burning like matchsticks in the face of the darkness

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approves change in ordination standard
‘submission to the lordship of jesus christ’ replaces ‘fidelity and chastity’

Yeah, I have lots of thoughts about that :D

(1) This post makes me want to see the movie Jennifer's Body.

(2) A flister recently linked to this this NY Times article on prayer which has one paragraph which, as she put it, "basically plagiarizes inaccurately paraphrases closely adapts an excerpt from this 2008 news article" (and I'm here quoting from the 2008 article):

Among the most innovative -- and controversial -- aspects of the Siddur soon to be released by San Francisco's main gay synagogue is a prayer for "unexpected intimacy." The new prayer is intended for meaningful encounters with strangers, including, according to some involved in the project, anonymous sexual relations.

It is featured in the forthcoming Siddur created by Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, a 31-year-old synagogue in San Francisco affiliated with the Reform movement.

"In the dark, in a strange place, our father Jacob encountered a stranger with whom he grappled all night," the prayer begins, referring to the biblical story of Jacob wrestling with the angel. "He never knew the stranger's name, yet their encounter was a blessing, which turned Jacob into Israel and made him realize, I have seen God face-to-face."

The prayer, titled "Kavannah for Unexpected Intimacy," goes on to ask God -- "who created passion and wove it throughout creation" -- to permit the encounter to be a blessing "that allows us to both touch and see the Divine."

[...]

Ramer, who describes himself as "fiercely monogamous," stressed that the prayer was not intended solely for gays and lesbians. He also emphasized that it need not refer solely to encounters of a sexual nature, but to any exchange with a stranger that was deemed meaningful.

"Isn't this one of the things we're told the most, to honor strangers?" Ramer asked. "In an anonymous act, this is our chance to recognize the sacredness."

I have thoughts on the NYT prayer article, but I'm much more struck by the stranger-encounter prayer idea.  My friend suggests that the question we ask (and not just about sexual ethics) shouldn't be about Right/Wrong but rather should be, "How can this activity reflect and deepen the presence of God in my life and the world?"

I didn't know what to expect, exactly.

Alicia [who told me about this] was at The Crossing forum, and the panel that night consisted of: a gay man, a straight man, and a MtF straight woman, so I figure anyone there can't be conservative in a way that would make me uncomfortable.

I browsed the website, and it's all male God language (even for the Holy Spirit, which apparently makes me sadface).

I got really irritated that they said, "Furthermore, there is nothing we can do on our own to re-establish our relationship with God." and then two sentences later, "Our relationship is re-established when we make a commitment to accept Jesus as God's son and our Savior and Lord."  I understand that they mean that we can only be back in right relationship with God through the salvific power of Christ, that we can't make it happen by our own power, but still.

They also say, "We believe the Bible is entirely accurate, complete, and reliable. We look to the Bible for the revelation of the character of God and the final authority on matters of faith and conduct."  I suddenly felt very Wesleyan.

They have the !Augustine quote "In essentials - unity; in matters of opinion - freedom; in all things - love" in their "Core Values & Our Culture."

Anyway, I found that I could listen to their sermons online, so I started with their current sermon series.

Beloved

We live in a sex saturated world filled with messages about sex. Who are you listening when it comes to sex? God gives us the book of Song of Songs and Solomon's story to help navigate issues of love, intimacy, and sex.

***

Beloved - Who Are You Listening To? 02/01/09
Pastor: Hank Wilson

( Read more... )

Beloved - Singleness and Sexuality 02/08/09
Pastor: Hank Wilson

( Read more... )

[I started this entry during work today, and it took far too long to finish it tonight.  Sleepytime.]

Because I spend a lot of time hanging out with Methodists nowadays, I'm made particularly aware of what's going on in that denomination.  The newest issue is Drew Phoenix, formerly Ann Gordon, pastor of a Baltimore church.  Tiffany pointed out that across the board, Methodist churches in urban centers are failing, while this pastor has significantly increased both attendance and giving in this Baltimore church.  However, the fact that the pastor transitioned (complete with surgery) ftm is what's getting attention.

Recently Tiffany linked to a sermon on "Marriage, Divorce and Homosexuality."  This pastor has since posted about Drew Phoenix as well (as has Tiffany).

Tiffany's also been crossposting at 7Villages (which I am given to understand is specifically United Methodist), where a lot of more theologically conservative folk have been leaving blog comments.

There's a lot of hostility on both sides, and it makes me uncomfortable.

When I first became aware of transgender issues in college, my immediate reaction was to feel a disconnect between the God of love I believed and the idea that the body one was born with was truly wrong for one.  Though this of course begged the question as to where one draws the line on body modification; plus bodies are in fact often born "wrong" -- e.g., babies with holes in their hearts, cleft palates (which are sometimes "merely" cosmetic but can also be so severe as to interfere with eating).

Stuff like Toby's GenderQueer Monologues helped me grok trans issues a lot better [I also find myself returning to Amy Bloom's Kafka analogy in her book Normal], and I'm a libertarian at heart so on a secular level I definitely endorse people being able to do whatever they want to their own bodies.

However, it's still a very different issue than sexual orientation (though some of the activism legitimately overlaps) so it's troubling to see it all lumped under one umbrella (i.e. "GLBT").  I find this even more troubling in a Christian context where I think one has to do a lot more work (at the very least, different work) to reconcile it.

And while I'm sure a lot of the people who are opposed to Christian churches affirming GLBT folk have a lot of problematic baggage, I do believe that for the most part their opposition is rooted in a sincere belief that theirs is the correct understanding of God's intention for the world -- which is where the liberals are coming from, too, so it makes me sad (and frustrated) that a lot of the reaction from "my side" is along the lines of "You are mean and exclusionary."  Okay, I know I'm being unfair to the current discussion, and my take on this is so tainted by my history with left-right disagreements.  But I'm really sympathetic to the conservatives on this issue, am even sympathetic to the sometimes hostile presentation of those views (though I don't think it's a presentation conducive to dialogue or even of encouraging the other side to even listen to you).  And I'm definitely starting to sound insulting myself (I started to write a sentence about the "self-righteousness" of the left and realized there was no way that was going to end well.), so I'm shutting up and going to bed.

[Sidenote: xanphibian posted a reminder that if you post a link to something, that can be tracked back to you.  I do understand not wanting trolls on one's journal, and I admit to being weirded out when someone I wasn't expecting to read an entry leaves a comment, but it makes me sad that the world is such that we are so concerned about this, that the default isn't that people engage you in discussion.]

Other interesting thoughts (from my sexual ethics readings):

    A new anthropophagism does not desire God outside of our bodies.  The desire of God is not a spiritual longing, if what we call spiritual has no body.  This desire has to do with concrete bodies with emptied stomachs, with illnesses that are not controlled or cannot be healed, with bodies discarded by government programmes, with bodies abused and battered, enslaved bodies, disfigured bodies, bodies not fully observed, bodies that burn in desire.  Moreover, the desire of God has to do with lack, with the emptiness of our skin, with our search for other bodies, transgressing the norms of what is allowed or permitted as we construe fragmentary notions of love.  Our desire for God has to do with the rubbing of our skin, with the kisses we give, the caresses we receive, with the orgasms we have.
-from "Oh, Que Sera, Que Sera . . . A Limping A/Theological Thought in Brazil" by Claudio Carvalhaes in Liberation Theology and Sexuality, ed. Marcella Althaus-Reid (p. 60)

In his book Body Theology, James B. Nelson posits the statement: "We do not just have bodies, we are bodies" (p. 43).

***

Oy, a quick skim of the flist tells me that the recent murmured worries which were written off as a hoax have resurfaced with a different twist and apparent legitimacy.  I will examine further after some sleep.

Edit: Thank you, cofax7. "You are not entitled to absolute freedom of speech on the internet."

I read Lauren Winner's Real Sex a while back and sadly got no discussion on it.  [Note: I get comments e-mailed to me, so you can always comment on old stuff of mine.  And anything of interest is likely in my Memories.]  The topic of sex-having has come up yet again on the flist, so I'm making a poll.  Clarifications are delineated beneath the poll.

[P.S. Speaking of polls: Layna, you can tell Chris that Charging Rhinos beat the U.S. Supreme Court 9-8 if we don't count my vote, though my parents both voted for Charging Rhinos though they're not represented in the LJ poll.]

[Poll #596927]

The poll is spurred by knowing so many people who identify as some flavor of Christian and yet don't seem to have any qualms about having sex.  I grew up in a Christian tradition, and NO SEX outside marriage always seemed a full-stop for me [though I honestly can't point to any specific instances of that being taught], so I'm curious about this disconnect (hence the poll lumping together everyone who does not have religious prohibitions on non-marital sex).

I know non-hetero couples in most states/countries don't have official legal marriage as an option, but I tend to think that replacing "marriage" with "relationship both parties have (publically) committed to intending to be permanent" works fine for having the non-marital sex discussion.  So please read "non-marital" in the poll as appropriate shorthand.

As for whether or not you are part of a religious tradition . . . I trust your judgement.  If you go to Mass because your parents make you but actually you're an atheist, I think the "not a part of" option is yours.  If you identify yourself as Catholic even though you disagree with the official line on a number of issues, pick from one of the first three.

The would/would not question is intended as a hypothetical.  I'm purposely being good and not doing the nosy "Have you had non-marital sex?" question (though honestly, I already know the answer for most of the people on my flist) but if you wanna elaborate in comments with personal experience, I'm not gonna tell you not to.  I pretty much don't have a TMI threshhold, so share or not as you wish.  And obviously if you wanna e-mail me privately, go for it.  I am not gonna bother screening comments on this post, though.

Some of you are currently married, but I trust you to be able to think hypothetically (or not so hypothetically if you're poly).

Basically, I trust you all to be intelligent people.  Please do let me know if I should clarify anything about this poll, though.