"that's why they were sad, you see"
Sep. 27th, 2011 09:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hermionesviolinTuesday 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
Date: 2011-09-28 11:15 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2011-09-28 11:43 pm (UTC)In the conversation about John 3:16, I said I wasn't even going to engage with the question of whether "eternal life" referred to Heaven/Hell or not because I didn't know enough about first century Judaism to be able to meaningfully engage with that question.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-28 11:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-28 11:57 pm (UTC)I will keep that in mind for future. I feel like with that group, the idea of Heaven/Hell is so foundational/central that I don't know how to move past/beyond it without making the session All About that argument (perhaps I will start pre-reading chapters so I can do some advance research), but that's useful for my continued grappling with a coherent
systematictheology of my own.no subject
Date: 2011-09-28 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-29 12:06 am (UTC)Yay for "my/your/our continued engagement with a wide variety of theological ideas." :)