Re: Re-imaging the Divine LONG

[barbara wolf <lupa@biddeford.com>]

At 02:02 PM 3/7/96 -0500, Walt Tappert wrote:
>
>If you look at page 844 of the Book of Common Prayer, you will find the
>phrase, [A] use of this catechism is to provide a brief summary of the
>Church's teaching for an inquiring stranger who picks up a Prayer Book."
>
>Ah, but you say, when the Prayer Book says a few pages later, that we are
>to "use our bodily desires as God intended," you say we cannot know the
>answer!  And how, pray, do we explain that to the inquiring stranger who
>picks up a Prayer Book?
>
>Clever, these folk who put together the Book of Common Prayer -- they
>tell us to do something, but we cannot possibly know what to do!

Peace, brother Walt!

I am truly sorry it my being "clever" offended you.  I wasn't naming you a
"pharisee".  I was saying that the question you directed to Molly was framed
in the Pharisaic manner.  My reference to lions' dens and how to behave
therein, which might have seemed pejorative, was intended as descriptive.
There's a lot of roaring going on--polite, educated, ever-so-rational
roaring--and one needs to be both quick on the feet AND thoughtful and
gentle if one is to be heard.  Unfortunately, I was more quick on the feet
than thoughtful.  I had not realized until I read your reply that your real
question was a very serious one to you--I had thought it to be more roaring.
Hence, I responded to the "form" rather than to the essence.  I do apologize.

As to the Catechism and the problems inherent in teaching what the kerygma
is all about.  If you compare the 1979BCP version of the catechism with the
1928 one, you will see more clearly what I was rather clumsily trying to
say.  The section to which you refer (that is, the section contining the Ten
Commandments and the glosses thereon) indicates a good many signficant
changes in the document.

For instance, under "What is my duty to my neighbor?"
        1928 BCP:  To honour and obey the civil authority: to submit myself
to all
                my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters
        1986 BCP: To honor those in authority and to meet their just demands....
This is a remarkable change, you will agree, and speaks to a changed world
in which obediance and submission are qualified by the need for "justice" on
the part of those in authority.  I am sure there are a good many people in
the Church who would have preferred that the '86 book had retained the original.

When it comes to matters physical:
        1928:  To keep my body in temperance, soberness, and chastity....
        1979  To use our bodily desires as God intended....
Again a marked change.  This time "chastity" has been dropped, along with
temperance and soberness (two excellent virtues, I would say).  To my not
very sophisticated eye, it seems that here the "teaching" has been broadened
(NOT relaxed) to accept the fact that chastity (as generally uinderstood to
mean abstinence from sex for the love of God) is not given to everybody.
Hence, the "as God intended", which would allow for inclusion of desires
other than the sexual, as well as for sexual relationships that do not fit
the current meaning of "chastity=abstinence".  The Catechism has to pay
attention to language!

Leaving us, as you say, dangling.  What does God intend?  Well, to that I
would say that God intends us to love Him with all our hearts and minds and
souls and strength.  God has given EACH of us bodies with an assortment of
genes and chromosomes, which in turn give outline to our physical traits and
capacities as well as our brains.  EACH of us has been given parents (loving
and capable or not) and extended environments (including cultural norms that
are subject to change  in our lifetimes).  EACH of us has been given the
*awareness* that we are alive and human, alone and yet always dependent upon
ohters.  So our "hearts and minds and souls and strengths" are not all
exactly alike.  God did not use a cookie cutter when we were given our
shape.  Hence, the ways in which God intended us to use our bodily desires
are not identical, although our communities may overlap or even be much the
same. Furthermore, our "souls" are individual, and the Holy Spirit infused
in us in Baptism makes use of the "flesh" (the genes, chromosomes, the
cells,etc.,etc.) that God has given us.  Not someone else's heritage, but
out individual selves. We are to love God *where we are*.

Unless we are to ignore totally the findings of researchers in biology and
psychology, we Christians of the very late 20th c. have to take into account
the tenuous nature of our assumptions re homosexuality, for instance, and to
be prepared to admit we may be mistaken in them.  (We had to do the same
thing re the manner in which we speak of God's creation of the universe and
or human beings, and I trust you don't wish to appeal to Genesis those
issues?)  We can no longer speak of homosexuality as a "life style", as if
to be gay is a choice analagous to choosing to be a "biker" or a "beatnik".
(For that matter, we can no longer speak of Christian marriage as if the
Ozzie and Harriet model were the only Christian family structure--or "Father
Knows Best".)

No, I take that back.  We *do* still speak that way.  A lot.  But when we
try to weave such opinions into the fabric of our teaching about the
kerygma, we exclude a percentage (I won't cite figures--they're too
ephemeral) of the human race from the Gospel.  We leperize human beings.  We
say to homosexuals (as, alas, to all too many unwed mothers or couples
"living in sin"), you may be saved if:  a) you repent of your sin (which you
"were born to", biologically and/or psychologically); b) you ask God to
forgive you; and c) you amend your ways.  Apart from the fact that this
sequence does not represent the process of forgiveness as Christ exemplified
it, this is a poor way in which to communicate God's love to people who are
as much His creatures as we are and who long for Him as we do.  God's
creatures, mind you, EACH with God;s gifts of genes, parents, etc.

Back to your basic question, then.  How does God intend us to use our bodily
desires?  My answer is:  God intends me to use my bodily desires (among
which I include a lot more than sex, incidentally, as should you) to the
glory of His name in gratitude for the gifts He has given me in Christ, and
to express to others the redemptive power of His love.  In expressing that
love to others, I am responsible to God that I not sin against them.  Not
sinning against others is a very tough commandment, and we all fall short of
it or break it--more times than we like to remember.  But sinning against
others does not, it seems to me, include the exchange of love.  Sinning
against others *may* include some sexual behavior--pedophilia, for instance,
considering what the Christ had to say about harming children.  Or marital
rape.  But when sexual desire is *redeemed*-- redeemed from self-centered
gratification and the lust for power or possession-- it can indeed be
genuine, God-given love.  On the other hand, withholding love,or even
parcelling it out "correctly", can be truly sin-full.

As to withholding God's blessing of "incorrect" love, I don't know about
that.  I'm not sure that the Church can draw the line over which God dare
not step.

I trust that this very long reply will in some manner make up for my
"clever" response, Walt.  (Incientally, I'm much flattered.  Nobody has ever
called me "clever"!)  I know that my response will not be convincing to you.
That's why I told Molly that parables were better!

May God bless you today and always.
Barbara Wolf

        "But we've got to be careful not to reduce people by cramming
        them in the limits of our understanding, haven't we?"

                                                Reginald Hill