for example using Richard Wesley you could say rape is still wrong because it does harm, doesn't bring communion between two spirits, and it isn't true/honest connection. It's based on selfishness, not asking for that need to be met honestly, but stealing it. However, using Wesley you could say homosexuality can be good sex depending on how the relationship is structured because it can be communion/union of two whole selves who are being honest about who they are and what they need and are in whole life communion. Totally interesting. There's a lot more to this but that's what I found most interesting about Wesley. His reading is a bit boring, but the concepts are totally interesting.
Now Margret Farley is a catholic nun. She wrote a book that just came out two years ago called "Just Love". And she took the old school (16th and 17th century) virtues and turn them on their head. She uses the same old virtues, but puts sexual ethics in a new place. In the 16th and 17th century they said sexuality and how we were to be virtuous in sex./marriage should be understood as falling under temperance. (The four virtues are - prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude). She says putting sexuality under the virtue of temperance is a totally MALE understanding of sex. Sex for men in that day was something to control.
She says today sexuality should be understood/put under the virtue justice. So sexuality is understood as something that is not scary to be controlled or wielded. Instead sexuality is about justice and equality. About two adult equals communing in a way that is equal and life giving and "just love" as her book title says. I actually haven't read the book so I don't know if this is how she explains it but this is what I got from class.
I guess I share all this to say it's very freeing to understand sexuality this way for me. It allows me to still have a sexual ethic in a more spacious way. One that still has right and wrong, justice and injustice, but does not have the historical perspective of old.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Interesting! Gene Robinson will deliver the invocation at inauguration... Sweet!
Bishop Robinson To Deliver Invocation At Inaugural Kickoff
In an apparent olive branch to the gay community, President-elect Barack Obama’s inaugural committee has announced that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, who became the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop in 2003, will deliver the invocation at the inaugural kickoff at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday. However, the Obama camp denies that this invitation came about as a response to controversy over Rick Warren’s selection to give the invocation at the inauguration itself:
An Obama source: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism – but it’s just not so.”
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
My blogging plan until I graduate
Just so you know I am going to just be posting about once a month until I graduate. I think this is wise since I want to respect boundaries I have set up during internship. And since I rather explain any future moving and marriage plans I may have in person.
I will blog more regularly in a few months (May/June 2009) either here, or by starting a new more professional blog. Most likely a more professional blog.
The Christmas plan includes Lo coming here to spend Christmas all on our own. (Very exciting) And then I fly off closer to new years to visit the family. I am an aunt now so that will be a good distraction.
For now you can see me in action here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/101oranges
I will blog more regularly in a few months (May/June 2009) either here, or by starting a new more professional blog. Most likely a more professional blog.
The Christmas plan includes Lo coming here to spend Christmas all on our own. (Very exciting) And then I fly off closer to new years to visit the family. I am an aunt now so that will be a good distraction.
For now you can see me in action here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/101oranges
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
