I was drifting today, the way I drift. Soft, fluid, awake but spacey. I have fears, and they move in from time to time, and I have ongoing fear of death. I have an infected leg right now, and my fear wafted me to the emergency room, and the infection had moved to my brain, and I went into code and I moved towards the light, and I saw Jesus.
And He wasn't mad at me. I was a different person when I started this blog. The discoveries I have made as I waded through theology, the church, doctrine and future things have been real and they have transformed me into someone I could never have imagined being: Supporting homosexual marriage and accepting that sexual orientation; bringing cultural context into the evaluation and interpretation of the book; seeing that there is a loving Jesus outside of being a rigid evangelical, and understanding that His call is all encompassing, and involves every part of my life.
These changes have bothered and scared me. and although the musing vision I had today was far from being an epiphany, it was important in its assurance that I could keep on speaking. In fact, the impression I got in fact was that God was telling me to instruct others, and get ready, it will be instruction and the bathroom sink from here on in.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Say it ain't so, Joe
I'm sorry to deviate from my carefully planned sequence of blog entries as I prepare to shut down on November 15, but a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about the Presidential election jumped out at me tonight. It stated that evangelicals support McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden by a 76 to 20 percent margin. I could debate those numbers and honestly say that I know there is a shift to the center among many evangelicals, but the numbers are bloated beyond any sane explanation.
A young baseball fan encountered Shoeless Joe Jackson after the Black Sox betting scandal of 1919 and reportedly said "say it ain't so, Joe" to the accused, soon-to-be banned for life Chicago slugger.
Evangelical Christians please, say these numbers ain't so.
Nothing against John McCain, a courageous man, an American hero - a person it will be difficult to vote against. McCain is at heart a Goldwater libertarian, whose perception is that Federal Government exists to promote and protect the political, economic and military interests of the United States. His belief always has been that less government is better government, and because of this he has never pursued the very conservative agenda present in the strident voices of the Right - Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Robertson. Those three support McCain now because they hate Obama, not because they agree with McCain on the issues. McCain has always had a libertarian view on two issues that still strike to the heart of Evangelicals: Roe v. Wade and Gay Marriage. Goldwater wanted nothing to do with the Religious Right or the sort of fanaticism it brought to the Party. This year, McCain attempted to quell the revolt against a perceived lack of fervor regarding these two "stains on the soul of America" by nominating Sarah Palin as his running mate.
What an awful decision that was. I don't care if she's pretty, energetic, charismatic, doctrinally pure, dead right on the issues, she is still ill-equipped to be President; probably the least qualified running mate in my lifetime. Dan Quayle was pretty bad (1988&1992 with George Bush the elder), but Quayle was a US Senator at the time of his nomination.
Palin's ignorance of domestic and foreign policy, clearly seen at critical points in interviews with the media and in taped gaffes on the campaign trail, leave little doubt that she hasn't a clue about the job she will get if McCain wins in November or, god forbid, if she inherits the Presidency due to a recurrence of McCain's melanoma.
I don't know how reasonable, intelligent people (and I believe most Evangelicals are both) can ignore the consequences of Palin's election and continue to support her. As for her evangelical politics, it is folly to think that legislation will end abortion in America. Ever. It is wishful thinking that gay marriage will be derailed by any legislation. I fully expect that it will be legal in at least 45 states by 2025.
Evangelicals are looking to the wrong institution to change the world. Politics and Government both like whitewash and bullshit. They approach problems on the macro-level, and spiritual concerns, emotional hurts and mental problems are best addressed on the micro level. It's so easy to get duped by politicians who promise things that can never be, and to get consumed with solving things by changing law and electing candidates.
If you honestly think 4 decades of political action by evangelicals has accomplished earth shattering things, think again. The Jesus Movement (1968-1973) concentrated on conversion and clean living, not politics, and it had a tremendous influence on tens of millions of people. Micro change happens in discussions in your living room, through your character at work, by serving the poor on the streets and in rescue missions, by listening and responding to the needs of your neighbors. If you want to stop abortion, work to prevent pregnancy and provide an option to someone facing unexpected, and unwanted, motherhood. If you have problems with homosexuality, engage homosexuals, especially those in long term relationships, the very people evangelicals want to deny marriage to.
Politics is ineffective, but it's easier. You can hide behind bills and attempted legislation. But you don't change anything most of the time, because change happens when people change, and people change when they catch the vision, joy, commitment, passion and zeal of other people. All of this occurs "off the radar," where change is a process not a law.
I admit, I don't believe that living in a democracy makes any difference to Jesus' command to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Civil authority, however it is arrived at, should never be expected to trumpet the Kingdom of God, and if it does, look out the window, we're in Tehran pushing Islam's Sharia Law. Or on the set of the 700 Club, where Pat Robertson is pushing for Theocracy in Washington.
In spite of my belief in micro versus macro models, I haven't shaken my addiction to casting my ballot. I will vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate this year. I have voted for Republican and third party candidates in the past, but never for a Democrat.
I really like John McCain, but if you have followed Sarah Palin during this campaign and have decided that you are confident in her ability to run the Country in case something happens to 72 year old cancer survivor, all I can comment is:
"Say it ain't so, Joe."
A young baseball fan encountered Shoeless Joe Jackson after the Black Sox betting scandal of 1919 and reportedly said "say it ain't so, Joe" to the accused, soon-to-be banned for life Chicago slugger.
Evangelical Christians please, say these numbers ain't so.
Nothing against John McCain, a courageous man, an American hero - a person it will be difficult to vote against. McCain is at heart a Goldwater libertarian, whose perception is that Federal Government exists to promote and protect the political, economic and military interests of the United States. His belief always has been that less government is better government, and because of this he has never pursued the very conservative agenda present in the strident voices of the Right - Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Robertson. Those three support McCain now because they hate Obama, not because they agree with McCain on the issues. McCain has always had a libertarian view on two issues that still strike to the heart of Evangelicals: Roe v. Wade and Gay Marriage. Goldwater wanted nothing to do with the Religious Right or the sort of fanaticism it brought to the Party. This year, McCain attempted to quell the revolt against a perceived lack of fervor regarding these two "stains on the soul of America" by nominating Sarah Palin as his running mate.
What an awful decision that was. I don't care if she's pretty, energetic, charismatic, doctrinally pure, dead right on the issues, she is still ill-equipped to be President; probably the least qualified running mate in my lifetime. Dan Quayle was pretty bad (1988&1992 with George Bush the elder), but Quayle was a US Senator at the time of his nomination.
Palin's ignorance of domestic and foreign policy, clearly seen at critical points in interviews with the media and in taped gaffes on the campaign trail, leave little doubt that she hasn't a clue about the job she will get if McCain wins in November or, god forbid, if she inherits the Presidency due to a recurrence of McCain's melanoma.
I don't know how reasonable, intelligent people (and I believe most Evangelicals are both) can ignore the consequences of Palin's election and continue to support her. As for her evangelical politics, it is folly to think that legislation will end abortion in America. Ever. It is wishful thinking that gay marriage will be derailed by any legislation. I fully expect that it will be legal in at least 45 states by 2025.
Evangelicals are looking to the wrong institution to change the world. Politics and Government both like whitewash and bullshit. They approach problems on the macro-level, and spiritual concerns, emotional hurts and mental problems are best addressed on the micro level. It's so easy to get duped by politicians who promise things that can never be, and to get consumed with solving things by changing law and electing candidates.
If you honestly think 4 decades of political action by evangelicals has accomplished earth shattering things, think again. The Jesus Movement (1968-1973) concentrated on conversion and clean living, not politics, and it had a tremendous influence on tens of millions of people. Micro change happens in discussions in your living room, through your character at work, by serving the poor on the streets and in rescue missions, by listening and responding to the needs of your neighbors. If you want to stop abortion, work to prevent pregnancy and provide an option to someone facing unexpected, and unwanted, motherhood. If you have problems with homosexuality, engage homosexuals, especially those in long term relationships, the very people evangelicals want to deny marriage to.
Politics is ineffective, but it's easier. You can hide behind bills and attempted legislation. But you don't change anything most of the time, because change happens when people change, and people change when they catch the vision, joy, commitment, passion and zeal of other people. All of this occurs "off the radar," where change is a process not a law.
I admit, I don't believe that living in a democracy makes any difference to Jesus' command to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Civil authority, however it is arrived at, should never be expected to trumpet the Kingdom of God, and if it does, look out the window, we're in Tehran pushing Islam's Sharia Law. Or on the set of the 700 Club, where Pat Robertson is pushing for Theocracy in Washington.
In spite of my belief in micro versus macro models, I haven't shaken my addiction to casting my ballot. I will vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate this year. I have voted for Republican and third party candidates in the past, but never for a Democrat.
I really like John McCain, but if you have followed Sarah Palin during this campaign and have decided that you are confident in her ability to run the Country in case something happens to 72 year old cancer survivor, all I can comment is:
"Say it ain't so, Joe."
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Who Lives in Tel Aviv?
One of the most fundamental dictums of today's Evangelicalism is that because the Jews have returned to Israel, the end of this age on earth is at hand. This conviction is at the center of American Christians' ongoing, and often blind, support of everything that has transpired in that nation since its inception in 1948.
There is no question that the United States needs an ally in the Middle East, or that Israel has some historic right to inhabit the territory it now occupies, but whether the return has reversed the Diaspora of the Old Book is debatable.
Part of the fall-out of Hitler's eradication of six million European Jews was a secularization of the Jews that survived. Returning to the homeland after the war was more Zionism than the fulfillment of prophecy. The Jews that returned sought refuge from a world that had rejected them. As hostile as the Arab world was to them, Palestine became a port of entry to modern statehood and a beacon to the rest of Judaica.
Much of the controversy in Israel since its establishment has been the relationship of the pragmatic Jews that initially settled the land and the religious ones who followed. Current disputes about the Golan Heights and the West Bank are not just about defense, but also concern the physical boundaries God gave Abraham when He promised him a nation and innumerable descendants. As much as Israeli leaders now wish to accommodate Arab leaders and bring some modicum of peace to the region, fundamentalist Jews want to settle parts of the West Bank they feel they are entitled to under the Abrahamic Covenant.
Christian leaders want Israel to be the fulfillment of past prophecies. They want the ongoing survival of the nation to be a sign of God's providence and cite the 7 day war as an indication of God's protection. This might be true, but the returning Jews recognized in prophecy are messianic Jews, which means modern Israel can not be considered the answer to past promises from God about the return of a Jewish nation to this land.
This doesn't mean that Christians should advocate the rejection of Israel, especially in light of our mutual concern about Arab hyper-nationalism, but it does mean that we judge Israel's treatment of Palestinians according to the standard we hold with other friendly nations, allies and states we are antagonistic towards. A blank check to Israel, regardless of its sometimes oppressive policies isn't right. As little or as much as Christians are involved in decision making in American politics, we must be consistent in our stands, not fearing the economic leverage of China or the antagonism of Israel.
If Christians are to operate in a new relationship with politics and power, we need to be even handed, honest and just. Unafraid of the truth or of the response generated by our commitment to it.
There is no question that the United States needs an ally in the Middle East, or that Israel has some historic right to inhabit the territory it now occupies, but whether the return has reversed the Diaspora of the Old Book is debatable.
Part of the fall-out of Hitler's eradication of six million European Jews was a secularization of the Jews that survived. Returning to the homeland after the war was more Zionism than the fulfillment of prophecy. The Jews that returned sought refuge from a world that had rejected them. As hostile as the Arab world was to them, Palestine became a port of entry to modern statehood and a beacon to the rest of Judaica.
Much of the controversy in Israel since its establishment has been the relationship of the pragmatic Jews that initially settled the land and the religious ones who followed. Current disputes about the Golan Heights and the West Bank are not just about defense, but also concern the physical boundaries God gave Abraham when He promised him a nation and innumerable descendants. As much as Israeli leaders now wish to accommodate Arab leaders and bring some modicum of peace to the region, fundamentalist Jews want to settle parts of the West Bank they feel they are entitled to under the Abrahamic Covenant.
Christian leaders want Israel to be the fulfillment of past prophecies. They want the ongoing survival of the nation to be a sign of God's providence and cite the 7 day war as an indication of God's protection. This might be true, but the returning Jews recognized in prophecy are messianic Jews, which means modern Israel can not be considered the answer to past promises from God about the return of a Jewish nation to this land.
This doesn't mean that Christians should advocate the rejection of Israel, especially in light of our mutual concern about Arab hyper-nationalism, but it does mean that we judge Israel's treatment of Palestinians according to the standard we hold with other friendly nations, allies and states we are antagonistic towards. A blank check to Israel, regardless of its sometimes oppressive policies isn't right. As little or as much as Christians are involved in decision making in American politics, we must be consistent in our stands, not fearing the economic leverage of China or the antagonism of Israel.
If Christians are to operate in a new relationship with politics and power, we need to be even handed, honest and just. Unafraid of the truth or of the response generated by our commitment to it.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Eve of Destruction
After I committed my life to Jesus, I was concerned about the eternal destiny of my relatives. Or at least I told myself that. In retrospect, I wonder if what I really was looking for was affirmation that my decision was the right one; that mine was the true path for their lives. I don't know when my concern became legitimate - probably as my parents got old and frail, but by then I was trying to impact people with the testimony of my character, and often failing.
It's easier when you are selling an idea, a philosophy, a dogma. Selling the reality of your life is really difficult, but that is the cogent thing today, which puts all those who say they follow Jesus to the test. Does being a Christian mean different decisions, different reactions, different choices, different consequences, or is it only that famous slogan: "Christians aren't perfect, only forgiven?"
I look for some perfection these days, for some indication that results are connected to the declaration of faith. What is the "word of your testimony" other than this? Do Christians distance themselves from wrong; do they speak out against oppression and injustice; are they proactive in their assertion of the truth and determined in their personal conduct?
I would the answer were yes.
But in 1972, the answer was prophecy. I watched my brother-in-law, Joe Yanovitch, read THE LATE, GREAT PLANET EARTH the summer of '72. Joe wasn't a believer, but he was fascinated by prophecy the way many people were then and now. Like all discussions of future things, Bible prophecy is real, but murky. Words written in the past were interpreted later in a certain way, and now are interpreted differently. Hal Lindsey, who wrote TLGPE, asserted that passages in the Old Testament books of Daniel and Ezekiel and the New Testament book of Revelation were being fulfilled uniquely in the events of that time, specifically in the situation in the Middle East and most specifically in the return of the Jews to Israel.
If prophetic scripture written thousands of years before was actually being fulfilled, it would be a legitimate proof that the Bible was true and that God and His Son were real, and alive. The fact that TLGPE made assertions about the interpretation of certain verses that differed substantially from those presented by virtually all Biblical scholars prior to the 19th Century didn't deter Lindsey and his fellow premillennialists at Dallas Theological Seminary, from selling precise explanations of opaque passages.
In the end, the fact that Jesus didn't return in 1976 (as Charles Taylor announced), or in 1981, as many prophecy teachers taught, or any time yet has only testified of the stupidity of the church, and of those who follow its teaching.
The 20th Century was a time of extreme anxiety. People dealt with the anxiety differently. I smoked a lot of dope and ingested every drug that came my way. The Church pursued theological escape, following teaching that it would be in Heaven prior to the arrival of Armageddon. It didn't matter what was coming down, the Church would be delivered.
But the church wasn't delivered in Darfur or the Congo, in Rwanda or Zimbabwe. The Church was ravaged and Jesus didn't intervene. What happened in those nations was truly apocalyptic, and to continue with a Western Church centered worldview regarding persecution is prohibitively obscene. I recognize the outworking of evil in the world, and I don't demand that God intervene at any time outside His will, but I'll be damned if I'll let any theologian overlook what the annihilation of Christians meant on the landscape of modern prophecy. If God spoke in the past about the future, I can't imagine that He was mute about the atrocities of the last 30 years.
Looking to Biblical prophecy as an important element in verifying the Christian faith is another way of relieving the Church of its responsibility to live righteously as the major way of substantiating its claims.
Like it or not, the lives of believers matter, and Jesus isn't coming anytime soon to relieve it of its responsibility of being powerfully different than the world around it.
It's easier when you are selling an idea, a philosophy, a dogma. Selling the reality of your life is really difficult, but that is the cogent thing today, which puts all those who say they follow Jesus to the test. Does being a Christian mean different decisions, different reactions, different choices, different consequences, or is it only that famous slogan: "Christians aren't perfect, only forgiven?"
I look for some perfection these days, for some indication that results are connected to the declaration of faith. What is the "word of your testimony" other than this? Do Christians distance themselves from wrong; do they speak out against oppression and injustice; are they proactive in their assertion of the truth and determined in their personal conduct?
I would the answer were yes.
But in 1972, the answer was prophecy. I watched my brother-in-law, Joe Yanovitch, read THE LATE, GREAT PLANET EARTH the summer of '72. Joe wasn't a believer, but he was fascinated by prophecy the way many people were then and now. Like all discussions of future things, Bible prophecy is real, but murky. Words written in the past were interpreted later in a certain way, and now are interpreted differently. Hal Lindsey, who wrote TLGPE, asserted that passages in the Old Testament books of Daniel and Ezekiel and the New Testament book of Revelation were being fulfilled uniquely in the events of that time, specifically in the situation in the Middle East and most specifically in the return of the Jews to Israel.
If prophetic scripture written thousands of years before was actually being fulfilled, it would be a legitimate proof that the Bible was true and that God and His Son were real, and alive. The fact that TLGPE made assertions about the interpretation of certain verses that differed substantially from those presented by virtually all Biblical scholars prior to the 19th Century didn't deter Lindsey and his fellow premillennialists at Dallas Theological Seminary, from selling precise explanations of opaque passages.
In the end, the fact that Jesus didn't return in 1976 (as Charles Taylor announced), or in 1981, as many prophecy teachers taught, or any time yet has only testified of the stupidity of the church, and of those who follow its teaching.
The 20th Century was a time of extreme anxiety. People dealt with the anxiety differently. I smoked a lot of dope and ingested every drug that came my way. The Church pursued theological escape, following teaching that it would be in Heaven prior to the arrival of Armageddon. It didn't matter what was coming down, the Church would be delivered.
But the church wasn't delivered in Darfur or the Congo, in Rwanda or Zimbabwe. The Church was ravaged and Jesus didn't intervene. What happened in those nations was truly apocalyptic, and to continue with a Western Church centered worldview regarding persecution is prohibitively obscene. I recognize the outworking of evil in the world, and I don't demand that God intervene at any time outside His will, but I'll be damned if I'll let any theologian overlook what the annihilation of Christians meant on the landscape of modern prophecy. If God spoke in the past about the future, I can't imagine that He was mute about the atrocities of the last 30 years.
Looking to Biblical prophecy as an important element in verifying the Christian faith is another way of relieving the Church of its responsibility to live righteously as the major way of substantiating its claims.
Like it or not, the lives of believers matter, and Jesus isn't coming anytime soon to relieve it of its responsibility of being powerfully different than the world around it.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
On November 15
On November 15, 2008, I'm shutting this puppy down. My goal in having a blog was to collect my thinking about being in the Christian faith (which is constantly on my mind) and present that to an audience. At times, I thought about influencing an audience, but I am not devastated that this didn't occur. Thinking you are writing to someone makes you care more about how you communicate. I have made mistakes in grammar along the way, have jumbled thought by misplacing or omitting a word, and I've let it stand. Let everyone be equally confused.
I have future plans for some refined version of the blog, but you have been the very motivation for me to attempt to plow through some pretty difficult stuff. I have never stopped being what I believe I am (a Christian), but I have communicated things that would make some doubt the authenticity of my faith.
Ironically, the obvious stuff is the easiest stuff. Homosexuality, the "O" word, drinking, smoking, dancing, cards, movies, dress, piercings, tattoos, grooming, purity, celibacy, and any other lifestyle issue is easier than the process of disengaging from the dysfunction of the American Church and finding an Identity as Christians in this world, and these are the things I'll be writing about between now and when I put a wrap on this blog.
Next: What the Future Will Bring
Then: Tell A Story, Tell a Joke - In Tel Aviv
And: Freaking Islam
So: Fear Is An Option
In a Set Of Five: What The Amish Tell Us
I have future plans for some refined version of the blog, but you have been the very motivation for me to attempt to plow through some pretty difficult stuff. I have never stopped being what I believe I am (a Christian), but I have communicated things that would make some doubt the authenticity of my faith.
Ironically, the obvious stuff is the easiest stuff. Homosexuality, the "O" word, drinking, smoking, dancing, cards, movies, dress, piercings, tattoos, grooming, purity, celibacy, and any other lifestyle issue is easier than the process of disengaging from the dysfunction of the American Church and finding an Identity as Christians in this world, and these are the things I'll be writing about between now and when I put a wrap on this blog.
Next: What the Future Will Bring
Then: Tell A Story, Tell a Joke - In Tel Aviv
And: Freaking Islam
So: Fear Is An Option
In a Set Of Five: What The Amish Tell Us
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Loving Your Body
I have been told by friends and family that I can no longer discuss orgasm, and I am ready to wrap up this important topic. I am happy that talking about this has made so many people uncomfortable (the faithful and those on more "sex-friendly" paths), but am surprised as well.
I am almost 60, and I think some people are disturbed that someone my age is talking about this stuff. Discussions among mixed (male/female) groups produce uncomfortable squirming among the ladies, then unexplained, abrupt, departure. Groups of men are more at ease and usually have bemused, then coarse reactions, but then orgasm is a given for men, and we've been lying about our feats of endurance to each other in locker-rooms since we were 14. We have said it all and heard it all.
I am now seen as even more odd than I was seen before, and it has been made clear to me that the subject is not appropriate in most group settings. I am concerned that it is not a topic discussed by many people ever, especially by those in the faith.
I used to love my body. For years, I was lean and quick. I was nimble and sensuous. I liked to watch myself in the mirror. I am old and fat now; bloated by years of prescription medicine and bad choices regarding exercise and diet. I don't look in the mirror much these days. I feel like a whale mostly, which does nothing for my desirability quotient.
I discovered nudity in the day: in the middle of my LSD blitz; having brushed the sky with Zen gurus in San Francisco. I came back to Boston the summer of 1969, ready to teach the masses. I would have never known how liberating being nude in front of people was if the group that sought me out in my bed in Cambridge hadn't found me. I had no clothes; I invited them in anyway - and the crowds grew bigger; the frequency of gatherings increased; the venue changed. I got out of my bed but not into my clothes.
This is the sort of freedom I wish for those blanching about discussing orgasm. For those with multiple sexual partners, I invite you to the variety of sex available with one partner, IF YOU WANT IT. Monagamy is about more than one issue, but sexual boredom does not have to be a deal maker, if you will pursue orgasm and epiphany with your partner.
Married Christians - you have so many obstacles to sexual freedom. First, you have to want it and not fear it. I had dinner with a friend last night, who told me he feared that igniting his passion might lead him into a state where his released sexual appetite caused him to desire women other than his wife.
What happens in 20 years when he concludes that it is his wife, not his fear, that led him into sexual frustration and apathy?
What have I missed, he then asks?
No. Why have you missed it, I want to know?
Because you didn't buy a copy of the illustrated Kama Sutra?
No, because you never sat down and talked about what gives your wife and you pleasure. Because you thought if you knew too much and got too good at the craft of lovemaking,
you would be vulnerable to wander from your family. We don't resist temptation by avoiding the possibility of being tempted. Being sexually frustrated by the reality of other options is best taken care of in the bedroom, where you bring everything together: the best craft, the most ambitious exercises; love, commitment, trust, desire for something beyond great, curiosity, patience, forgiveness. The fruit of the Spirit present in lovemaking - what a concept.
I wish we could get it right. I wish that Christian couples could stay in bed all day, making love and meeting each other's deepest needs and not feel guilty about it.
"But I have more important things to do."
That's the problem in a nutshell.
I say get the lotions; the Kama Sutra; sex toys (available on line); condoms (as birth control if no other precautions are being taken); Barry White, Al Green, Marvin Gaye Cd's ; farm the kids out; put no trespassing signs on the door; turn off all electronic devices, unplug land lines and get to it.
By the way, honesty and openness can lead to hard issues, among them erectile dysfunction, frigidity, premature ejaculation, the size of the equipment - all of which can be dealt with in various ways. Vitamins, medicine, therapy, hypnotism, surgery, to name a few. There is no problem you can't overcome together. That together is the center of it all. Nothing worthwhile is easy, and orgasm and epiphany is worthwhile. I think most Christian couples understand the concept of God revealing Himself (epiphany), but fewer share orgasm, and if you can't share it, what's the point?
You could be masturbating in the shower.
Someone has to say it. Why not a 60 year old grandfather?
I am almost 60, and I think some people are disturbed that someone my age is talking about this stuff. Discussions among mixed (male/female) groups produce uncomfortable squirming among the ladies, then unexplained, abrupt, departure. Groups of men are more at ease and usually have bemused, then coarse reactions, but then orgasm is a given for men, and we've been lying about our feats of endurance to each other in locker-rooms since we were 14. We have said it all and heard it all.
I am now seen as even more odd than I was seen before, and it has been made clear to me that the subject is not appropriate in most group settings. I am concerned that it is not a topic discussed by many people ever, especially by those in the faith.
I used to love my body. For years, I was lean and quick. I was nimble and sensuous. I liked to watch myself in the mirror. I am old and fat now; bloated by years of prescription medicine and bad choices regarding exercise and diet. I don't look in the mirror much these days. I feel like a whale mostly, which does nothing for my desirability quotient.
I discovered nudity in the day: in the middle of my LSD blitz; having brushed the sky with Zen gurus in San Francisco. I came back to Boston the summer of 1969, ready to teach the masses. I would have never known how liberating being nude in front of people was if the group that sought me out in my bed in Cambridge hadn't found me. I had no clothes; I invited them in anyway - and the crowds grew bigger; the frequency of gatherings increased; the venue changed. I got out of my bed but not into my clothes.
This is the sort of freedom I wish for those blanching about discussing orgasm. For those with multiple sexual partners, I invite you to the variety of sex available with one partner, IF YOU WANT IT. Monagamy is about more than one issue, but sexual boredom does not have to be a deal maker, if you will pursue orgasm and epiphany with your partner.
Married Christians - you have so many obstacles to sexual freedom. First, you have to want it and not fear it. I had dinner with a friend last night, who told me he feared that igniting his passion might lead him into a state where his released sexual appetite caused him to desire women other than his wife.
What happens in 20 years when he concludes that it is his wife, not his fear, that led him into sexual frustration and apathy?
What have I missed, he then asks?
No. Why have you missed it, I want to know?
Because you didn't buy a copy of the illustrated Kama Sutra?
No, because you never sat down and talked about what gives your wife and you pleasure. Because you thought if you knew too much and got too good at the craft of lovemaking,
you would be vulnerable to wander from your family. We don't resist temptation by avoiding the possibility of being tempted. Being sexually frustrated by the reality of other options is best taken care of in the bedroom, where you bring everything together: the best craft, the most ambitious exercises; love, commitment, trust, desire for something beyond great, curiosity, patience, forgiveness. The fruit of the Spirit present in lovemaking - what a concept.
I wish we could get it right. I wish that Christian couples could stay in bed all day, making love and meeting each other's deepest needs and not feel guilty about it.
"But I have more important things to do."
That's the problem in a nutshell.
I say get the lotions; the Kama Sutra; sex toys (available on line); condoms (as birth control if no other precautions are being taken); Barry White, Al Green, Marvin Gaye Cd's ; farm the kids out; put no trespassing signs on the door; turn off all electronic devices, unplug land lines and get to it.
By the way, honesty and openness can lead to hard issues, among them erectile dysfunction, frigidity, premature ejaculation, the size of the equipment - all of which can be dealt with in various ways. Vitamins, medicine, therapy, hypnotism, surgery, to name a few. There is no problem you can't overcome together. That together is the center of it all. Nothing worthwhile is easy, and orgasm and epiphany is worthwhile. I think most Christian couples understand the concept of God revealing Himself (epiphany), but fewer share orgasm, and if you can't share it, what's the point?
You could be masturbating in the shower.
Someone has to say it. Why not a 60 year old grandfather?
Friday, October 3, 2008
Orgasm as Orgasm
I believe that there can and should be more in sex than just Orgasm. Physical union provides an opportunity for deep spiritual and emotional connection, and good sex can be so good that it facilitates this. Personal spirituality, a desire to find intimacy, life-long marital commitment, a belief in monogamy, patience and friendship - these united can bring about the meeting of spiritual epiphany and physical orgasm, in the most monumental sex ever.
My friend Paul Nelson, a gifted youth leader, would often share at "True Love Waits" conferences we attended together that God makes sex "you wait until marriage for" better than any sex you can experience outside matrimony. Sounds good for the Christian side, but almost certainly not true (sorry Paul). There are sex professionals out there who really know about intercourse. They are really, really good at it. Over time, the epiphany connection during intercourse is bound to slip or get lost - thus second honeymoons and "make-up" sex - and orgasm rests alone. At this point, technique and performance really matter, and everyone (common grace), can learn how to perform better in bed than they currently are, if they determine that this is important.
Orgasm is a non-spiritual, explosive joy for many Christians. For Catholics, it has, historically, been a limbo sin redeemed by the chance of reproduction. The Apostle Paul encouraged married believers to have intercourse so they wouldn't "burn" with lust. I don't feel that this is Paul at his most inspired, but won't go overboard about 1 verse.
But if you begin in a system that restricts intercourse and orgasm to those who are married, it is easy to think that the issue is about sex, while it is really about obedience. Sex is good - damn good. Most people want and enjoy this activity, which has been created by God to bring us joy AND guarantee the continuation of our species. I don't understand the additional whys of abstinence and monogamy pounded at during Church youth gatherings. Sure, STDs and worse are out there, but the correct use of condoms provides protection against most disease and birth control of all kinds will usually prevent pregnancy, which bites a large hole in the rhetoric of the Abstinence movement.
I questions any movement that does anything that demeans sexual intimacy or discourages anyone from embracing this part of their life. To make it very clear, I think the Church needs to own the sex education of its children, and I strongly urge every Congregation to serve up the real deal. Accurate information about the hows, whys, whats, and wheres regarding intercourse and full disclosure about diseases and birth control. I think exposure to a spokesperson from Planned Parenthood to explain birth control options and availability; to volunteers from Crisis Pregnancy to help students understand support options for pregnant girls/women would be very helpful.
Church youth know most of this stuff already. This is not new to most of them. They must be thinking, "Are these guys going to try to scare us into purity?"
No scaring into choosing to wait to enjoy your sexuality in marriage; instead choosing to walk His walk, doing what He wants you to do. Got complaints? Take them up with Him. He only wants you to follow Him towards eternal and abundant life. He only wants everything good for you. Remember, He invented sex. He created your erogenous zones.
If Christians can get the young taught the right things about sex, maybe the married can enjoy it more, or, for many, at all. Thus arrives the Kama Sutra.
One more entry on this . . .
My friend Paul Nelson, a gifted youth leader, would often share at "True Love Waits" conferences we attended together that God makes sex "you wait until marriage for" better than any sex you can experience outside matrimony. Sounds good for the Christian side, but almost certainly not true (sorry Paul). There are sex professionals out there who really know about intercourse. They are really, really good at it. Over time, the epiphany connection during intercourse is bound to slip or get lost - thus second honeymoons and "make-up" sex - and orgasm rests alone. At this point, technique and performance really matter, and everyone (common grace), can learn how to perform better in bed than they currently are, if they determine that this is important.
Orgasm is a non-spiritual, explosive joy for many Christians. For Catholics, it has, historically, been a limbo sin redeemed by the chance of reproduction. The Apostle Paul encouraged married believers to have intercourse so they wouldn't "burn" with lust. I don't feel that this is Paul at his most inspired, but won't go overboard about 1 verse.
But if you begin in a system that restricts intercourse and orgasm to those who are married, it is easy to think that the issue is about sex, while it is really about obedience. Sex is good - damn good. Most people want and enjoy this activity, which has been created by God to bring us joy AND guarantee the continuation of our species. I don't understand the additional whys of abstinence and monogamy pounded at during Church youth gatherings. Sure, STDs and worse are out there, but the correct use of condoms provides protection against most disease and birth control of all kinds will usually prevent pregnancy, which bites a large hole in the rhetoric of the Abstinence movement.
I questions any movement that does anything that demeans sexual intimacy or discourages anyone from embracing this part of their life. To make it very clear, I think the Church needs to own the sex education of its children, and I strongly urge every Congregation to serve up the real deal. Accurate information about the hows, whys, whats, and wheres regarding intercourse and full disclosure about diseases and birth control. I think exposure to a spokesperson from Planned Parenthood to explain birth control options and availability; to volunteers from Crisis Pregnancy to help students understand support options for pregnant girls/women would be very helpful.
Church youth know most of this stuff already. This is not new to most of them. They must be thinking, "Are these guys going to try to scare us into purity?"
No scaring into choosing to wait to enjoy your sexuality in marriage; instead choosing to walk His walk, doing what He wants you to do. Got complaints? Take them up with Him. He only wants you to follow Him towards eternal and abundant life. He only wants everything good for you. Remember, He invented sex. He created your erogenous zones.
If Christians can get the young taught the right things about sex, maybe the married can enjoy it more, or, for many, at all. Thus arrives the Kama Sutra.
One more entry on this . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
