Friday, March 9, 2007

The work of re-equilibration

Two thoughts this a.m.

1) Although I can't quite articulate it... I am still standing between my love for God and my seeking of what it means for me (and will mean for me) to love a particular woman. This is something I know I can't fully learn outside relationship with said person. But, I am finding it confusing to email woman who might feel nervous or judge my faith. And yet I find myself emailing them anyway and I don't know what that means. This is truly a work of re-equilibration in my life and self. I have been thrown off balance and am working towards a new equilibrium.

2) Books help. I'm pondering these two quotes from the book "A Time to Embrace: Same gender relationships in religion, law, and politics" by William Stacy Johnson. These are quotes that for christians could be an interesting starting place of dialog. I sometimes feel the right question is one of the most powerful ingridients of alchemy. Or the key part of me finding out what the next ten feet of this journey look like, intellectually and spiritually.

The most formidable advocate of the consecrationist position to date is Rowan Williams formerly a theology professor at both Oxford and Cambridge. IN approaching human sexuality, Williams does not see the first question as "Am I keeping the rules?" (as it is for the celebrationists). Rather, he sees the first question as this: "What does my relationship signify or demonstrate concerning the faithfulness and grace of God?" In an important essay on this subject "The Body's Grace," Williams argues that we need to take a step back and ask ourselves what the purpose of sexual desire is in the first place. What place does sexuality have within God's economy of salvation? The answer Williams gives is that human sexual desire, especially when rightly ordered, reflects God's own desire for God's people. Just as God makes a covenant with God's people, so also they should order their sexual relationships in committed, covenantal ways that give glory to God. Therefore, for Williams, the focus needs to shift from sex acts to relationships...."


Rogers goes a step further: because marriage is a means of grace, and because being excluded from marriage may lead some to leave the church, denying gays and lesbians the right of marriage is nothing less than to deny them the gospel itself.

1 comment:

Zuzu said...

That phrase "economy of salvation" cracks me up.

So this is just fodder from a different perspective. It would be very difficult for me to date a devout Christian, simply because our beliefs would too often come toe to toe and square off in a way I wouldn't find very sexy. However, I wouldn't rule it out, and it would wholly depend on the individual - their willingness to engage in respectful dialog on issues where our view and beliefs diverge and for both of us to be willing to admit, reveal and be open (and explore) the contradictions of our beliefs.

I likely wouldn't judge that person any more than they would judge me as we came to understand one another. I suppose the "upside" of my perspective here is that many (most?) devout Christians (Muslims, Jews, etc.) likely wouldn't date me because of a desire to seek a like mind with like beliefs - it's likely a mutual exclusion but I'm guessing, on both sides, it's not wholly exclusive for some (many?)

So perhaps my point here is that people will likely judge you for your beliefs - but that's not a bad thing to be judged by. It's true that in every lover relationship, to some degree, I judge a person by their beliefs, acts and deeds (and I'll admit willingly that there were times I just wanted to be wrong again and again and again!) And I come to understand that those things change overtime in many/most people as well.