Elizabeth (the delinquent, ecumenical) (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hermionesviolin) wrote2011-09-27 09:46 pm
hermionesviolin) wrote2011-09-27 09:46 pm
"that's why they were sad, you see"
Tuesday night SCBC Bible Study is doing (most of) the Gospel of John. Chapter 3 tonight. In talking about "eternal life," Rev. Adrienne wanted to confirm that it was the Sadducees who didn't believe in Heaven (and this the Pharisees who did). I affirmed that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection (using the Subject Line mnemonic I learned from my bff). I also ended up mentioning the story where they ask Jesus about the hypothetical woman who's had 7 husbands, whose wife will be she in the resurrection -- to which Jesus says, "Y'all are missing the point."
Flo said, yes, we won't need marriage in Heaven, because we'll all be family.
My unspoken response was ... well, it was incoherent, but it centered on the fact that for many people, SEX is an important part of marriage.
I already had plans to exegete that passage in a pro-poly way, so there's a way in which that works for me -- about sex not being something that needs to be limited to one particular relationship, but is an experience that can be shared with many (I'm reminded of Desmond's frequent analogy to food) -- though it also has implications of that troubling idea that often shows up in queer theology that all our differences will be erased in the eschaton (relationships are particular, and ceremonies like marriage honor that particularity; relationships are neither identical nor interchangeable, and that is not only okay that is GOOD).
Flo said, yes, we won't need marriage in Heaven, because we'll all be family.
My unspoken response was ... well, it was incoherent, but it centered on the fact that for many people, SEX is an important part of marriage.
I already had plans to exegete that passage in a pro-poly way, so there's a way in which that works for me -- about sex not being something that needs to be limited to one particular relationship, but is an experience that can be shared with many (I'm reminded of Desmond's frequent analogy to food) -- though it also has implications of that troubling idea that often shows up in queer theology that all our differences will be erased in the eschaton (relationships are particular, and ceremonies like marriage honor that particularity; relationships are neither identical nor interchangeable, and that is not only okay that is GOOD).
no subject
Eschatological erasure of differences :( -- I'm reading an anthology of Christian mystical writings that is also troubling me in just this direction (the stated goal of certain kinds of monastic practice seems to be the annihilation of self (that is, all the things that make us particular) so all we're left with is a soul-caught-up-in-God. :/
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)