Did you see the NYT Magazine??

This is a great commentary: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001819.php, much more reasoned and thorough than mine, but at any rate, here were my thoughts:

First, scary, that this is being held up as some kind of example for churches to follow. Some guy who didn't even get a seminary degree, just took a few classes, thinks he can actually lead people spiritually? Yikes. Reflects that anti-intellectualism of the church (touched upon in the article when referring to Assemblies of God) that has screwed us up so bad for a century.

The story seems to be making the irresponsible equation Christian = Republican Voter
Also Christian Success = money and numbers - it read more like a business page story than religion (which may have been the purpose)

It's kind of a tired subject - been seeing megachurch stories for 2 decades. Not sure they succeeded in squeezing any new info out of the old chestnut. Perhaps recycled it b/c of the election results?

Celebrating the success of this church (from a business perspective) makes good news, but it is bad for religion.

Where are the experts questioning this guy's credentials? It doesn't present any dissenting opinion! No Christian interviewed who says this IS NOT the way church is supposed to be. What about other denominations who try the same thing but aren't successful? Or other non-educated pastors who've failed?

For that matter, what gives this place, which for all outside appearances is just a social center, the right to call itself a Christian Church?

The reporter does ask a few good questions, but leaves them at questions - I wonder if he even asked them of his experts? All he has from experts are sound bites that support the story - but nothing of substance, just quotes repeating what he's already said.

It definitely did get a reaction from me, but not a positive one. I think a typical evangelical would be mostly pleased with the article, although it seemed to me that the pastor (successful or no) comes off looking kind of irreponsible (in his spiritual growth and education, I mean), and the church isn't really acting like a church. I doubt very many evangelicals would be proud to be associated with a church like this, although interestingly, most evangelical churches are pretty similar to this (in services offered, etc.), just not as brazen about it.

Practice makes it wonderful

Don't make your prayer a job. It's a gift. Don't make it a grim and costly ticket you must buy in order to gain admittance to the divine love -- you're already there. When you begin to exercise it's hard. You don't feel well. You don't like to sweat. Moving hurts. Everyone else is stronger and faster and looks better. You know that years of not moving have been bad for you, and now you feel like you're being punished for it. But you keep going. And soon you begin to feel different. Wonderful. Soon you love to move, even love to sweat, soon your body loves it -- it's what your body's made to do. Soon you feel strong. Soon you don't care what other people look like. Soon you don't feel guilty any more -- you're doing good things for the body God gave you, and you're being blessed every time you do them. Spiritual discipline is just like that. It can be hard at first. You can feel guilty and inadequate at first. I should have been praying and reading scripture already, you think. I don't do this right. Other people do it better. But prayer's what you're created to do. You are naturally good at it -- God made you that way. Soon you don't care what other people do, how long they've been doing it, whether they're better at it than you are. Soon you just love it for its own sake. Soon you hardly remember what made you feel guilty about it. If you have trouble with the word "discipline," you won't later on -- not after you get going in a routine that blesses you. In the meantime, use the word "practice." It's the same thing.
Copyright © 2005 Barbara Crafton - http://www.geraniumfarm.org

Let Him Kiss Me With the Kisses of His Mouth!

Here is my book report (well actually chapter report) on the Song of Songs. I personally wasn't bowled over by it (and J thought it was simply terrible) but I got an "A" anyway.

In his enlightening book, The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times, David W. Kling spends a chapter discussing the Song of Songs. This may seem strange to us, as the church today rarely reads or teaches from this book: growing up, I got the sense that it was sort of a “dirty” book that was included in the Bible by accident. Kling illumines the history of the Song, helping the modern reader to see the long, rich traditions associated with it and the way that interpretation through the centuries has been variously influenced by “views of sexuality and the self, hermeneutic assumptions…, theological emphases and conditions in the church, and socio-economic circumstances.”[1]
The Song has always been a very popular book in the canon, particularly with monastic communities. Only in the last century or so has it fallen out of regular use in liturgy and been relegated to the pre-marital aisle of the Christian bookstore. There have been two basic approaches to its reading: literal and allegorical. The latter is older, originating with Origen in the middle of the third century ce, and has been upheld by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, who interpret the book as a metaphor for the love of God for His people or His church, respectively. Nowadays, the book is nearly universally seen as literal, which is due largely to our modern exegetical practices (we will deal critically with this assumption below). The chapter is a lesson on what happens when exegetes bring their own theological assumptions and cultural ethos to the text they study.
Kling briefly explains the various reasons scholars have given to explain the Song’s fascination to the monastic community, and why they hold to the allegorical viewpoint: everything from their unhealthy sexual repression to modern theories suggesting that monks read it as a story between themselves and Jesus to satisfy homoerotic desires. A compelling explanation is offered by Roland Murphy in his 1990 commentary: the allegory “facilitated the construction of a Christian worldview,”[2] helping early scholars bridge the gap between the Old Testament and the New by testifying to God’s immense love for humankind, to be fulfilled by the Christ event.
Kling spends the rest of the chapter on a history of the interpretation of the Song. He begins with Origen, father of the allegorical interpretation. Origen was heavily influenced by Plato, and brings his beliefs to the text when doing exegesis: wanting to describe the “soul’s enlightenment to the divine mysteries,”[3] he found portions of the text which supported his argument. Origen’s five-step allegorical explanation of the book was highly influential for many centuries. Interestingly, he also touched on the idea of the Song as a wedding drama, a concept more fully explored later in history.
The Latin fathers and later medieval scholars expanded on Origen’s concept, keeping the allegorical interpretation. They used the Song to support their own convictions about the ideal state of virginity, the holiness of Mary, the institution of baptism, and various disputed church doctrines. Throughout, Origen’s remained the seminal interpretation in the West from the 5th – 11th centuries.
The rise of monasticism, coupled with Europe’s rise out of the Dark Ages (with attendant prosperity, population growth, rise of cities, etc.), led to new ways of expanding upon Origen’s commentary. Origen had focused on knowledge of and communion with God through intellect, but monastics (starting with Pope Gregory I) preferred to know God through the heart, and began to see the loving elements of the Song as the desire of the soul to commune with God (keeping the allegorical framework of God and human, not man and woman).
This interpretation was most profoundly developed by Bernard of Clairvaux, an early 12th century mystic who is a hero of that tradition as well as much beloved by everyone from Martin Luther to the Puritans to Popes and seekers. Bernard enjoyed a happy childhood, and at age 21 he decided to enter the relatively new Cistercian order, a group devoted to regaining the pure Benedictine Rule of Life with an extremely ascetic way of life. His popularity is attested by the fact that he entered not only with his family (father, uncles, brothers) but also brought in 30 friends. He remained a very effective recruiter for the order throughout his life, and was also quite influential in the political arena of his day.
The Cistercians were unique in that they only admitted adults, many of whom had already been married or had experienced love. This brought a whole new dynamic into the previously entirely celibate – and sexually ignorant – monastic system. The Song of Songs worked well for Bernard as a teaching tool, as his monks could understand the expressions of desire within it from firsthand experience. Thus, Bernard wrote 86 sermons on the Song over an 18-year period, which influenced opinion of the book for the next 400 years.
Bernard’s exegesis was quite new, in that he added personal passion to his work: his own stories, thoughts, and life experiences. He was steeped in Scripture and also the Greek Neoplatonic mystical tradition.[4] He studied the Song, but not with scholastic method – rather, he used it as a way to explain his own mystical ideas about the soul’s ascent to God. For this, many call him the last of the fathers, for after his work the study of Scripture became much more rigorously academic and would not have allowed for Bernard’s mystical contemplation.
In Bernard’s work, the Song is seen as a description of the encounter of the human soul with the living God. The Scripture is a veil, adaptable to human understanding, hiding a deep spiritual experience. His sermons use the Song to describe human desire for God, mystical ascent, Imago Dei, free will, the incarnation, and God’s deep, abiding love for us. Bernard, Kling attests, created a “new genre in exegesis”[5] by applying the Scripture to the life situation of those in his day. This caught on and was quite popular through the 16th century.
While spending the bulk of the chapter on Bernard, Kling goes on to briefly overview the reformer’s and present-day scholar’s thoughts on the Song. The Protestants, Kling points out, were adamant about the literal interpretation of Scripture – except when it came to the Song. Luther added some historical thought to the exegesis, removing the mystical elements. In the 17-18th centuries, there were dueling interpretations between Catholics (whose scholars were celibate) supporting the mystical views of Bernard, and Protestants who, personally experiencing the intimacies of marriage, knew quite surely that human marriage couldn’t hold a candle to God’s love (this makes one wonder about their marital health!). At the end of the 18th century, the idea of the Song as a dramatic poem or wedding text, first proposed by Origen, caught on, due largely to the rise of modern literary theory.
In the 20th century, the prevailing scholarship has followed the historical-critical method, which has confirmed the Song as a collection of romantic poems, celebrating and affirming married love. The first half of the century saw the rise of an interesting cultic interpretation having to do with fertility gods and goddesses in ancient Near Eastern religion, but that has largely been discounted. Recent feminist thought has provoked new discussion about the authorship of the book, and the equality between the sexes (including the woman frequently being the instigator of intimate encounters).
In conclusion, Kling sums up that from the 3-19th centuries, the allegorical tradition held sway, and it was really only in the last 100 years that the literal interpretation has been the dominant thought. He closes by asking some tough questions about our methods of exegesis: can we have it both ways: giving credit to the historical-critical method’s literal interpretation while also appreciating the less exegetically sound allegorical view? Did God actually inspire Origen and Bernard to add to our understanding of the Song? Must we always defend every interpretation only from the text itself, or can current ideas inform the reading of a text as well? Kling leaves the questions open-ended, giving the reader rich food for thought.
The main point that Kling is making throughout this chapter is that we must examine our assumptions about poor standards of exegesis. We automatically assume that to start with a theology we want to prove, like Origen, is irresponsible. Or to bring more of our own experience to the text than may actually be warranted, as Bernard was wont to do, is not appropriate. It is considered especially bad form to use Scripture to uphold our own beliefs when both sides of an argument can do so, as in an example Kling gives of Augustine and the Donatists.[6]
And yet, Kling points out the incredible popularity of both Origen and Bernard’s interpretations – and how they kept the church, and monastics especially, interested in the Song of Songs for centuries. In the 20th century, the Song has lost its mysterious meaning, leading to its general disuse. Could it be that in fact Origen and Bernard had hit upon something that we should reconsider in our exegetical practice? Perhaps our modern methods are inadequate to deal with the artistic writings of the Bible, or we must find ways to use them while emphasizing, not losing, the metaphor and poetry of certain Scriptures (as has been done with some success in exegeting Revelation, for instance).
(At any rate, the majority of modern exegesis, at least in the common preacher’s use, seems to draw wildly from experience, modern events, social circumstances – pretty much everything except the text itself. So perhaps we have not lost the tradition of Bernard after all.)
A major problem with Kling’s overview is that he does not discuss Jewish interpretation of the Song in any detail (though he mentions it in passing). While we can appreciate that he is attempting to cover the Church’s history of exegesis, it seems sloppy to ignore the Jewish roots of Old Testament documents in particular.
It is also important for us to consider the Protestants’ interpretation of the Song as allegorical when they insist on literal interpretation of everything else in Scripture. Clearly the carnal lusts described in the book did not fit their view of proper human relations, so they relaxed their rules just this once. As Kling makes clear, this is a rather obvious mistake – and one that we continue to make today. For though we now accept the literal reading of the book, we basically ignore it or are even ashamed of it.
The 20th century interpretation of the book describing married love is interesting for two reasons: one, it never says the lovers are married (as Kling points out), and two, the Song clearly describes something more akin to initial infatuation than the lifelong commitment necessary for a healthy marriage of many years. Perhaps this is why the Song regularly shows up in pre-marital counseling and books, but is rarely suggested for couples that have been together a long time.
I once believed that the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs – whether one sees it as between God and the Church or God and the individual – was an unfortunate by-product of sexual repression. I see now that it is actually quite a lovely way of looking at it, if not entirely exegetically responsible. It gives everyone the ability to profit from the book, not just those in the throes of romantic desire.
I am also very intrigued by the feminist thoughts that Kling touches upon at the end of the chapter, particularly the notion of Phyllis Trible that the allegory “redeems a love story…gone awry” in the creation and fall of humans. When cursed, Eve is told she will long for her husband – but this is reversed when the woman in the Song says, “for me is his desire.” The love in the Song is a sharing between equal partners: “males are neither aggressors nor abuses, and females are neither passive objects nor victims.”[7] This is a beautiful way to teach couples about pure love for one another, and can also instruct the church community as a whole about respecting the dignity of all persons. Origen and Bernard saw the book’s human-to-human desire as a model for the desire of humans for God and God for humans. We can then carry the metaphor a step further, turning the model back again – the love of God exemplified in the Song instructs our love for each other.
Bernard’s idea of the Christian soul’s ascent to God may feel a little bit “out there,” but it is helpful for lifelong disciples of Christ who wish to find a deeper relationship with God (this is supported by the current popularity of the ancient practice of Lectio Divina, which Kling uses as the model for and example of Bernard’s teaching). The Song gives the modern-day pilgrim a description of, and great hope for, the joys of mystical connection with God.
All of this is to say that the allegorical tradition holds great truth for us, even though it does not agree with our modern exegetical standards. For it allows Christians to once again embrace the book, and teachers to find within it universally applicable teaching. It recaptures the Song’s accessibility for the modern church as a community, as well as individual members. And perhaps most importantly, it affirms the Song’s rightful place in the canon of Scripture as a document given by God to reveal Himself further to humankind.

[1] Kling, David W. The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times (Oxford University Press, 2004), 116.
[2] Ibid, 88.
[3] Ibid, 90.
[4] Ibid, 102.
[5] Ibid, 112.
[6] Ibid, 93.
[7] Ibid, 116.

Diary of a Bored White Woman

Okay, tonight you're going to get some real-time classroom action. I'm in the killer giant lecture class that meets three times a quarter (oh the horror) and we are subjected to some person telling us some large amount of information that we usually do not care about. In the 6 times I've had this three hour class, I would say maybe 2 hours of it has actually been interesting. Maybe 3.
It's sad because I so thoroughly enjoy my other classes. This one is so beneath my degree and my school.
Today was my last day of Exegesis and Theology and Art. I gave, with a brilliant partner, a great presentation on the religious imagination of Andy Warhol. We could have gone on for hours - and the class was really into it too. I was especially touched by someone who I'd never spoken with coming up to tell me what a great speaker I am. Bodes well for preaching!
And the last day of Exegesis...I nearly cried. That class has been everything I hoped graduate school would be. And it wasn't really the content, although I definitely grasped the subject better than in most classes. It was the privilege of sitting every day in the presence of this giant in the field, who would spend the majority of the class time telling us stories. It was so incredible. I was honored to be there every day.
Anyway after this super-high day of wonderful class I am listening to someone give me the Bowen model of...something psychological. Man. I don’t' know if I can deal with the counseling part of being a pastor. It's one of the things that keeps me from wanting to just be a parish priest. I find this so completely boring. Can't I outsource the counseling and just preach?
I'm going to see about working on my final paper for this class now. Around me, there is one person reading a magazine (amusingly, behind a notebook like it's porn or something), several people reading other books, several playing computer games (God bless the laptop), and actually quite a few more than usual who seem to be paying attention. Even taking notes. Yikes.
Oh, wait, no, that guy is doing his Greek workbook, not taking notes.
OK, on to the paper now.
I'm back. The paper is exhausting. It's a "family autobiography". Geezu, I've been through all this in therapy HOW many times? I know, it should be easy. But it's tiring. This is why changing therapists sucks. You just want someone to know you. Maybe I can just hand over this blog to my next therapist.
It's been all of 18 minutes since I started this little tome. And went off to write a few paragraphs and came back. Ay yi yi!
Isn't this kind of an interesting social experiment? Those of you who are teachers, be warned - it can be soooo painful if you are not interesting. I know, it's really me, not the teacher with the problem here. And yet. Sometimes you are listening to someone and you really would rather pull out your hair (I pull out my neck hairs, usually).
Tomorrow is my last new testament class. And that's it. Classes over for my second quarter. They were so good (except this one). I loved New Testament - the teacher, my first lady teacher, was very knowledgeable - you could throw anything at her and she could speak to it. And she'd give us an hour of her time every Tuesday to talk about whatever.
Oh, wow, not only are my classes nearly over, but I am almost done with all my work. I got another paper back today (I should post it - it's about Song of Songs), with a nice A. At this point, after turning in the Warhol thing today, I am down to 1 final (multiple choice), 1 paper (7-10 pages exegesis of 1 John 3:1-10 - I know, it's a killer passage, I might reconsider), and then this dumb class - the family autobiography and reactions to my small group sessions (which we did in two Saturdays instead of overall 10 weeks).
Plus they turned off my DSL. We called to tell them that on March 21 we want to switch to our new phone service at the new apartment. So they turned off our DSL on March 1. Nice. Which means that it's very hard for me to get online and post things like this and my papers. Because I am dealing with...get this...DIALUP. Holy shit. How did I ever deal with this? I can't remember life before DSL and I frankly don't want to. It was a dark, dark time.
Don't you just love the people who blatantly sleep in class? I am completely unable to do that. The natives are getting restless in here. There is rustling of papers. There is some talking. There are many blank stares. I think I will spend the last hour of class (yes, this class goes until 10, and I've been in class since 1) playing Solitaire. I kind of wish I had another game. I used to have a casino game but I got rid of it. That would be ironic, playing the slots during seminary class.
Just kill me now.
He's one of these who has a powerpoint, which he passes out, then he proceeds to read the slides. People, don't read the slides. I can read the damn slides for myself. I had a nice glass of wine before I came to class: a 2002 Sterling Vintner's Selection Central Coast Cab. It was a very cabby cab. Do you know what that means? Maybe a little too cabby. But if you like cab, a decent choice. I paid $8.50 for a glass. I'll bet the bottle doesn't cost much more at Beverages & More. But I only paid $1.95 for a burger, so dinner was still under $15 with tip.
Anyway I discovered early on that a glass of wine helps this class tremendously. Takes the edge off, as my neighbor says. He's playing games on his phone. The guy next to him stopped taking notes and is sleeping, and oh, shit, we have to talk to the people at our tables! I better pay attention to the topic.
Ha ha! He's not sleeping, he's playing games too! He's an old man and even HE'S bored!!
Well I got to sit with my own group and talk. Luckily we didn't talk much about the assigned topic. None of us, except the person who's had the speaker's class on the same topic, is enjoying this at all. Mr. Old Sleepy Game-Player Man is gone. My friend Pete seems to be able to write his paper now (he and I discussed at the break our inability to write papers while this speaker is yammering in our ears). That's my shout-out to Pete since he's a reader. : )
I'm hitting critical exhaustion. The headache begins. Oh, this is one of those classes in which attendance counts. And you have to sign something saying how much of each class you attended. Just in case you were wondering why so many people (100+) would sit through this excruciating experience. That and it is a required class (a 3-quarter long requirement!) for MDivs, and it's an easy A if you can take the lectures, so we all kind of band together and in solidarity we face the pain. Perhaps this is some kind of test from God. I have a friend here who thinks everything is a test from God. Can't say I can deal with living life that way - I guess tests are too negative. And give the impression you could fail. I don't think you can. That's why I'm studying I John 3:1-10! Ha ha!
Seriously, seriously, this is the most horrid thing ever. This is NOT what I came to grad school for.
Well he said something useful: if a pastor is asked to leave a church, it is almost never because of preaching or theology, it is because of emotional issues. Churches are like little family systems. With the attendant neuroses. I can tell that there is something good going on, my brain is just simply mush at the moment, and there's too much jargon for me. It's much too much for 9:24 p.m.
And who knows when this will get posted - I have to go home and collapse tonight and be back here at 8 am and then I'm even taking the day off to work on the exegesis paper so there won't be much time for DIALING UP and loading this into blogger.
Hey if anyone knows any outstanding commentary on I John I am all ears.
I have won solitaire three times in a row. I have been playing for several weeks (sometimes my attention needs the help) and never won once, now I've won 3 times. I should go to Vegas after this. I should go right now.
So basically I'm learning that theology is pretty much never the reason that churches split. It's because there is an emotional dynamic that needs to be satisfied - people can't deal with conflict directly and therefore need to split.
OK, I think he's going to go until 9:50. We usually get some grace and get out early (the class starts at 6:30 after all). But this dude ain't slowing down. It's 9:29. I am not sensing relief in my immediate future.
This reminds me of an illustration that my husband uses to help me deal with my insane fear of eternity (remind me to go off on that sometime): time moves so painfully slowly in classes like this and so unnervingly quickly in classes like my others. The fear is that the time in eternity will be more like the former. I try to think of it like the latter. Like when you go to Disneyland and you don't wear a watch (because that's part of the rules at Disneyland) and before you know it your 14 hours are up and the park is closing. Time really can fly - or actually, it's more like time just stops. It's inconsequential. It's happened during great movies, great conversations. But it's never long enough. And I suppose when it's eternity, it may finally be long enough. Is it possible for you to want something to go on really forever? I don't have anything on earth that I can think of (though I can think of things that I'd like to go for a really long time) but I'll bet God has something up His sleeve.
Now we're talking about the problems churches put upon pastor's families. This have I lived. It's part of why I fear being a pastor and also why I know it's doable. Without kids. And in a healthy church.
I think this has gotten long. And as an experiment in student thought and experience it's probably lost its luster. I wonder what our psychologist speaker would make of it. Maybe I'll email it to him.

Begging your pardon

I ask for patience as I am up to my ears in papers and research. I will post anything I find that is interesting, or heck, whatever I write that seems interesting too. In the meantime, here, read Bill Moyers:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852

The National Association of Evangelicals Revise Civic Engagement Policy

Lame-Ass Post

Hello, kids, I am so busy I haven't time for a real post but I figured as long as I'm sitting here at work I'd share with you some of the stuff I'm reading.

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001727.php
A great article today in the Revealer by a Christian woman who went to work for - gasp! - an NPR station!

Here's another revealer story about the Passion: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_001711.php
And the Godspy article that prompted it:
http://godspy.com/reviews/Wrestling-with-the-Angel-of-Strangeness-The-Passion-One-Year-Later-by-Debra-Murphy.cfm

I'm writing a paper/presentation about Andy Warhol's spiritual side and I really dug this article:
http://godspy.com/culture/Andy-Warhol-Transubstantiating-the-Culture.cfm

And at the moment I'm listening to two of my favorite (unsigned) singers, who I am privileged to have as friends:
Mike Barnet http://www.mikebarnetmusic.com/
Chris Paul Overall http://www.chrispauloverall.com/

Check 'em out, download some mp3's. These guys deserve attention. Peace.

Love & Lent

Someone asked me to write about Lent, which I'm going to do in a moment. But first I have to mention that I am very distracted because a church very close to my heart is going through some major trouble. They've had an evaluation that came back with horrible results, including recommendations that all of the pastors resign (I don't get that at all). The senior pastor, who I know very well, and his wife, the minister of music, are devastated and confused. Please send up prayers for them.

Now on to Lent. This year started with my first attempt at really keeping a lenten fast - I was going to try to fast over lunchtime, and also not eat out. Well, those both went the way of the dinosaur within a week. I was just too darn hungry at lunch (and my energy level was dropping alarmingly, not good for someone who does as much as me), and while not eating out was a noble idea, when you have two students in the house with wacky schedules and you're moving, the convenience of take out is almost a necessity. So oh, well. I was kind of frustrated by the whole rules thing anyway. It was making me focus too much on what I was missing rather than what I was gaining from the discipline (would that have gone away?).

Lent is a time for self-examination and confession before God. It is a time when we acknowledge our failings so that Christ's saving power becomes all the more real to us, and we can truly celebrate the miracle of Easter when the time comes.

I have certainly been practicing a deep self-examination this Lent, and I have you and blogger to thank for it. I have learned so much about myself from our recent conversations as I work through these desires I have. And I think I may have come to a major realization about myself.

Apart from the general married-person desire for first-time-flutters, I think that these things I am talking about are much more platonic than they may feel. Let me try to explain.

I think it boils down to this: I have a huge amount of love. I love to make new friends because it gives me the opportunity to love more people. I treasure my old friends because I've been able to love them for so long. This is probably because God pours out this amazing amount of love on me and it can only spill over to those around me. I feel so completely loved by God.

In my subconscious, then, the love is manifest in romantic ways, because that's the best way my human mind can express how strong it is. The deepest feelings we humans can muster usually manifest in sexual attraction, since that's the strongest connection and the most whole-body love we can feel. While I may not even think of someone as a potential romantic target, in my dreams he or she is that way, because I simply am so delighted to know him or have her as my friend. The best way my little mind can get around this all-consuming love that pours out from heaven is to tell me it feels like romance.

I love my friends so much. I am so priveleged to know each of you. If I know you in person, please know that I am head over heels for you. You are incredibly special and deeply loved.

And if I only know you by this blog, I treasure you so much for the way you call me on things, and examine me, and care enough to read me, and you share yourself with me. You are so very loved.

Lent is about deprivation and solitude and seems to be so dark. But it is also about the most triumphantly loving act ever performed in all of history. Let love lead you through this season, until the great orgasmic release of Easter.

Thanks be to God!!

About those "evil desires"...

I just wanted to finish up the discussion about my wandering eyes by reassuring everyone that in fact I'm over it. This is actually what always happens: I get restless, I wish for those "first time" feelings again, I tell my husband about it (that's key), when it's appropriate and we're close enough I tell the person I feel them for, and then in a few hours or days, I come home and see my husband and it pretty much all melts away.

I've been enjoying the lively discussion so I've been arguing for the way I felt earlier in the week, even though it was pretty much just that one day. But I want to let you know that you need not worry for the state of my immortal soul nor my mortal marriage, as both are in fine condition.

I like blogging because of the immediacy of it - the fact that you can write what you're feeling at an exact moment of time, and the neat little time stamp will record the time you felt that way. But of course our lives are constantly moving and changing, and so I thought I should bring you up to speed.

I wrote about my temptation because I want married people who've felt the same way to know they are not alone. We all struggle with this - I think it's an absolutely normal part of married life. The human being is a sensuous creature, and we long for excitement. But we also treasure the warmth, safety, and intimacy of our committed relationships. Being with one person only is difficult and requires a lot of work - even if you're deeply in love. An important part of the work is always being honest with ourselves and with each other.

And so if we are fortunate enough to be married to a person who understands all this, we will pretty much always go back. Thanks be to God.

What is your worldview?

Hey, I'm a secular humanist! Who knew??

Lies my parents told me

I saw a little grey kitty sleeping on the hood of a car in our parking garage. It's there to keep warm. We're having unseasonably cool weather, including the heaviest rainfall in 100 years. Most of us do what we can to cope, and kitty's no different. I see someone's left out food and water for her. Good.

I remember finding out from a friend just a couple years ago that my childhood cat had dropped out of the engine of my family's station wagon one day. He'd crawled in there to get warm and then someone turned on the car...and the rest was history for him, at least.

My parents told me he ran away. I was pretty shocked to learn the real gruesome story. Actually my parents told me all my cats ran away. To this day I'm nervous about letting my cats out because I don't want them to run away.

But I've learned that they're homebodies and they don't wander far. And somehow, with that amazing animal instinct, they can always find their way home - even to the right apartment in a big building.

Which begs the question...what really happened to all my cats?

More about dreaming

I want to clarify that this whole notion of taking time off has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of love I have for my husband. It's somehow completely separate in my mind. It's more like I want to take a vacation so that I'll miss him and want him back. But I still love him as much as ever, and I still know I want to be with him the rest of my life. That doesn't change. And he understands, bless him.

Yeah, it's just that there is this experience I want to have - or I feel like I missed out on or whatever. When I was dating I was not who I am today. And the woman today wants to get a first kiss. Or just a date. Those butterflies. They come swarming in the night into my gut, and if I've dreamed about someone I see the next day, then they come back.

Being the ridiculously honest and open person that I am, I shared my dream with the star of the show. I have done this two other times. And a curious thing always happens: the other person always just assume that there's no way I could actually be serious about wanting to do this thing. I thought I had a shot with my one close friend who's not religious, but no, even he was morality man. Which is great, I'm glad that I choose to be intimate and vulnerable with such upstanding men. But there's also a little part of me that says, "Hey! I'm the married one. If I am looking past that, why can't you?" And I figure the answer is because they don't actually find me attractive enough to look past it. And that hurts a little.

I know it's all nuts and I shouldn't think about these things at all. How totally inappropriate for a seminarian to harbor thoughts of infidelity. But it's not like I want to have an affair! I don't even want sex. I simply want the chance to try kissing another person (or perhaps hugging passionately???). And you know what? I want to be the one who says no. Who says that was a wonderful experience and I'm so glad I had it, but I know I want to be with J forever. If I could find a person who had the same understanding, a no-commitment innocent makeout session...just a chance for me, for once, to be the one who stands up for my marriage.

Because I keep having these thoughts because I never get to be the one to end them. So the guy doesn't take me seriously and I chastise myself and I feel awkward for a while then get over it. But necessarily the thought will return with another new friend because the thing that caused them has not been fulfilled. So if it was fulfilled, and I got to decide for myself that I choose J, then would they go away forever?

Plus wouldn't it be cool if someone else actually felt this way about me? Now the psychosis comes out. I want someone else to feel this way. I love how it feels to have a crush, but I love even more being crushed on. And baby, you'd get a little bit, even though you wouldn't get me in the end.

Hmmmm....any takers?
: )

Dream a little dream

I saw Jim Wallis last night. If you get a chance to see him on his book tour, GO! It is absolutely worth your time. What an inspiring evening. I am thinking about where my gift “meets the crushing needs of the world” – that’s how he described vocation.

I’ve also been pondering these dreams that I have. See, I’m lucky to be a vivid dreamer who frequently remembers what I dream. And my dreams almost always are the same: there is another person and me and we fall in love. Sometimes they are sweet, just like reliving dating or a first kiss, and sometimes they are erotic. Sometimes the person is my husband, but not too often. Sometimes it’s a boy and sometimes a girl. Very frequently it’s someone I know in real life. That used to cause me problems, because I’d have the dream about someone and then I’d think I liked that person. It’s amazing how powerful the emotions in these dreams are.

Here’s one from a couple nights ago:

I was on a field trip with a class (don’t know which one) to…a grocery store. And one of my friends from seminary, a guy, happened to be on the trip. And he and I met up by the sushi counter (those are normal in our markets out here), and for whatever reason, we started kissing. And it was the most wonderful amazing kiss. I remember as I put my arm around his neck I saw my wedding ring glint (sometimes I’m married and sometimes not in these dreams). But it was the kind of kiss where both of us just wanted more. It was like, wow, we have to keep doing this!

So the van that brought us there was leaving, and he and I made up some excuse to stay, and we decided to pick up some cheesecake ice cream and walk over to his apartment since he lived close by. In the ice cream aisle there was more kissing. I don’t think we ever got to the ice cream.

We got to his apartment and there were many distractions, including me seeing J and hiding from him (frequently I’m not actually in trouble or feeling guilt, I’m just hiding). But I remember vividly that the whole goal in the dream was to get somewhere where we could get back to the amazing kissing!

And that was it…nothing sexual or super-naughty happened. And I woke up wondering if it would be okay for me just to kiss this guy one time to see how it is. Maybe our lips were made for each other’s. And then I wondered how I’d go about getting him to kiss me (since he’s got a girlfriend), and that probably wouldn’t work out very well. And then I started thinking about whether a kiss is really all that bad for a married person…I mean, what if I talked to J and let him know that it was really just about my need to feel that “first kiss” again, nothing beyond that. Would it work? Would it destroy everything?

I’ve been married for nearly 7 years (uh-oh! The itch!). And I’ve really come to a place where these dreams get more and more frequent. The main theme in them is romance, it’s not sex. Sex is great when it happens, but the important thing is that I’m feeling first love again. That wonderful mixed-up knot of emotions that one has when dating someone. I think I miss dating so very much. I got married pretty shortly after another long-term relationship…I haven’t “played the field” since high school, and even then I was usually in a relationship. Did I miss out on something? Or is it natural for me to just be going through a phase in which I need something fresh?

I dream the most frequently about Joe, my first boyfriend, my first love. I am still so in love with that guy. I think he’s become majorly idealized in my dreams, but boy, do I wish I could see him again just once.

Anyway, sometimes I think that married people should get little breaks, every 5 years or so, in which we can date other people for just a couple months or something. Then we can get all the “first kiss” stuff out of our systems and realize how crappy dating is and go back to our lifelong partner. Has anyone ever been married and done this – mutually agreed that it’s okay, if not to date, to at least try kissing another person? I mean, everyone always talks about how tough it is to only have one set of lips for the rest of your life (some talk about more vulgar parts, but I’m a romantic). Is it possible to just once in a very long while try out someone else? Not for keeps, but just for the rush?

Oh, well. It will probably have to remain forever in my dreams.

There was a nice long one for you since I haven’t written in forever.

Many questions

So many questions lately. My NT teacher took a poll in class on this one, and I'm sure she'd be delighted if I came back with more answers. So here's the stumper:

If Paul had had a son, would he have circumcised him?

Then she hands out these questions we're supposed to answer, questions like:
What is a Christian?
What is the gospel?

And other such little issues. Luckily it was not a test, more a poll.

I feel lame because I don't have my own answers anymore. My thinking has been so completely influenced by Dallas Willard. It is really not an exaggeration to say that The Divine Conspiracy changed my entire life. Lately he's been writing more interesting stuff - particularly on the crucifixion, which was one area he'd not really dealt with before. A paper on it can be found at his website, if you are interested. He gives a whole new slant to the event. Fascinating stuff. The cool thing is that he wrote it as a chapter in a new book The Passion and Philosophy (you may be familiar with the "X and Philosophy" series, they've done several TV shows, movies, and even baseball. We own The Simpsons and Buffy, and plan to get The Matrix, Seinfeld, and surely a few others). ANYWAY I was no fan of the Passion, but Willard takes the opportunity to lay out his rather radical sotierology:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=101

So my answer to the gospel is Willard's paraphrase of Jesus' message "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand": "Rethink your thinking in light of the fact that God's resources are yours for the taking."

Isn't that a much more exciting, pleasant gospel than "repent because you're going to hell"? And the kicker is, it is true. The Christian faith is about a new way of living - as Willard says, "The smartest man who ever lived is giving a master class in living" - and you're invited. He's taking disciples in how to live a meaningful, beautiful life.

So there, I've solved the meaning of life. We can all go about our business now.

Hello, long time no write

I have been majorly delinquent lately. I'm trying not to do what I always seem to do with new web stuff I find, which is hit it hard at first then forget about it after a while.

I've had very little time to work on the play or anything much (including homework which is very bad) because I've been trying to find us a place to live closer to school. This is something of an obsession now. I need to cut back on craig's list. It's like a drug, that site.

I saw my psychiatrist and he seemed to think I was doing very well. I have to say that seminary has just been a shot in the arm for me. It's really quite amazing to be learning all this stuff that I actually give a rat's ass about. I can't remember that ever happening in school before.

Anyway I have to get back to work, but I felt bad for not writing for so long.

Jesus doesn't hate sex

Well, I don't know, maybe he would, I don't think he had any personal experience with it. But most men are pretty into it.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that despite all of these stories, which are healthily discussing the damage done by well-meaning Christian loved ones, I do not believe for a second that God is down on sex. I think the comments from several people about the wonderful gift of sex are an important part of this discussion.

And God is definitely not down on sexuality - just read Song of Solomon to see that even the Bible completely celebrates the beauty and uniqueness of the sexuality of women and men.

Somehow it's all been distorted over the years. But let's remember that before the Puritans (who largely influenced this whole thing), there is a God who loves us and wants us to love ourselves, every part of ourselves, even the naughty bits.

The Talk, The Guilt, The Pleasure

Today's stories come from a European (oh la la), a New Yorker, and someone who wanted to make sure she remains anonymous. Yes, you're anonymous, I promise. If you like, I'll even say you are me. 'Cause your story's kind of a turn-on. heh heh.

But seriously, bravo to all as always for your bravery. We are changing Christianity for the better. Let us all bring sex into our worship of God (kudos to story #2!). Wait...isn't that smacking of New Testament temple prostitution??

ONE
Growing up, my parents never gave me "the talk" -- in fact, I know of few families where parents spoke openly with their children about sex. Moreover, from a very early age, I had the intuitive sense that all matters of physical, romantic love were unmentionables. Frequently I didn't even know the meaning of a word, nor had any notion of just what it was about a term that cautioned me to avoid asking my parents about it, but I knew that I knew, and thinking back upon it, I was uncannily correct.

Physical affection in my family was something my parents reserved for their children -- myself and my older brother, and after his death, for me only. I do not recall my parents ever embracing or kissing passionately, but for special occasions -- their birthdays, Christmas
morning -- my father would hug and cheek-kiss my mother, and she would protest and physically and verbally show her displeasure. From the time I was 12 or so, when my grandmother's death freed up another room in the house, my parents kept separate bedrooms. None of this struck me as abnormal, but looking back, I can clearly see the message they were sending me: Sex was of course reserved for spouses only -- we were, after all, good Catholics -- but sex between spouses was at best non-existent and at worst revolting. I didn't have to hire a
counselor to figure out how this conditioning skewed my own perspectives on sex as a clandestine and desirable matter, best avoided in settings of emotional intimacy, but I ended up spending a lot of money on working through "fixing" and adjusting it. I am, in retrospect, grateful that the Christian/Catholic message kept me from too much mischief -- and, more importantly, kept me from considering my parents' version of sexuality as normal.

TWO

1. Episcopalian by both upbringing and temperament. I really love the Episcopal liturgy and the church feels "right" to me, but I am not active. I was very active in high school -- lots of youth
conferences, served on a diocesan commission, ran for my church's vestry, et cetera. But I lost touch with the church in college -- all those great youth outreach programs just disappeared -- and do not currently go to church. (I hate getting dressed up, and it's hard to get up on Sunday morning, especially when your girlfriend (who you only see on weekends) is Jewish.) I'm starting to miss it, though, so I think I will cautiously, warily, start going to a local church's
"Come As You Are" services on Sunday evenings. TMI? I'm sure.

2. I'm not really sure I know what "Christian sex" is. It sounds like a setup for some dippy comedian's facile punchline. It sounds like something my atheist/agnostic/UU friends would snicker at. But I was raised to believe that sexuality is a gift from God...and like other gifts, it must be used carefully and with responsibility and thanks. That's what stewardship is all about, right? I believe that sex can be spiritual and moving, and allow communion with God -- why
can't a loving couple be worshiping God as they have sex? (I know this sounds weird, but bear with me here.) God has given us this wonderful life force, this drive, these intensely pleasurable
sensations. It can be used poorly -- in non-loving relationships, in casual flings, in careless or hurtful ways, and for the wrong motives. But it can be approached prayerfully and responsibly, to build intimacy in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship, and to celebrate our humanity with a spark of the divine. After all, I believe in the "resurrection of the body" -- with all of the attendant good and bad things about the body implied.

THREE
I have recently decided not to feel guilty about masturbation. Once I realized and accepted that all the "Biblical" arguments from my youth are arguments from silence, I made a concious decision that I don't have to be ashamed any more.

I have touched myself before, but because of my guilty feelings, I never really masturbated before - or at least not enough to give myself an orgasm. But somehow, just putting my fingers near my vagina was comforting to me, despite the lingering guilt afterwards, so I would do it often.

However, since deciding that I had nothing to feel guilty about, I have committed to the act of masturbation. I'm not sure yet whether I have actually had an orgasm - all the websites out there say "you know it if you've had it" which doesn't help me much - but I am going to
continue to explore and practice and find out what makes me feel the best. What does happen, though, feels good and is a great release of a lot of tension and frustration.

I am a Christian woman in my late 20s and am a virgin, nor indeed even kissed a man. I find it hard to love myself sometimes and wonder quite often if God really truly loves me too. Perhaps I can find some measure of emotional release in the act of learning to love myself physically?

---------------------------------------
Hmmm...you'll know it if you've had it? I bet it's not that simple. Can someone help out with a description of an orgasm? Or better yet, a "Christian" orgasm?

These little earthquakes

I got a note from a longtime friend warning me about the stories I’ve been telling. She raised some doubts in my mind. Is it healthy – or even safe – to bare one’s innermost thoughts and deepest secrets on the world wide web? Even in the context of a completely anonymous blog (except for those of you who have walked up to me and nailed it – you’re just freaky) does one want to share stories which may reveal parts of oneself that are potentially embarrassing, hurtful to others, or shameful? Could honesty be abused?

Well of course it can. And I don’t care. For me, life has become about conquering fear. There is nothing to be afraid of thanks to my faith in God. The only thing that can hurt me is death and even then I trust in my resurrection.

The only thing I worry about when I tell you I’m clinically depressed or have a messed up background is that I’ll be boring. I want to be brutally honest with my life. I want to live, as one prayer put it, “so honestly and fearlessly that no outward failure can dishearten me or take away the joy of conscious integrity.”

So you will keep hearing about my messed up self as long as it keeps helping one other person out there feel like she or he is not alone. There is nothing new under the sun. And in my estimation, the only thing you can do with a story that will be harmful is to hold it inside – hide yourself from the world.

I will not hide. I am naked. Hear me roar.

Godly(?) Sex Talk

ONE
1. Baptist growing up; non-denominational and Episcopal through college (depended on the Sunday); none now

2. Christian sex conjures up an image of a passive, self-conscious and timid woman and an aggressive, horny man. Definite man-on-top imagery.

Or my mother talking about a movie she saw recently where it had some sexual scenes and she calling them "disgusting" which probably just means naked people and nothing truly disgusting. [Editorial Note: I am sick TO DEATH of my parents making "tut-tut" noises every time anyone uses the word sex or any anotomically correct name for a human organ. One morning I was watching The View of all things and so surely the talk wasn't that racy, and I remember dad saying "What is this?!" in that disapproving way they have...you know what I'm talking about?? - Femmy]

Or artificial insemination so you don't have to get all "messy."

TWO
My wife and had sex early on....while we dated in college and many times guilt followed the act. Ironically, we stopped having sex when we became engaged. This was mutually decided upon and was based in our, for lack of our better understanding, Christian Ethics. For 18 months...well not in absolute terms...we snuffed the emotional urges through self-discipline. Would I do it over? Not sure....I am still weighing the pros and cons. On one hand, we improved our communication and focused on the sanctity of marriage. On the other hand, we disrupted the natural expression of sex....tainting/suppressing the spontaneity and essence of it.
[me again - I got to hear this story in person originally and I was so impressed at the insight he'd gained from the experience - the idea that it can really cause a rift in a couple's intimacy to suddenly stop having sex. I remember him saying something about it being "hard to get things back to where they were"...and I can vouch for that myself]

THREE
First, I was raised Baptist; am now quasi-pseudo-Presbyterian.

Now, first, Christian Sex conjures up a joke my friends and I came up with regarding youth group kids massaging one another at summer camp and how massaging becomes a sort of a physical outlet of sexual desires that's okay. Ha ha.

Secondly, Christian Sex seems to me non-existent. Let me explain. Christians who are not married aren't supposed to have sex (an idea, by the way, that I buy into and subscribe to wholly), but when people mess up by having sex with a loved one it becomes a totally awful thing, when in reality it is not an awful thing. Sure, they took it "too far," but everyone acts as though they should totally hate themselves and die, but maybe that should just signal to them that they may be ready for a deeper relationship, like, say, marriage? I don't know. I could
be full of it. But we've all heard stories about people who never kissed until the altar and them couldn't have sex with their partner, which led to serious problems.

I guess that leads to a third response, which is, why most Christians are totally weirded out by the idea of sex or procreation with their loved one. I knew a couple who couldn't tell the girl's dad they were pregnant. Why? Because that meant they had been having sex... and you can't tell your dad that no matter how long you've been married. What!? That's ridiculous, no? Isn't that what married people are supposed to do? I don't know. It just seems all hush-hush and quite frankly, I think that's horseshit, because it's like, God's gift to married people or whatever and it should be celebrated, somehow, I guess. But, I've never been married, so I don't know how it works.

Stories from the other side

You guys are great. What a wonderful, healing exercise this is (at least for me!) - to learn I am not alone, to learn that so many of us had parents who pooh-poohed every little idea about sex until we were pretty sure a stork had actually dropped us off! I'm so into this. I hope you are too and I'm not losing you.

I just had to share a couple of really moving, brave stories from persons of the male gender. Thank you to the guys who are joining in.

1. Episcopalian
2. Christian Sex? Hmm...the quite rational side of me says "sex had either by or with Christians" and leaves it at that. But then there's all the guilt and exclusionary baggage about sex that bubbles up from my traditional upbringing that I still carry around, even post-closet. I won't speak for the whole community, but it has often been a challenge for this gay Christian to reconcile. On the occasions that I feel more like a gay Atheist or Agnostic I tend to do fine, unsuprisingly, but in all my incarnations I try to understand sex as experiential, that is, we understand what best serves us emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, by the experiences we have, the mistakes we make, just like any other human endeavor. The scripture can be one source to which we look for guidance, but just as everybody has a different professional, relational, or educational path to travel, why must all Christians adhere to a strict, moralistic, and frankly somewhat outmoded social code, especially when it is culturally impossible for a good portion of us to do so? Of course, I tend to get righteous about these things right before I start to dismiss it all as just excuses for bad behavior, but come on, we all have common sense, right? Obey the law, be respectful of others, try to make wise decisions, resolve to try harder when you don't, that sort of thing. Is that un-Christian? I don't think so. Is it too permissive? Then my apologies, but as much as folks like Antonin Scalia, George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, and James Dobson may wish to regulate my sexual orientation, they thankfully have no say in the orientation of my spirit.


When I was a little boy, I discovered that some things (usually certain thoughts) would make my penis get long and stiff like a rod. I had no idea why this was happening - but it kinda felt good - so I pretty much accepted it as being normal. Looking back, however, I see that some of the thoughts I had were anything but normal. Many times I would imagine scenes of violence and suffering that I had seen on the news or in movies - and that would give me a hard-on. Later in life (but not much later) it would devolve into fantasies about bondage and mutilation that were difficult for me to understand. I was a good kid and I didn't want these things to happen, yet thinking about them felt good. Maybe my little brain was trying to express some deep anger or frustration. I don't know.

The violent thoughts went away when I was about 12 or so. I had a pretty normal "Christian" teenage life, with the exception of a brief flirtation with homosexuality. As I grew older, I also gained an increasing awareness of God and a desire to serve him. I started going to Church under my own volition rather than being forced to go by my parents. I was finally becoming a man, a real, normal, Christian man -until the dreams came back. I couldn't tell you when they came back, exactly - but back they came, and with a vengeance, too. Now I'm 21 and plagued with these hurtful fantasies. I don't want to sound self-absorbed, but people have told me that I'm a really great guy. I believe them, sort of. I'm involved in my Church, in my college ministry, in Bible studies. I tithe when I can and I try to read my
Bible daily. Yet, deep down, I'm evil. I haven't the slightest desire to follow through with my fantasies, yet they still turn me on.

I keep telling myself that I'm not a monster - that I'm not some serial killer or psychopath. Maybe I'm writing this to try and convince the anonymous people who will read this letter - or maybe I'm trying to convince myself.

Will I ever be able to tell my future wife? Can she ever see the dark side of me? I hope I can get it out one day. I hope I can tell her everything, and have her smile knowingly - to have her smile with grace and compassion. I hope it works out like that. I really do.

What is Christian Sex?

1. Describe your faith community
2. What is Christian Sex?

1. I grew up Presbyterian, but am now Episcopalian.
2. "Christian Sex" conjures the idea of either no sex, reluctant sex in marriage, or one part sex and three parts guilt if outside of marriage. Basically I don't think there is such a thing as Christian Sex -- yet. Christians can't handle sex, speaking very broadly, from a theological perspective.

1. Baptist/Non-demoninational/congregational
2. The missionary position of course; and also hushed orgasms...

1. NONE
2. SEX WITHIN MARRIAGE, BETWEEN A HUSBAND AND WIFE

1. American Baptist.
2. Sexual acts between a heterosexual married couple. I'll add that I'm currently in the process of re-examining issues regarding homosexuality and the church, but at this point, that still doesn't fall into my view of "Christian sex."

1. Presbyterian (K-12) Methodist (College) Mennonite (post-college)
2. I ascribe to sex being a privilege only acceptable under covenant [between the couple and God.] In other words...there must be commitment sealed by the Higher Authority.

1. I'm E-Free
2. Christian Sex is just like any other sex. Right? I don't think there's a difference...sex is sex, for fun or procreation

1. My faith background stems from the Baptist tradition, but my undergraduate and post-graduate community has strictly been Presbyterian USA
2. "Christian Sex" - in the past I would say that this terms can almost be synonomous with "abstinence." Sex is dirty, evil, and wicked ... How can a Christian, therefore, have sex without sinning? However, recently (just in the past two years), I have begun to see that "Christian Sex" is good and can be quite honoring to God. Sex can be one of the fullest physical and emotional expressions for our love for another person but also our greatfullness for God.

1. Christian
2. I'd define it as:
Occurring in the context of a committed, monogamous relationship
Borne of mutual respect (“power” or “control” aren’t part of it)
Celebrated as one of God’s most intimate gifts to us

1. christian
2. yuck - "christian sex" just doesn't sound fun

1. Moderate modern Islam
2. I have NO idea! I would imagine it would be "married" sex? I don't know. It really doesn't conjure anything at all. I wonder if I'm really missing something obvious here!

1. Reformed/Presbyterian Protestantism:
2. Well, it conjures up several things: the first is--what an odd combination of words. I mean, seriously: is there "Jewish Sex", "Muslim Sex" and "Buddhist Sex"? One tends not to think of "Sex" being modified by a specific religious belief.

Second, it makes me think of the category of sexual ethics that is/should be present in most Christians' lives, esp. those who are married to one another. For example, in the "ethic" of "Christian Sex" or "Sexuality", premarital sex AND cheating on your spouse, sexually or in terms of emotional intimacy, would both be prohibited or grounds for moral reproach. It would also define what conditions and manners of sexual congress would be acceptable between sexually active people and unto what end those acts of sexual congress would work (e.g. expression of love, procreation, maintaining a covenant relationship of offspring (e.g. what Onan failed to do...)).

Thirdly, and possibly the most crass: "Christian Sex" would be the ironical term used to describe the state of many Christian male-female relationships today and possibly, throughout the ages. It would be used ironically in light of the fact that many Christians are engaged in sexual congress/acts with people other than their spouses or with significant others who are not yet their spouses. This would be a commentary on the failure of Christians to uphold the Christian sexual ethic as stated in above definition #2.

Keep them coming!

God's Politics

Jim Wallis did an outstanding job on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. A streaming video is currently available on Sojourner's website:
http://www.sojo.net/

(It requires a simple free registration)

He got right up there and told the gospel - right there on TV! He even dealt wonderfully with Stewart's remarks about Jews "not getting into heaven". I highly recommend watching it - it's all of 7 minutes of your time.

Also, those of you in the LA area, Jim Wallis will be at All Saints Church in Beverly Hills at 7:00 on Feb. 20 (that's a Sunday). Should be really interesting.

Everybody does it

I am opening the "Beloved" project to ALL genders. The issues we're dealing with here are not specific to one gender, they are about the common experiences we've had as Christian people (or people who know Christian people) growing up in a subculture that has deeply affected our views about and experiences with sex. So please, boys, join in!

Okay, now some bon mots from Song of Solomon (did you discover these in junior high like I did?):

While the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance.
My beloved is to me a bag of myrrh that lies between my breasts.

Your channel is an orchard of pomegranates with all choicest fruits...
Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits.

You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters.
I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches.

More tales of sex and the Christian

send stories to monologues@sbcglobal.net


1. When I was about 6 or 7 I discovered it felt good to rub my crotch. I got in trouble for doing it during story time. I felt ashamed, but not sure why.

2. When I was 9 or 10, I started putting my Barbies and Kens into sexual situations...usually violent ones. This was because the only sex scenes I'd ever read were in some John Jakes historical novels owned by my parents--and the scenes were erotically-presented rapes. Lying in bed after reading them, I learned how to rub myself to orgasm, but I didn't know the words "orgasm" or "masturbation" for years later. I did know enough to keep what I did a secret. I still tend to focus on bondage-type scenes when I masturbate.

3. My parents never gave me a sex talk. They asked me "Do you know how babies are made?" and I said "Yes." Because being a kid who read all the time, I'd read a very dry version of the facts of life in a Reader's Digest story "How to Tell Your Kids About Sex." That was it.

4. I always thought of penises as long featureless rods, and I didn't even know balls existed; it wasn't until I saw A Room With a View in college that I saw a real penis, however briefly. I had no idea that they came in different sizes and shapes and changed both when they relaxed or were excited. I had no idea boys got involuntary erections that they had to hide--I never saw one in school, because I would never have looked at a boy's crotch directly. I would have been much less scared of boys if I had known they could control their bodies even less than I did.

As it was, once I knew what rape was and the boys started getting bigger than me, I was terrified of them until late high school. I didn't date at all in high school for that reason, which also made my parents happy (and yet also anxious). When I started dating in college, they were freaky about the whole thing, and wouldn't let me go see my boyfriend over vacation because it would "look bad." This was ridiculous, because we could have had sex any number of times while we were at school, but didn't, because we both had self-control and were committed to waiting till marriage. My parents still wouldn't let me. This was when I realized that years of being a good girl was not a guarantee of being allowed to grow up and do what I wanted--that I could never be good enough, really, to be trusted to make my own decisions. I never looked at my parents the same way again.

5. This is why, later, when I was engaged to my husband and the lease ran out on his apartment, I let him move in with me six months before we were supposed to be married, but didn't tell my family. We were both virgins on our wedding night despite living together, because we thought it was important. Now, I'm not so sure that it mattered. But our sex life is wonderful now, though we were very awkward at first and I didn't really enjoy it for the first few times. Neither one of us is technically a Christian or goes to church, and we don't do any of that submission crap; we're equals. And it's good that way.

6. In college I masturbated a lot, because hey, what else have you got when you can't have sex at possibly your most horny time of life? I remember one day a woman came through town who somehow I thought could help me with this "problem" so I had her over to my dorm room. She spent 8 hours with me, essentially casting out this demon from my soul. I had to name and confess everything that had every happened to me or I had done that was in any way remotely sexual. And also nightmares since Satan could work through those, and any time I thought I'd sensed someone watching me, etc. etc. Anyway, after 8 hours of prayer, we bid adieu. She spoke the next day in chapel and openly shared how she'd been addicted to masturbation while in college. The funny thing is that she was my friend's MOM and he was simply aghast. That is pretty embarrassing, you have to admit!
Anyway, I went home and laid off for a few days, but before long I was no longer master of my domain. Ah, well. It's practice for my future husband became my new motto.

7. In kindergarten I remember the boy who sat across from me would tell me to look under the table and he wiggle his penis at me. I did not really know what that was about. Can you imagine if that happened today?? That kid would go to jail!

Notes from the Feminarian:
I'm not going to tell you which of these stories are mine, although I will say that more than one of them is. Here's a funny thing that's happened when I'm writing this: I can’t write the word vagina without feeling like I should change it to another word. Isn't that just what Vagina Monologues was about?! My husband thinks I'm disturbed because it just seems to me like it's a naughty word that one shouldn't say (penis is also). Actually, so is masturbate. Ah, what freedom comes to me in writing these tales!

I was considering making a new blog to just deal with this issue, but on second thought, isn't this whole thing of sexuality and Christianity a big part of being in seminary? I mean, it's probably one of the biggest issues we'll have to work with parishoners about, and obviously sexual identity is deeply ingrained in church politics. So here it stays for now. The email address and comment board are open for business.

To get things rolling here is a question I'd like answered (short answer is fine):

Describe what you think "Christian Sex" might be.
(Please include your faith background/community if you have one to identify yourself - might be interesting for comparison)

OK, I did it

I officially put together a Discernment Committee, which puts me on the very early first step of the Process of Ordination in the Episcopal Church.

I honestly have no idea how it will turn out, and I don't have any expectation or really even a hope either. I am really going to make this committee live up to their charge as helpers in my discernment process, 'cause I got no earthly idea if I wanna be a priest!

Still, it is an exciting move. We'll start shortly after Easter. With fear and trembling!!

My Beloved Waits for Me

Send more stories: monologues@sbcglobal.net

ONE

When I was a very little girl, so young that I can hardly remember this, I discovered that the parts between my legs felt good when something rubbed on them. Much later I learned that it’s quite common for children to discover this and innocently find objects, especially ones that vibrate, to use to touch themselves.

Somehow I remember that I felt guilty about it. I didn’t even know what I was doing, but I knew it was bad. When my friends and I played kissing games, or pretended like the people making out on TV, we knew we were being naughty. I think that’s why we didn’t do it around the grown-ups.

My siblings and I made a regular practice of playing by kissing and touching each other. Sometimes we made noises like the people on television, just acting it out. I know it was never erotic. It was simply play, and sometimes it felt good to us.

I do not remember how long it went on, but I remember exactly when it stopped. I was about 12 years old, and my brother would have been 7.

My mother walked in while my brother and I were playing. She asked me what I was doing, and I said nothing, and she asked why his pants were down, and I mumbled that I was touching him. She sent me to my room.

There I lay for what felt like a couple of hours. I could hear my parents crying and yelling in the other room. I was devastated because I had done something so bad and now they knew I was bad. And also I knew, from the news, that people who touch little boys are evil people. The longer I lay there the more convinced I became that I had really done something awful.

I remember my biggest fear, the thing I could most rationally imagine as the worst possibility, was a spanking with a wooden spoon. I tried to gear myself up for it.

Instead, when someone finally entered my room, they took me to my parents’ room. There my parents explained to me that they’d called the pastor and their best friends and told them. I was mortified. This was even worse than the spoon –I knew that the people they told would tell other people. Everyone would know. Everyone would see the evil person that I was. They put me in counseling, about which I remember very little. I sometimes wonder if the counselor told my parents what my several therapists would later tell me: that all children do this, that it’s not a big deal, and that it’s certainly no indication of the morality of the innocents involved.

It was fucked up, what they did to me. Excuse my language, but it was. I went into adolescence believing that I was a child molester. That I was a sexual predator. And my parents – I know they must have known that I felt that way – and they never did anything to reassure me that it wasn’t so.

In fact, one day I’d asked my mom what was going to happen now or something like that, and I have never forgotten the words she said to me. She kept putting away dishes as she calmly told me, “Well, you’re no longer a virgin. You’ve lost that gift.”


TWO

I am pretty sure that if I wasn’t a Christian I’d be a lesbian. Or I would have definitely checked it out.

I remember as a little girl I always practiced kissing with my girlfriends. We would check out how it felt, make sure we could hit lips with our eyes shut, giggle at how gross it was to use your tongue.

I remember as a little girl that I liked kissing the girls. I didn’t have much opportunity to practice with boys, but I liked the girls. I even pressured my friends who weren’t interested. I usually won.

I got older and I did the normal thing of stressing about finding the perfect right Christian man to be yoked with. The stress begins, really, in junior high. I never thought much about girls again because it was quite simply not an option. Not like that was forced on me – it was simply never presented to me as something that was done. I don’t think I even knew there were such people as lesbians until I was at least a sophomore in college.

I had a best friend in college with whom I could talk dirty, and we’d talk about if we had to sleep with a girl, who would it be? And it was, of course, Tori Amos. For both of us. I remember watching the movie “Threesome” with her and another great male friend, and my boyfriend at the time, and thinking that was actually something I’d do with these good friends of mine. We even joked about it. I wonder if anyone else ever had a serious thought about it.

I eventually got married, and I love my husband deeply. He is truly my best friend. But I am not sexually attracted to him. In fact, I find sex disturbing and painful.

I've watched a few movies, not porn, just movies like “Bound” and “Showgirls”, that gave me some mental pictures. And of course I’ve seen girlie magazines. And I’ve discovered that I can get aroused during sex if I close my eyes and imagine one of those movies’ scenes or just a naked woman. In fact, it’s the only way I can have an orgasm.

I dream about love and sex almost every night, and I am almost always with women in my dreams. I notice beautiful women walking down the street. I love to look at women’s bodies, and I am especially attracted to their breasts and their soft skin.

I believe now that it’s okay to be gay, even as a Christian, but I don’t think I am. I am married, and I am in love with my husband. He doesn’t believe I am gay and he knows me better than anyone. Maybe I’m bisexual. Maybe I’m just really curious. Or maybe I just really regret that I never got to even check and see if this was really real for me.

Because, come on, how could it be?


THREE

Here’s the weird thing about sex. I’ve had sex with two people in my life: the man I thought I was going to marry who left me through no fault of my own, and the man I did marry.

We had sex basically because we couldn’t stand not doing it any more. We were doing everything but, as all Christian couples do, and finally one day you just go, “fuck it” and he slips it in. And it’s over in about 2 seconds.

Every time I had sex with both guys, we would go through this horrible period afterwards of crying and praying and repenting, feeling terribly guilty and promising never to do it again. But we always did do it again (though usually we could hold out a few weeks or even months). And the wailing would begin again.

But here’s the weird thing: before I was married, sex was great. I loved it. I wanted it all the time. It was so wonderful that it completely outweighed the terrible after effects.

Then I got married, and that day everything changed. We had our first married sex and it was terrible and it hurt like hell. In fact, I was hurt so badly that we couldn’t do it again for three days. And after that it kept on hurting and it wasn’t sexy and it wasn’t fun.

I have slowly lost my sex drive over the past decade of marriage, not because I don’t love and want to be intimate with my husband, but simply because it hurts too damn bad.

Now you tell me, what kind of sick joke was that for God to play on us?


FOUR
I was on a silent retreat. It had been about 12 hours since we’d started the silence. I woke up very early – probably about five in the morning. I went outside while it was still dark. I sat on a bench and watched as the sky changed to gray and lightened enough for me to read. I read some prayers from a book. And as I was reading them and praying in the quiet and the dark…this warmth welled up inside my body. It sent a shiver up my spine and made me feel tingly all over. I thought it was a shudder but it kept going. It actually rose from my vagina through my middle and up through the top of my head, then back down again. It shook my entire body, and I was sweating and panting. Through it all I couldn’t see but I could sense that God was there…that God was, actually, entering me. And it was erotic. It wasn’t just a father love or a brotherly love. It was eros. And I will tell you, it was the best orgasm of my entire life. He took me and shook me and then was gone, leaving me satisfied and cozy, out of breath but completely alive.

What do we make of this?

"There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom."
(Bush inaugural speech, emphasis added)

"For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave."
(1 Cor 7:22)

"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Love is patient,
Love is kind and is not jealous;
love does not brag and is not arrogant,
does not act unbecomingly;
it does not seek its own,
is not provoked
does not take into account a wrong suffered,
does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
bears all things,
believes all things,
hopes all things,
endures all things.
Love never fails;
but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away;
if there are tongues, they will cease;
if there is knowledge, it will be done away...
But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love."
(I Cor 13: 1-8a, 13)

Put another way:
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001520.php

Two Questions

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Both Diverse and Inclusive

Dr. Barbara J. Resch writes:

"500 teenagers who participated in my research study have stated what many of us already know: that the Church's song both reflects and forms what that Church believes, that importing a musical expression into the Church from a conflicting culture is dishonest and ineffectual, and that the music of the Church needs to carry its text clearly and understandably to all of its members. When it does not reflect the popular taste of any particular age group, and when it nurtures its own particular language, the Church's expression becomes both diverse and inclusive, because it is unbounded by the considerations of age. It becomes "our music" early in life, draws on the richness of past centuries, becomes ever fuller with the discovery and endurance of new creative expressions, and then remains ours for a lifetime. "

more at...
http://www.lifeoftheworld.com/lotw/04-03/04-03-04.php

Speaking of...gay marriage

This week's "Speaking of Faith" will feature a discussion (debate?) on the topic of gay marriage.

I have high hopes for this show, as the two people discussing this issue are people I like, as is the host, Krista Tippett, who is a brilliant interviewer (and a really sweet person based on our one meeting). Unfortunately, the "con" side is headed up by my seminary's president, Richard Mouw. *sigh* He's a great thinker. I hope he comes around someday.

Anyway, it's nationally syndicated or you can listen to it here (lots of great background material here too - what a responsible show to actually go through the broadcast and provide all these resources based on things brought up by the interviewees):

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2005/01/13_gaymarriage/

Notes from an expert on worship

Continuing our fun and fruitful conversation, here are some ideas from my music director, who literally "wrote the book" on Anglican worship:

1) EVERYTHING related to worship has been examined and questioned by virtually every generation of the Church, and that is especially true of the past 50 years.

2) It’s pointless to argue with a person whose heart is not moved by music, and he can say until he’s blue in the face that all the fuss over music is pointless and a waste of time and money, but it’s no more true than if someone were to say that religious painting, or painting of any kind is pointless and a waste of time and money. There is no intellectual or religious merit to saying that, because God does not speak to me in a particular way (which, in fact, is probably not God’s fault), it’s pointless and a waste of time and money.

More on Worship

(some responses to recent comments)

I always assumed we sing because Christians have always sung, and before there was Christianity, the Hebrews sang, to the glory of God.

Having a choir is a practical consideration to provide musical leadership and give choral artists an opportunity to practice their craft. Also, there are angelic choirs, and so we aspire to same.
I'm checking with my music director on the other questions. I'd say the organ, like the $200-million cathedral in Los Angeles, is just an instrument created to the best of our ability to please and glorify God. Why shouldn't God get the very best - and why can't it be expensive? I'm sure Solomon's temple wasn't cheap.

I think God does care a great deal about our worship - that is the only reason I care so much. I don't think everyone should worship the same (if I ever get a PhD my dissertation will probably be on diversity in worship), but all worship should share the common elements of glorifying God and, secondarily, being aesthetically excellent.

Nicolas Wolterstorff wrote an awesome chapter in his book "Art in Action" about liturgical art in practice. I can't recommend it highly enough.

A response

Phil said...
I think there is room for variety here. Why can't we have churches painting in the service and others not using any visual art at all - and not criticise each other. Just a thought. Perhaps tolerance is an art form too...


Phil (and whoever else),

I don't think I am an intolerant person for suggesting that churches think through the theological implications of their modes of worship. Or if anything, I am intolerant of ignorance and especially of faulty worship.

My questions about having painting in a service are: what exactly is it accomplishing? Who is receiving the glory of the action? Is the worship experience of painting something that the community is a part of or is it just for the artist? Do we want to encourage private forms of personal devotion within our corporate worship? Is the painting something that is leading every person in that congregation towards God? What is the biblical, traditional or reasonable basis for including this art form as part of worship?

I'm not saying churches can't include it. But they should think through it. The same goes for lighting candles, putting up a cross, singing a Taize, using Ignatian prayer, etc. etc. etc. I am witnessing an alarming lack of preparation and theological basis when it comes to worship. Sadly, this seems to be the trend in the emerging churches most of all.

Are we doing the things we do in worship for God's glory, or for our own?
Even the desire to fill our church can be to our own glory, along with more obvious things like doing something "cool", or different than our parents did. Motivation, people. Dig into the why.

Some history and a little rant

Hey, I got a really nice mention in Vaughn Thompson's Icthus blog:
http://www.vaughnthompson.com/ichthus/archives/2004/11/index.php

I haven't had a lot of time to dig around in it, but it looks like he's on track. Good stuff, check it out.

He asked the inevitable question about what my parents think of my "conversion" to Anglicanism. The funny thing about my parents is that they used to be hippies, Jesus People, and they never really changed. They are fairly conservative politically, and I suppose theologically, but they have always trusted that as long as their kids love Jesus, we're fine. They have seen how my switch to the Episcopal church relit my fire for God, and how could that make them anything but happy?

So they haven't been changed by the fundamentalist churches they served in - in fact, they were always much more critical of their church than of their children's search for something better. How's that for a twist on the old story?

I have to get reading (I have a ridiculous amount of reading to do!), but I wanted to post something I wrote during my Theology and Art class. Context: someone raised their hand in class and mentioned that their church is very "arty" and people paint during the services and there is lots of drama etc. etc. ad nauseum (of course they go to Mosaic, famous LA emergent church), and this person was concerned that the church may be losing its focus on relationship with God in favor of spectacle (ya think?). Then a woman raised her hand and stated that her church has the opposite problem: they won't let anyone show film clips or do dramas because they don't want to "sell out" (good for them!). So here is what I wrote in my notes:

The problem is bringing the arts into the church irresponsibly. You can't just have it because it is cool and different and contemporary. And you can't just have it because it is entertaining. You can draw upon our fantastic history of artistic expression, what has worked for 2,000 years, for a long time without getting into anything that is selling out. There is plenty of inherently Christian art. You can't have art for art's sake in the church. If anywhere, it is most important for church to be the place where art is most excellent and focusing all attention on God - never the artist.

There's a lot more I could say about this but duty calls. Perhaps you'd like to join the rant.

I'm Outed!

Did I actually say I was at Fuller, or did somebody just figure it out? Or did somebody who knows me out me? I'm referring to the comments from the last post.

Well it was bound to happen someday and I was probably fooling myself to think anyone didn't already know. Yep, I am at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA.

And what I said about the girls...oh, I must recant. Only because I was just as bad today. I guess it depends on how comfortable you feel with your subject. Today I was in Theology and Art (which I have nicknamed "T&A") and was babbling up a storm. So shame on me for berating my sistren, for I am also a gabber like thee.

Back to School

I started classes again yesterday, which means I'll be musing less and trying to report more about actual seminary life. Sorry to all those who were working on my potentially false views of dualism. We'll come back to that another time.

Yesterday I had New Testament: Acts to Revelation. This quarter is my first taking a "real" class: meaning that I am doing reading assignments and writing papers, instead of just memorizing a language. Which means a couple of things:

1. I am terrified because I don't remember how to write a research paper.
2. There are many more women in my class - it very well could be over half. Coming from my Greek intensive, in which only three females dared to sit (out of about 30 students), this is a change of pace.

And at least from day one, I am feeling disloyal to my sisters. The thing I learned from day one is that women talk too much. Now all you men are of course nodding your heads; this is a truth of life in general, certainly, and not simply of school. And yet, it's something of a revelation to me. For one thing, I hear how annoying I must be when I jabber on (a little self-improvement is in order), and for another, I realize that women simply aren't perfect. I know, it is a shock.

I don't know if it is because of our large numbers in the class, or because the professor is a woman, or because of some need to prove ourselves, but the girls were answering every question, asking every question, and frequently raising their hands to tell (unecessary) stories to add to the lecture. And I gotta admit, I was a little bothered by the whole thing. I mean, it is great that the women feel comfortable enough to be participating so much. But there is also a time and a place for just soaking in what the professor has to tell us instead of always adding our own thoughts to the mix. I feel like the place for that is in our papers, or in the coffee time that the prof graciously offers after class. Let's use the classtime to learn from this incredible woman!

Is it this way at other seminaries? I would love to hear from some of the other seminarians and alumni of same who read.

Final movies

Briefly, here are the final things I watched and LOVED:
Open Water
Tape (Richard Linklater)
Curb Your Enthusiasm, Season 1
Sylvia
The Closet
Simone (ok, I didn't LOVE, love it, but it was much better than people give it credit for, and I love Andrew Niccol)

And I would say, if you've ever been curious about the Osbournes, watch season 1 (classic) and 2 (good moments) but skip 2 1/2.

The new economy

A great issue of the Village Voice, featuring a section entitled "Generation Debt", included this article with which I wholeheartedly empathize:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0451,kamenetz,59416,6.html

There are also stories about young men and young people's parents coping with the new realities of our economic life; about the impossibility of affording to live in cities where young people once got their start; about how the privatization of Social Security will affect everyone but especially my generation.

I highly recommend giving it a read!

I'm a Soul Man

Okay, here is my question:

Do you believe that something of us exists after the body is deceased?