Greetings, earthlings. We have come, once again, to that most treasured of moments in our collective Tuesday: the posting of a new blog. Let's all revel in the majesty of this moment together.
Okay, now to business.
Prints of the masterpiece that dangles betwixt our trusses are now available! Contemplate its complex symbolism! Meditate on its relevance to your life! Bask in the glow of its brilliant execution! Buy one NOW!!!!
Just in case you didn't know, our music this morning was provided by Banning Dawson. Well done, Banning. Overall you seemed very genuine. [*Hint, hint* to anyone who might want to perform in chapel.] My only point of contention with your presentation concerns the menial subject of song choice. "How Great is Our God" has always seemed odd to me because the chorus of the song presents the singer [and ironically, God] with a question, "How great is our God?" that never really gets an answer. [Except from God. He thinks he's pretty great. He told me.] Of course, Chris Tomlin never was one to pen the most thoughtful of lyrics, but that might just be me.
Identity and Imagination are our themes for the year, per His Holiness.
Imagination? Really? Since when have we discussed imagination, Brad? We recited the Apostles' Creed this morning. Our students, and you too, Mr. VP, lack even the imagination to say those words with conviction. If Christians ever learn how to voice their beliefs outside of the format of zombified prose, then we can start having discussions about imagination. Until then, [I hate to say this] please stick to putting us to sleep by droning on about identity.
Oh, and about identity, His Holiness marched up on stage this morning and said, roughly, "...as we are working through this semester and the problem of finding our identity in Christ..."
Wait. I thought we were just working through the problem of identity. If you tag "in Christ" onto the end of it, then we're really not investigating much, are we? On this note, you will find a discussion board thread on the Flying In Circles Facebook group titled, "Identity." Please post your thoughts on the following question:
Is it important that Jesus be the sole source of a Christian's personal identity? Or are they free to look to other sources, even other religious teachings or teachers, to find a model for who they want to become?
Discuss.
Now we can get on to our lady speaker. [That's what he said.]
Dr. Winner, thank you for being honest in your presentation of sexuality as a subject that needs to be discussed within the church. Heaven knows Christians are far too sexually repressed to be healthy, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for re-opening the subject for substantive discourse. Thank you for telling us a little of your own story in order to help us understand your perspective on the subject. Thank you for pointing out that the church ought to spend a little less time telling its members not to have sex and turn its focus to other, more pressing, issues. [The environment, peace, human exploitation, mercy, etc.]
For all the good points that you made this morning, I thought your presentation on human sexuality, the meat and potatoes of your talk, was a little disappointing. [I realize you're going to say more about this subject tonight, but, well, we aren't there yet, are we? Oh, and if you were hoping to say anything meaningful to the SNU student population about sexuality, this morning was your opportunity. If SNU stays true to its record, you'll have about thirty students in attendance tonight. Sorry we suck so hard. [That's what they said...]]
First, you said you did not grow up within the Christian moral structure. One of the liberties this afforded you was the freedom to explore your sexuality without fear of a creepy old dude and his son peeking in on you. However, after you became a Christian you said that it became clear to you, over time, that God was not pleased with the way that you had been conducting yourself in the sexual arena. My question is this: was your behavior wrong or "sinful" before you became a Christian? Here it is tempting to say that, "Yes, my behavior was wrong, I just didn't know it at the time." But this answer is not satisfactory, for two reasons.
1. Follow me here. Raccoons have sex. Ocelots have sex. Elephants have sex. [Yuck] Humans have sex. As I have already espoused in my discussions with Platter the Elder, humans, as much as we might like to deny it, are simply animals. More advanced? Yes. Bigger brains? Yes. Ego? Yes. But still animals. So, does it make any sense to put forth that God, taking into account his ambivalence toward the sexuality of the remainder of the animal kingdom, gives a rat's ass about the sexuality of humans? Be careful how you answer that.
2. How do Christians know that sex outside of marriage, pornography, and other sexual sins, are wrong? Because God said so? Not good enough. Every sermon on Christian sexuality presents the idea that any expression of our sexual natures outside of wedlock separates Christians from God. What everyone, yes everyone, fails to address is how and why. Even if God is viewed as the moral authority for Christians, the question still needs to be asked, "Why does God say that this is wrong?" And when is anyone going to offer an explanation for how human sexuality is destructive to the Christian faith? I'd be excited to hear that sermon.
Honestly, whenever I hear talk about the Christian perspective on human sexuality I am reminded of Lowery's The Giver or Orwell's 1984. If you can control the sexual behavior of an individual, you control the individual. [That's a quote. You can put a dash and my name after it.]
I know that corporate America does not put forth the healthiest messages about sexuality and its role in our everyday lives. However, the fact that the secular perspective is flawed does not mean that the Christian perspective is completely righteous. All I'm asking is whether or not the Christian point of view is the only alternative to the over-stimulation and over-saturation of our Carl's Jr. commercials and PETA advertisements.
I have one last question, Dr. Winner. When you are repenting for sexual sin, do you get down on your knees?
"Keep near me and you will be safe"
Daedalus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I've been a fan. But I have to say...this is, by far, your best post yet. It seems like you are taking some serious strides towards actually achieving what you set out to do: starting discussion. The posting of a particular question to discuss? Nice. There were still some insults and jabs, but not any that I think were particularly unwarranted. You kept the biting sarcasm but gave some real insight. I'm sure not everyone will agree, but still.
For the most part, i think this blog was well done. it didn't personally attack anyone, save brad strawn, and it actually asked and raised some interesting questions and topics.
regarding the question about humans deep down being animals, i would say that is only half true. in the creation story, there is this constant idea of man's duality of physicality and spirituality. while we are composite of both earth and the breath of God, we were created last as the most complex thing...i could go on. Animals are all physicality with no spirituality, and angels are all spirituality with no physicality, and it seems clear that humans are exactly both, or maybe neither. rob bell addresses this really well in his book Sex God, in the chapter "angels and animals".
so we are not just animals being driven by sexuality and impulse, but at the same time we are not angels who have no desires of the flesh. i would hate for God's intentional design of us as composite creatures to be reduced to us just being referred to as "animals". That doesn't fit the story I read in Genesis.
Kevinman, please try and remember that the creation story you read in Genesis 1 is a poem and is not to be taken literally. Also, the text from Genesis 2 has been far eclipsed by 20th and 21st century science, removing it as a major player in the discussion of how things came to be.
Amber, the fact that the Genesis story is written in poetic, non-literal language does not necessarily mean that it has no connections to actual states of affairs.
Also, the biblical reasons for sexual relationship being limited to categories of heterosexuality and marriage has non God-centered reasoning. In addition to pre-marital sexuality being destructive to our relationships with God, it also can have serious ramifications by objectifying and belittling other human beings, created destruction in those relationships as well.
Finally, I'm still waiting for a response to my last comment.
You're right, the literary style of Genesis 1 does not necessarily exempt it from being an accurate description of the formation of the universe. For that you'll have to refer to my comments on Genesis 2.
As for your comments about Biblical sexuality, I must object. I would dare wager that objectification and belittlement of partners in non-marital hetero/homosexual relationships occurs no more frequently than emotional abandonment, unfaithfulness, and abuse occur in marital relationships. If you are asserting that the "why" behind God's rules about sexuality is that he does not want people to get hurt, then you need look no farther than the studies of contemporary marriages to find that perhaps God should have outlawed those too.
Regarding your last comment. When I was talking about the "Seven Deadly Sins" I used the word 'sin' because that is how those specific behaviors have come to be known. When I was asking, "Why should we confess our 'sins' if we haven't 'sinned?'" I was expressing my contempt for preachers who get up on stage and spout something akin to "You suck and you need Jesus to fix you." Well, what if I don't suck? What if I'm feeling pretty good about myself at the moment and think I have done a pretty good job lately of living a decent life? Am I to simply take the preacher's word for it, throw all my jolliness out the window, and cast myself at the feet of the 'Almighty' because one man, who probably doesn't know me, said that I had done something wrong?
That doesn't sound too appealing to me.
I believe "because God said so" is what our parents tell us until we are grown enough to work out our own system of ethics. We must move forward by asking ourselves the real "Why?"
You may or may not know it, but your post explores the ideas contained in the divine command theory, which dates back to Aristotle. The question is whether something is good because God said it is, or whether God says it's good because it is inherently good apart from God's command.
The problem here is that theology is discussed interchangeably with philosophy, and Daedalus seems to want to keep the two separate. I believe this is the point of this blog: to take a step back from the Christian fundamentalist worldview and examine the greater scope of ideas out there.
Lastly, two words for Facebook doppelgänger "Amber Clark Townsend Jackson":
Witch hunt.
i'm just going to point out that the chorus of "how great is our god" does not necessarily pose the question "how great is our god?" rather, it seems to me to be written in the form of proclamation. much like someone would use the phrase, "how great is this!" which, yes, can sound like a question but it is mainly used to proclaim that you agree that it is great.
thus, i don't think the song is that silly and, in fact, is one of tomlin's more meaty songs as far as proclaiming the sense of wonder of the triune God.
Apparently, students have been attacking other students in an attempt to reveal your true identity. People who truly follow Christ should know better. I don't know if you or anyone can stop this witch hunt, but I hope someone does soon.
Post a Comment